Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a serious problem confronting the American traveling public and our economy, and later today I will be introducing a bill to remedy this problem. I am very pleased to be joined by several of my Senate colleagues as original cosponsors, including Senator Mark Udall, Senator Risch, Senator Roberts, Senator Isakson, and I expect several more cosponsors to join in this effort over the course of the day.

As the ranking member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I have followed the issue of FAA delays and furloughs very closely. In fact, the first thing this morning I met with Secretary of Transportation LaHood and FAA Administrator Huerta to discuss this problem and my proposed solution.

The challenges the FAA faces this fiscal year are daunting. Not only is the agency operating under a continuing resolution but sequestration compounds the problem. It is important that sequestration be implemented in a way that ensures safety and minimizes the impact on travelers as well as on jobs in the hospitality and airline industries.

The FAA recently announced its plans to achieve its sequestration savings by implementing furloughs of air traffic controllers, closing contract towers, eliminating midnight services, among other cuts.

I personally believe the FAA had other choices and could have avoided many of these disastrous outcomes, but there is no doubt that personnel does make up a great deal of the agency's budget and that some furloughs undoubtedly would have been necessary. Whether it was necessary for the FAA to concentrate so many of the cuts in the area of air traffic controllers is an entirely different question. In any event, my bill would restore funding for these essential programs and would do so--and this is an important point--without increasing the funding for the FAA or for the Department of Transportation.

Let me give a little bit of background. The FAA began furloughing 47,000 employees this past Sunday, including nearly 15,000 air traffic controllers. This is essentially 10 percent of its

workforce, which equates to one furlough day per biweekly pay period for approximately 11 days through September 30. The FAA also plans to eliminate midnight shifts in more than 70 control towers across the country and will close more than 149 air traffic control towers at airports with fewer than 150,000 flight operations or 10,000 commercial operations per year. In addition, the agency is slated to reduce preventive maintenance and equipment provisioning and support for all National Airspace System equipment.

These are simply irresponsible cuts that have real and detrimental impacts on the traveling public, on the airline industry, on the hospitality industry, and they will cause widespread delays to the air transportation system. It is estimated as many as 6,700 flights could be delayed each day, more than double the worst day of flight delays last year.

In fact, there is one estimate that just since Sunday, 5,800 delays have occurred because of the actions taken by the FAA. This reduction in staffing of air traffic controllers has been the primary cause of at least one out of every three delays since the furloughs began, and the problem is only going to get worse.

To give an example: On Monday there were 2,660 delayed flights, of which 1,200 were due to the furloughs. What is even more troubling is this is only the beginning, and soon we will be approaching the peak travel season. Some airports may experience delays of up to 3 hours during peak travel times, and we know these delays cause a ripple throughout the entire system. What is going to happen is that air travelers are going to decide to cancel trips and will not even bother to go on brief vacations because they don't want to spend 3 hours sitting on the tarmac waiting for their flights to take off.

The FAA acknowledges these service reductions will adversely affect commercial, corporate, and general aviation operators. The agency expects that as the airlines estimate the potential impact of the furloughs, they will be forced to change their schedules, cancel flights, and lay off employees. At a time when our economy is already fragile, that is the last thing we need to happen.

The legislation I am introducing with several of my colleagues, including Senator Mark Udall, is called the Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013. Here is how it would work: It would provide the Secretary of Transportation with the flexibility to transfer certain funds to prevent the furloughs of essential employees at the FAA, and certainly air traffic controllers qualify as essential employees.

Specifically, it would give the Secretary the authority to transfer an amount not to exceed $253 million to prevent the furloughs of the air traffic controllers and other essential employees in order to reduce flight delays and at the same time to maintain a safe and efficient national airspace system. Our bill would accomplish this goal by allowing a one-time shift of unused moneys in the Airport Improvement Program to the operations account.

