Small Brewer Reinvestment and Expanding Workforce Act of 2013

Mr. President, as the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have pledged to improve and expand employment training and development programs for our Nation's servicemembers and veterans.

While our country continues with its economic recovery, we must ensure that veterans are not left behind. Veterans possess the skills, the discipline, and the leadership necessary to succeed in a 21st century workforce. Coupled with an array of practical skills, it would seem that transitioning to civilian employment after separation from service would be effortless. Yet we continue to find high unemployment rates among veterans, especially the youngest generation. Through their service and sacrifice, each of our Nation's veterans have earned a fair shot at a job,

a fair shot at supporting their families, and a fair shot to prosper and resume their lives back home.

Although unemployment numbers are getting better for everyone, there is still reason for concern and work to be done. The unemployment rate for our youngest veterans, ages 18-24, transitioning from the military, averaged 20 percent in 2012, compared to 15 percent for non-veterans between the ages 18-24. Furthermore, in 2012, the unemployment rate among post-9/11 veterans was nearly 10 percent, while the unemployment rate for all veterans and non-veterans was less than 8 percent. This trend continues into this year, with our younger post-9/11 veterans encountering the most difficulty finding employment.

Businesses in the private sector have shown an interest in hiring veterans, but often find that veterans who apply lack industry specific experience to compete with non-veteran candidates. While it is important to ensure we provide programs to help veterans translate their military skills into the civilian sector, there remains a need to: equip veterans with civilian skills and experience necessary to meet the challenges of competing with those who have years of experience in the civilian workforce; find employers who understand military skills; and assist in helping them to readjust back to their local communities.

The Department of Defense reports that approximately one in five enlisted servicemembers separating from active duty have a military- learned skill that is not easily transferable to a civilian occupation. Many of these servicemembers will need to transition into a civilian career field that is different than their military occupation.

We have a responsibility to those who served in the military, and that includes providing practical solutions. I am proud to introduce legislation, The Veterans Equipped for Success Act of 2013, that would provide our veterans the tools necessary to transition to the civilian workforce.

First, the legislation, establishes a three-year pilot program that will partner certain unemployed veterans with employers in the private- sector. In general, the program will provide employers a wage subsidy, up to 75 percent of the wages paid, capped at $14,000 a year, and incentives to hire these veterans. Not only does the program stimulate job creation, but will provide potentially more than 150,000 veterans with the valuable work experience and civilian skills they need to obtain long-term employment.

Second, The Veterans Equipped for Success Act of 2013 focuses on providing employment opportunities and civilian work experience to our younger veterans ages 18-30. Under another three-year pilot program, up to 50,000 participating veterans, at a time, would be paired with private-sector employers for one year and provided a salary from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Employers would provide veterans mentorship, job shadowing, and valuable civilian work experience, while having the opportunity to learn about the work veterans performed in the military and the skills they acquired. The legislation also helps veterans reintegrate into their communities and give back to other veterans.

We have made a solemn commitment to aid veterans by creating job opportunities and providing them with the necessary skills to succeed. There is clearly a need for improved employment opportunities for veterans, particularly our younger transitioning veterans. This legislation would help veterans meet the challenges of competing in the civilian workforce by filling gaps not addressed by current programs. We owe it to our veterans to ensure they have the opportunity to gain valuable skills and work experience to assist them in successfully transitioning into the civilian workforce.

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

Mr. President, it is my belief that the inability to provide compensation benefits in a timely manner tarnishes the reputation of the Department of Veterans Affairs and overshadows much of the good work done there. As I have said before, I never want a veteran's negative experience with the claims system to prevent him or her from seeking mental health care or help in battling homelessness. That is why, today, I am introducing the Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013, a bill that would help to provide veterans and their family members with the timely and accurate claims decisions they deserve.