I first raised this idea of using the AIP carryover balances as a solution at our Republican policy lunch on Tuesday. Since that time, many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have indicated interest in this approach.

I want to emphasize our legislation has been vetted by the general counsel offices at both the FAA and the Secretary's office, so we know it works. Secretary LaHood told me this morning it is an effective, workable solution.

I want to explain further exactly how this would work. Each year funds are distributed according to a formula under the Airport Improvement Program to airports across the country, but each year there are moneys that cannot be used by these airports by the end of the fiscal year. Those moneys come back to the FAA in Washington, and they are then usually reallocated through a competitive grant program.

Last year it was as much as $700 million that came back to Washington to be reallocated. This year the amount of unused funds is estimated to be approximately $400 to $450 million. So we would take $253 million of that $400-plus million and use those funds to avoid these very damaging furloughs. The rest of the funds would, as usual, be reallocated to airports that need them through a competitive grant program.

I want to be clear: This is the discretionary portion of the Airport Improvement Program. It in no way affects the entitlement funds that airports are guaranteed to receive. The program has sufficient funding to support this effort. Moreover, this is a one-time shift. It does not in any way provide a permanent change in this program.

There would also be sufficient funds to fully fund and continue operating the contract tower programs, which so many of our colleagues--particularly Senator Moran--have supported and been concerned about.

This is a commonsense solution. It doesn't involve additional money. It is a one-time shift of unused moneys. It does not make a permanent change in the Airport Improvement Program. It will solve the problem, avoid the need for these delays, for layoffs, and avoid harming our economy at a time when we can least afford to do so.

The Airport Improvement Program is a very important program. It does support infrastructure at our Nation's airports. We are simply taking the unused funds that are generally reallocated and instead using a portion of these funds to avoid these disastrous implications of the direction the FAA has chosen.

Our bill should be recognized as a one-time solution in order to avert these serious national impacts.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I hope we can act very promptly to solve this problem.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 771, offered on behalf of myself and Senator King, and I would ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, let me express my frustration and dismay over the objection that has been lodged against considering a very reasonable amendment to this bill.

This is a bipartisan amendment. It is offered by the Independent Senator from Maine, Mr. King, and me. It has widespread support. It is a very reasonable amendment that simply gives businesses more time to comply with the provisions of this bill. It is consistent with the purpose of this bill and does not undermine it in any way. It simply recognizes that 90 days is simply too short a period of time for implementation of the software and other changes that would be required under this legislation.

I think there is, however, a broader issue. This is a bipartisan bill--a bill that I am a cosponsor of, a bill that has widespread support, a bill that the Governor of Maine strongly supports because of the revenue it would bring in that is now lost to the State even though it is owed to the State.

It is a bill that has widespread support among Main Street retailers who see customers come into their stores, take up the time of their clerks, and then whip out an iPhone to order the exact same merchandise online solely for the purpose of evading the sales tax that is due on the item.

So this bill is a matter of fairness. It imposes no new taxes. In fact, there is a prohibition on taxing the Internet. As Senator Alexander has pointed out and Senator Durbin has said--and Senator Enzi, who has worked so many years on this bill--this bill has widespread, bipartisan support.

Here we are stymied by a small group of Members on both sides of the aisle

who will not even allow us to debate and consider a bipartisan amendment that simply delays the effective date of this bill by a year to allow businesses more time to make the software changes they need to make in order to ensure they are in full compliance with the bill.

We have reached a very disappointing and unsatisfactory result if that is where we are. If there is opposition to our amendment, I am sure the opponents would have every opportunity to speak against our amendment and to vote against our amendment. But to not allow our amendment to be considered, which is completely relevant to this bill, an amendment that simply alters the date of implementation, is beyond my comprehension. I do not understand it. I think it is wrong. I think it is what frustrates the American people. It is an example of the kind of gridlock that is very frustrating to the American public.

The only good thing I can say about this gridlock is it is bipartisan in this case. But that is a very small comfort indeed. So, again, all our amendment would have done, had we been allowed to consider it, is put a 1-year delay in the final implementation and also say implementation could not begin during the retailers' busiest time of the year; that is, the holiday season.

This was intended to provide adequate lead time for retailers to undertake the complex steps that may be needed: the software changes, the training, et cetera. Retailers are going to have to begin early anyway, but with this 1-year delay we know they will be prepared to fully implement the Marketplace Fairness Act.

Again, it is very disappointing to me that this commonsense amendment that is designed to improve the underlying bill cannot be considered at this time. I have been very pleased to work with my colleague from Maine, Senator King, on this amendment. He may have some comments as well. I also wish to thank the sponsors of the bill for working very hard with us on this legislation.

Madam President, I feel compelled to respond to the comments of my good friend and colleague from Montana. First, let me say I am sorry to learn of his decision to leave the Senate, to retire from the Senate, because I have enjoyed working with him over the years.

I do want to make several points. Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming, who came to the Senate the same year I did in 1997, has been talking about this bill for at least a decade. He has introduced it many times before. There has been ample opportunity for there to be consideration by the committee, and the committee chose not to consider his bill. This is not a new concept in any way. It has been talked about and debated at length over the past decade.

Moreover, I would note the amendment I have offered, along with my colleague from Maine, does not in any way change the basic thrust of this legislation. In fact, both Senator King and I are cosponsors of the underlying bill.

If this bill were so problematic for retailers across the country, why would it have the support of so many retailers across the country? Why would it have the support of national organizations representing retailers across the country?

This is not a complicated bill in concept. What it says is if a retailer is selling into another State, it needs to collect the sales tax and remit it to that State. That is not a complicated concept.

This issue has been litigated before the Supreme Court, another indication it is not a new concept, that it has been carefully considered. The idea that somehow this bill has sprung out of nowhere without proper consideration is not supported by its long history.

In fact, during the budget resolution when we voted on this measure and it received such a strong vote--I think it was something like 70 to 75 votes--I went over to Mike Enzi and congratulated him because he finally had gotten a preliminary vote on legislation he had been working on for literally more than a decade.

I don't think this is a complicated concept. It is not creating a new tax; it is not imposing a new tax; it is not taxing the Internet. All it is doing is making sure States that have sales taxes receive the revenue they are owed. That is not a complicated concept.

Is it going to require retailers to make changes in their software, particularly large retailers that are selling all over the country? Keep in mind, this bill exempts small retailers. It exempts those with sales of under a million dollars, so they are not affected at all. Is it going to require some changes to be made in software and training by large retailers? Yes, it is. That is why we have offered this commonsense amendment to improve but not change the underlying bill that says rather than giving 90 days for businesses to comply with the sale, let's give them a year so they can fully get the software changes made and installed, their staff trained, and ensure full, complete, and accurate compliance. That is all the Collins-King amendment does. It does not in any way change the thrust of this bill or the underlying provisions of this bill. It simply allows more time for compliance.

Madam President, I am delighted that the Senate will pass a bipartisan bill to resolve a serious problem confronting the American traveling public and our economy. I thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, the minority leader, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, and all the staff who have worked so hard to make this happen.

I am very pleased to be joined in sponsoring this bill by many of our colleagues, including Senator Rockefeller, Senator Thune, Senator Mark Udall, Senator Risch, Senator Roberts, Senator Isakson, Senator McCaskill, Senator Hagan, the Presiding Officer, Senator Toomey, Senator Chambliss, Senator Murkowski, Senator Warner, Senator Begich, Senator Nelson, and Senator Heller.

As the ranking member of the Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee, I have been very concerned about the serious delays that have been caused by the FAA furloughs of air traffic controllers. In fact, Secretary of Transportation LaHood and FAA Administrator Huerta met with me this morning to discuss this problem and our proposed solution.