The fact that nearly 70 percent of claims are pending longer than the Department's goal of 125 days is completely unacceptable. VA knows this, and the Department has set ambitious goals, put forward a plan, and has been working hard to transform the compensation claims system. Despite these efforts, it is clear that much work remains to be done. That is why we must continue to work together to find innovative solutions until the claims system is transformed into one fit for the 21st century.

Now is the time to truly apply all of the latest technological advances, the insight and experience of veterans service organizations, the lessons learned from the wealth of studies that have already looked at the claims system, and the resources of the Federal Government to tackle this problem from all angles and to finally make real progress.

The Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013 is a critical part of the solution. This bill is a holistic approach to addressing the challenges of the claims system and would provide long-term reforms that will improve VA's claims process from start to finish--from the regional offices located across the nation to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. I would like to highlight just a few of the important provisions in this legislation.

VA must do a better job of showing not only Congress, but also veterans and their survivors about how VA plans to accomplish the ambitious goal of eliminating the claims backlog by 2015. That is why this bill, for the first time, would require VA to publicly report on a quarterly basis information on both VA's quarterly goals and actual production. This would allow Congress and the public to see both the successes and failures of VA's transformation efforts, measure VA's progress, and allow for quicker course corrections when necessary.

At VA regional offices across this country, employees are trying to adapt to a changing work environment as VA continues its transition to a paperless claims processing system. These employees are given credit for work in a manner that does not accurately reflect the realities of an electronic claims processing system. VA's work credit system also focuses almost exclusively on speed, often to the detriment of quality.

During a hearing held by the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs earlier this year, Mr. Bart Stichman, Joint Executive Director of the National Veterans Legal Services Program, commented that ``VA regional office adjudicators prematurely decide claims--without taking the time to obtain and assemble the evidence necessary to properly decide a claim--in an effort to ensure that the average time for deciding an initial claim that is reported to VA managers and Congress is a low number of days.'' I have heard from other veterans service organizations about the need for a cultural change at VA. In order for this change to occur, employees must operate within an environment that accurately reflects the important tasks they are asked to accomplish and an environment that focuses equally on speed and quality.

This bill would facilitate that cultural change through the establishment of a work group designed to reassess the way employees are credited for their work. The work group, tasked with providing solutions, would include the very employees and organizations with the necessary expertise to finally establish a work credit system based on a data driven methodology and one

that is updated on a consistent and predictable basis. VA employees, many of whom are veterans themselves, deserve nothing less.

This bill would also address the workforce needs of VA and other Federal agencies with claims adjudication responsibilities. In fiscal year 2012, VA lost approximately 6 percent of its claims staff. This legislation would address employee attrition by establishing a task force to develop a strategic plan and initiate training to support the hiring of veterans in claims processing and adjudication positions throughout the Federal Government. This task force would simultaneously prepare servicemembers for the jobs that consistently need to be filled and create a generation of adjudicators throughout VA who can identify with the experiences of the population they serve.

This bill would address concerns raised by the Disabled American Veterans by ensuring appropriate oversight of the disability examination system and encouraging the use of private medical evidence when appropriate. As Mr. Violante, the National Legislative Director of Disabled American Veterans, pointed out at a Veterans' Affairs hearing on the disability claims system in March, disability benefits questionnaires were ``designed to allow private physicians to submit medical evidence on behalf of veterans they treat in a format that aids rating specialists.'' Making better use of private medical evidence, and awarding appropriate work credit for doing so, would save VA adjudicators precious time, taxpayers the added expense, and would relieve veterans from the stress of excessive medical exams.

While providing veterans with timely and accurate initial claims decisions has been the focus of much attention, I remain very concerned about the staggering number of appeals pending at the Board of Veterans' Appeals. According to the Report of the Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, there were 45,959 cases pending before the Board at the end of fiscal year 2012. The Chairman's Report also provided the average length of time between the filing of an appeal and the Board's disposition, which was 1,040 days in fiscal year 2012. It is 2 unconscionable that a veteran or a family member had to wait, on average, nearly three years for a decision on an appeal. This bill contains a number of provisions that would improve efficiency at the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

This legislation would expand the use of video hearings in order to serve more veterans, reduce an appellant's wait time for a hearing, and increase efficiency in issuing final decisions on appeals by reducing the number of travel days for employees issuing decisions. However, the right to an in-person hearing would be preserved should the veteran desire such a hearing. This bill would also streamline the appellate process by requiring veterans to more quickly file a notice of disagreement. Many veterans already take quick action but to ensure veterans are protected this legislation would provide a good cause exception in the event a notice of disagreement is not filed in a timely manner, such as in cases where a physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitation prevented timely filing.

These are just a few of the provisions of this bill, which would positively impact the claims system. This legislation is the result of a collective body of information and insight gathered from Congressional hearings, meetings with veterans service organizations and VA staff, correspondence from veterans, and aggressive oversight by the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

The challenges of the claims system are enormously complex and there is no single silver bullet that will magically solve every problem. The Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013 would, however, provide a number of the solutions necessary to ensure veterans and their family members receive timely and accurate benefit decisions.

Clearly there is much work yet to be done. I ask my colleagues to join with me in working together to find innovative solutions until we have truly created a claims system fit for the 21st century. As a nation we have asked more of these individuals than most of us can comprehend. We must now honor the promise we made as a nation--to take care of those who have taken care of us.

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

Mr. President, next week is American Craft Beer Week so I am pleased to rise today with my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Maine, Senator Collins, to introduce the Small Brewer Reinvestment & Expanding Workforce Act of 2013, otherwise known as the Small BREW Act. Our esteemed former colleague, Senator Kerry, now Secretary of State, introduced this bill in the 112th Congress. I am honored to take up the mantel.

The Small BREW Act of 2013 would reduce the excise tax on America's craft brewers. Under current federal law, brewers producing fewer than 2 million barrels annually pay $7 per barrel on the first 60,000 barrels they brew, and $18 per barrel on every barrel thereafter, one

Mr. President, as we prepare to celebrate Mother's Day this Sunday, I am today introducing a joint resolution which would remove the deadline for the ratification by the States of the equal rights amendment, the ERA.

I thank my cosponsors. As of this morning my cosponsors included Senator Kirk, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murkowski, Senator Harkin, Senator Sanders, Senator Levin, Senator Menendez, Senator Stabenow, Senator Heinrich, Senator Boxer, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Durbin, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Murphy, Senator Baldwin, Senator Landrieu, Senator Brown, and Senator Begich.

When Congress passed the ERA in 1972, it provided that the measure had to be ratified by three-fourths of the States, or 38 States, within 7 years. This deadline was later extended to 10 years by a joint resolution enacted by Congress, but ultimately only 35 of the 38 States required ratified the ERA when the deadline expired in 1982. Congress has the authority to give the States another chance, and should do so. I want to point out to my colleagues that in 1992, the 27th Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting immediate Congressional pay raises was ratified after 203 years. So this additional delay is certainly in keeping with our prior precedent.

Article 5 of the Constitution contains no time limit for the ratification of constitutional changes, and the ERA time limit was contained in a joint resolution, not the actual text of the amendment.

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution requires equal protection of the laws, and so far the Supreme Court has held most sex and gender classifications are subject only to intermediate scrutiny when analyzing the laws that have a discriminatory impact. In other words, right now gender discrimination does not have the strict interpretation standard; it is not subject to the higher standard which it should be.

In 2011, Supreme Court Justice Scalia gave an interview in which he stated:

Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination

on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits

it. It doesn't.

In other words, we don't have that protection in the Constitution today. Ratification of the ERA by State legislatures would provide the courts with a clearer guidance in holding gender or sex clarification to the strict scrutiny standard.

The ERA is a simple and straightforward constitutional amendment. It reads:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or

abridged by the United States or by any State on account of

sex.

The amendment gives power to Congress to enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation, and the amendment would take effect 2 years after ratification.

Today nearly half the States have a version of ERA written into their State constitutions. The constitution of my own State of Maryland reads that ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex.''