The Collins-Rockefeller-Thune-Udall bill would restore the funding for these essential air traffic controller positions, and that should prevent the onerous delays that were occurring and were only going to get worse as the traveling season reached its peak this summer. That would have had a ripple effect throughout the hospitality industry in particular and caused job losses that we can ill afford.

I just wish to point out that there literally have been thousands of flights delayed since the furloughs went into effect, and I am so happy we were able to work together across the aisle in a bipartisan way to resolve this problem.

The FAA recently began furloughing 47,000 employees this past Sunday, which includes nearly 15,000 air traffic controllers. This is essentially 10 percent of its workforce, which equates to one furlough day per bi-weekly pay period, for a maximum of 11 days through September 30th.

The challenges the FAA faces this fiscal year are daunting; not only is the agency operating under a continuing resolution but sequestration compounds the problem. It is important that sequestration is implemented in a way that ensures safety and minimizes the impact on the traveling public as well as jobs in the hospitality and airline industries. FAA recently announced its plans to achieve savings by implementing furloughs of air traffic controllers.

These cuts have already caused widespread delays to the air transportation system and were expected to get worse. It is estimated that as many as 6,700 flights would be delayed each day, more than double the worst day of flight delays last year. This reduction in staffing of air traffic controllers has been the primary cause of one out of every three delays since the furloughs began.

In fact, on Monday alone, there were 2,660 delays, of which 1,200 were due to the furloughs, and 2,000 delays on Tuesday, of which 1,025 due to the reduced staff. What was even more troubling is that soon we will be approaching the summer peak travel season. Some airports may experience delays of up to three hours during peak travel times.

The FAA acknowledges that these service reductions will adversely affect commercial, corporate, and general aviation operators. The FAA expects that as airlines estimate the potential impacts of these furloughs, they will be forced to change their schedules, cancel flights, and lay off employees.

Our bill, The Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013, would provide the Secretary of Transportation the flexibility to transfer certain funds to prevent furloughs of essential employees at the FAA. It would give the Secretary the authority to transfer an amount not to exceed $253 million to prevent essential employees at the FAA, such as air traffic controllers, from being furloughed in order to reduce flight delays while maintaining a safe and efficient national airspace system.

My bill would accomplish this goal by allowing a one-time shift of unused monies in the Airport Improvement Program to Operations. I first raised the idea of using AIP carryover balances as a solution at the policy lunch on Tuesday, and many of my colleagues indicated interest in this approach. Our bill has been vetted by the General Counsel offices at both the FAA and the Secretary's office. Secretary LaHood told me this morning that it is an effective, workable solution.

The transfer would come largely from carryover balances within the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). To be clear: this is the discretionary portion of the program and in no way affects the entitlement funds airports are guaranteed to receive. The program has sufficient funding to support this effort. Historically, AIP carryover balances range between $400-450 million and has not been below $300 million in the last decade. In fact, last year there was approximately $700 million of these carryover balances.

Over the past several years, the aviation industry has faced tough economic hardships. I recognize that aviation plays a critical role in driving economic growth, jobs and investment across the country. The Airport Improvement Program is a very important program which supports infrastructure at our nation's airports.

This bill should be recognized as a one-time solution in order to avert the serious national impacts that have resulted from the decisions made by the FAA.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I am grateful to both the Majority and Minority Leaders.

I thank them for their cooperation in making this happen. It is nice to know that when we work together, we really can solve problems.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise to discuss the background check amendment proposed by our colleagues Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey.

I grew up in northern Maine where responsible gun ownership is part of the heritage of virtually every family. In fact, I cannot think of a family in my hometown of Caribou that did not have firearms in their homes when I was growing up, and that includes my own family. I strongly support our Second Amendment rights, and two recent Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago make clear that those constitutional rights pertain to the individual.

As we have studied this important issue during the past several months, I have met with countless people who hold a wide range of views. They include the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, known as SAM, Maine law enforcement officials, the NRA, victims of gun violence, licensed gun dealers, firearms manufacturers, mental health professionals, and school superintendents, among many others. These discussions have been so helpful to me as I seek to better understand the issues which confront us as we shape this bill.

We have discussed issues, including the inadequacy of mental health services, gaps in the reporting of data to the National Instant Background Check System, school safety, excessive violence in video games and movies, the lack of effective laws for gun trafficking, and straw purchases aimed at getting guns in the hands of criminals. Those are just some of the many issues I have had the benefit of discussing with my constituents.

As a result of these extensive discussions, I have decided to support the bipartisan compromise authored by Senators Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey. Their bipartisan effort would strengthen the background check system without in any way infringing on our Second Amendment rights. I would note their proposal represents a vast improvement over the provisions currently in the bill.

There were particular provisions of the legislation which was drafted by Senator Schumer that I oppose, such as the background check provisions which are in the bill. For example, if a father gives a gun as a gift to his son or daughter or a brother sells his hunting rifle to his brother, the provisions of the legislation would require that those individuals undergo background checks. I found that to be completely unnecessary and onerous.

In addition, the bill that is on the floor now has burdensome paperwork requirements that are unnecessary and that many believe are unworkable as well.

By contrast, the Manchin-Toomey compromise takes a much more commonsense approach by requiring background checks only for commercial transactions. Their approach clearly exempts family gifts and transfers and truly private sales. Their amendment protects private sellers from lawsuits if the weapon is cleared through the expanded background check and is subsequently used in a crime. That is the same kind of protection that licensed gun dealers receive now.

The compromise also authorizes the use of a State concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer, recognizing the rigorous background checks and approval process these concealed carry permits require. Their amendment also improves interstate travel laws for sportsmen and sportswomen who transport their firearms across State lines in a responsible way.

The term ``transport'' includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment, which will improve the quality and completeness of the data in the NICS. Their amendment would also mandate improvements that would require States and the Federal Government to send relevant records on criminals and people who are dangerously mentally ill through State plans that are developed in conjunction with the Department of Justice, which is another important improvement made by the Manchin-Toomey amendment since we know there are gaps in the reporting that make the background instant check system less effective than it should be.

The bill also fixes an unjust situation, where veterans have been inappropriately reported to the database without due process. The amendment requires a veteran to receive extra due process prior to losing his or her right to buy a gun, and that is only fair. Specifically, it requires that the VA either establish or designate a board for the purpose of hearing appeals by veterans who are considered adjudicated as mentally ill and the veteran can appeal directly to this board or an outside court of jurisdiction.

It was critical to my support of the Manchin-Toomey amendment that it explicitly bans the Federal Government from creating a national firearms registry. I am completely and unalterably opposed to creating a national registry of gun owners that would be maintained in Washington by the Federal Government. The bill imposes serious criminal penalties on any individual who misuses or illegally retains firearms records.

I am also pleased that the Manchin-Toomey proposal would create a national commission on mass violence. This is a proposal I have long advocated and is very much needed. It would convene experts to study all aspects of these horrible attacks and mass murders that have plagued our country, caused so much anguish to the families left behind, and have caused unbearable anguish for the survivors as well.

Obviously, this debate is just beginning on the Senate floor, and the Manchin-Toomey amendment is just one of many that will be considered. I will support some amendments, others I will strongly oppose. It is impossible to predict, at this early point before we have cast a single vote on the many amendments that have been filed to this bill, what the bill will look like in the final analysis and whether I shall be able to support it. I do believe the Manchin-Toomey background check amendment is a reasonable, commonsense, thoughtful proposal that I can and will support.

I yield the floor.

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

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.

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

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.

Mr. President, let me thank the ranking member of the Budget Committee for all of his incredibly hard work on this issue. It is a hopeful sign that the Senate is finally debating a budget to set priorities for Federal spending and revenues in the coming year. While I am disappointed that we failed to perform this fundamental duty for the past 4 years, and that the budget reported by the Budget Committee is, unfortunately, a partisan one, I nevertheless welcome this budget debate.