I am therefore pleased to introduce this joint resolution today, and I thank Representative Andrews for introducing a companion version in the House today as well. This legislation is endorsed by a wide variety of groups, including United 4 Equality, the National Council of Women's Organizations, the American Association of University Women, Business & Professional Women's Foundation, Federally Employed Women, and the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, when my colleagues and I went to college, things were a lot different. We took out loans, but those loans were manageable, and there were jobs waiting after graduation. Today, too often, that's simply not the case. In fact, the majority of students today will leave school weighed down with more than $26,000 in debt and will attempt to enter a labor market in an environment where there are more unemployed Americans than there are jobs available.

For the first time in our Nation's history, student loan debt exceeds credit card debt and now totals over $1 trillion.

James Garfield once said, ``Next in importance to freedom and justice is popular education, without which neither freedom nor justice can be permanently maintained.'' He was right. Investment in higher education is an economic imperative. Education is the great equalizer. It enables upward economic mobility and breaks down class structures. A highly skilled and educated workforce is the basis for any healthy economy. It is the foundation of our country's future.

In nearly every financial decision Americans make, individuals and families try to evaluate the economic value of that decision. Like prospective homebuyers who inspect and assess the potential value of their future home, students should be able to compare colleges and programs based on what the likely return on their investment will be.

Our capital markets work best when there is transparency so we can accurately measure the value of what we choose to invest in. We saw what happens when this is not the case with the burst of the housing bubble. Our economy is still struggling to recover from the mortgage crisis. Misinformed consumers bought a product based on misleading information and, often times, fell victim to bad loans offered by predatory lenders.

Consumers must know what they can expect from their investments. Similarly, students are entitled to know the value of their education before they borrow tens of thousands of dollars from banks and the government to finance their future.

Right now, consumers don't have this information. It is unavailable to students and families who are making critical decisions that will impact not only their future, both their financial future and career path, but also the collective future of our country. That is why today, Senator Rubio, Senator Warner and I are introducing an updated version of the Student Right to Know Before You Go Act which will help inform consumers and prevent market failures.

This proposal would ensure future students and their families can make well-informed decisions by creating a market in which specific schools and specific programs can be evaluated based on the average annual earnings and employment outcomes of graduates; rates of remedial enrollment and success of students that participate in remedial education; the percent of students that receive Federal, State, and institutional grant aid or loans; the average amount of total Federal loan debt of students upon graduation; the average amount of total Federal loan debt for students that do not complete a program; transfer success rates; and rates at which students continue on to higher levels of education.

The Department of Education has created a College Scorecard which is a step in the right direction. The Scorecard, however, does not fully capture any of the metrics outlined above and includes no information to prospective students to evaluate the economic returns of their program of study. The Wyden-Rubio-Warner bill generates this critical information.

Markets fail when there is too little information and until now, it has been impossible to ``Collect this data in a cost-effective way while ensuring student privacy.

This proposal makes it possible to secure a return on investment for students, parents, policy makers, and taxpayers while creating a workforce that meets the demands of today's businesses and ensures that American workers can successfully compete in the global economy.

Mr. President, on January 1, 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began implementing a final rule to prohibit compounding pharmacies that prepare medications used in implanted infusion pumps from billing Medicare directly for these services. This reverses a policy that has been permissible in several States for over 20 years. Since the proposed change in May 2011, I have worked with Senator Wicker and other Members of Congress to delay this change until its effects have been fully considered.

During the public comment period for this rule, pharmacies, physicians, and patients overwhelmingly opposed this policy change. In Mississippi, the State board of pharmacy prohibits pharmacies from selling compounded pain medications to physicians, resulting in decreased access to effective treatments for chronic pain disorders. States across the nation are coming to realize the negative implications of this policy change.

With this final rule, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has not fully taken into account patient impact or State regulations. In addition, pharmacies that bill Medicare must comply with Federal accreditation rules, further enhancing patient safety. We should protect patient access to effective treatments rather than hinder it. This bill would allow compounding pharmacies to continue to bill Medicare directly for their services in the interest of helping patients receive the quality care they deserve.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join the junior Senator from Virginia in introducing the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act. I doubt there has been a more defining period in this country's history than the Civil War. The scars left by that conflict were deep and slow to heal. This year marks the 150th anniversary of the first major Civil War battle in the western theater and with Memorial Day approaching, the preservation of historic battlefields reminds Americans of those who have fought and died for freedom. Stressing preservation, commemoration, and education, the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program, for almost 15 years, has partnered with neighboring communities to promote resource protection and heritage tourism. By bringing together local, State, and national stakeholders to preserve America's most historically significant Civil War battlefields, the program has built a consensus to protect 19,000 acres of hallowed ground in 16 states. In my state, more than 3,300 acres of related Civil War battles have been protected. Among the many other battlefields that have benefited from this program are: Antietam, Maryland; Averasboro, North Carolina; Chancellorsville, Virginia; Chattanooga, Tennessee; Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; Harpers Ferry, West Virginia; Mill Springs, Kentucky; and Prairie Grove, Arkansas. I am pleased that this legislation will extend program eligibility to Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefields. This is an appropriate time for the Congress to embrace this legislation and to preserve and discover our history, our culture and our individual stories. By highlighting the history and cultural significance of these battle sites, we can help maintain our sense of place as Americans. With it, we can be more aware of our history and reflect upon how we have become who we are as individuals and who we are collectively as Americans. It is an investment in the preservation of our history and culture, which is well spent.

Today I am introducing the Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013. The legislation has three principal objectives:

One, encourage the wholesale and retail unbundling of programming by distributors and programmers. Allow the consumer, the television viewer who subscribes to cable, to have a la carte capability--in other words, not be required to buy a whole bunch of channels that consumer may not wish to subscribe to--in order words, a la carte. If you want to watch one television program, you can watch it. If you do not, you do not have to. The situation today obviously is far different from that.

It would also establish consequences if broadcasters choose to downgrade their over-the-air service.

Three, it eliminates the sports blackout rule for events that are held in publicly financed stadiums.

For over 15 years, I have supported giving consumers the ability to buy cable channels individually, which is known as a la carte, to provide consumers more control over viewing options in their homes and, as a result, their monthly cable bills. The video industry--principally cable companies and satellite companies and the programmers that sell channels, such as NBC and Disney-ABC--continues to give consumers two options when buying TV programming: first, to purchase a package of channels whether they watch them all or not or, second, not purchase any cable programming at all.

There are two choices: You can either buy one of their packages or not watch it at all. That is unfair and wrong, especially when you consider how the regulatory deck is stacked in favor of industry against the American consumer. It is clear when one looks at how cable prices have gone up over the last 15 years, which was brought to the light by the most recent Federal Communications Commission pricing survey. In the FCC survey, the average monthly price of expanded basic service--basic service--for all communities surveyed increased 5.4 percent over the 12 months ending January 1, 2011, or to $54.46, compared to an increase of 1.6 percent in the Consumer Price Index. In other words, the cost of cable went up nearly four times the consumer prices people pay for everything else. You can only do that when you have a monopoly.

Over the last 15 years, this rise in cost has become even more evident. According to the FCC, the price of expanded basic cable has gone up at a compound average annual growth rate of 6.1 percent during the period from 1995 to 2011. This means that the average annual cable price has gone up about $25 a month from 1995, to over $54 today. That is a 100-percent price increase. People are on fixed incomes. People are hurting. Why in the world should they have a 100-percent cost increase? The only way it can be done is through monopolies.

Those that provide video directly to consumers, such as cable and satellite companies, are not solely to blame for the high prices consumers face today. Many articles have been written about the packages of channels--commonly called bundles--that are sold to cable and satellite companies by video programmers such as Comcast, NBC, Time Warner, Viacom, and the Walt Disney Company, which owns 80 percent of