I wish to describe the amendments I will be offering to the budget resolution later today. The first of these amendments is No. 144. It would create a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the purpose of correcting ObamaCare's definition of what is a full-time employee under the law. This amendment would allow employees to work more than 30 hours a week without triggering possible penalties on the businesses that hire them.

ObamaCare requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to provide qualified health insurance to their workers or face onerous penalties. These penalties begin at $40,000 for businesses with 50 employees, plus $2,000 for each additional ``full-time equivalent'' employee. These penalties are a huge disincentive for any small business that wishes to grow and add new jobs.

One Maine business I know has 47 employees, and it would like to hire more but won't because of these onerous penalties. Another employer told me she is better off financially if she were to cancel the health insurance she provides to her employees and instead pay the fines. The fines are cheaper than paying the health insurance premiums for her employees. What perverse incentives ObamaCare has.

Greatly adding to the problem, ObamaCare defines full-time employees as averaging just 30 hours of work a week. This definition is completely out of keeping with standard employment practices in the United States today. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average American works 8.8 hours per day, which equates to 44 hours per week. GAO, in looking at this issue, uses 40. We pay overtime after 40 hours per week. The number of hours set by ObamaCare as full time is nearly one-third lower than the actual practice.

By using this unreasonably low threshold of 30 hours per week to define a full-time employee, ObamaCare artificially drives up the number of full-time workers employed by a business, exposing the employer and business to the risks of substantial penalties.

The consequences are some businesses are restricting their employees to no more than 29 hours per week to ensure their workers are considered part-time under ObamaCare. If more businesses follow suit, millions of American workers could find their hours, and thus their earnings, are cut back at a time when many of them are already struggling.

My amendment would allow for legislation setting a sensible definition of a ``full-time'' employee for purposes of ObamaCare penalties. This will help protect workers who otherwise will find their hours curtailed and their earnings cut as a result of the requirements in the ObamaCare law.

I would note this affects a wide range of employees. This is why you have NAM, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the NEA, the National Education Association--strange bedfellows indeed--both supporting my amendment.

The second amendment I am offering is amendment No. 459. It calls for sensible regulatory reform. Its provisions are based on legislation I have introduced in the past, the Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens Act or the CURB Act. This bill is designed to ease the regulatory burden on our Nation's job creators and is supported by the Nation's largest small business advocacy group, the National Federation of Independent Business.

My amendment would require Federal agencies to take into account the impact on small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules and regulations. It does this in three ways: First, it requires Federal agencies to analyze the indirect cause of regulations, such as the impact on job creation, the cost of energy, and consumer prices.

Second, it prohibits Federal agencies from circumventing the public notice and comment requirements by issuing unofficial rules known as ``guidance documents'' to avoid the review required under Executive orders. Third, it helps small businesses avoid unnecessary penalties for first-time, nonharmful paperwork violations.

The third amendment which I will offer is amendment No. 143. It would simply require the President, Vice President, and Cabinet-level officials to purchase their health insurance through the exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare.

ObamaCare requires individuals to purchase qualified health insurance or face a penalty. Those who cannot obtain coverage through their workplace or another source are required to purchase insurance through the exchanges which would be created under this law. ObamaCare specifically requires most Members of Congress and their staff to obtain health insurance through exchanges. If the exchanges are good enough for Members of Congress and their staffs, then surely that same requirement should apply with respect to the President, Vice President and Cabinet-level officials. My amendment would extend this requirement to them.

Finally, I am also pleased to be cosponsoring an amendment with my colleague Senator Casey of Pennsylvania to prevent government waste in the Job Corps Program by requiring the long-overdue implementation of financial management, internal controls, and updated program integrity protocols at the Employment and Training Administration.

What has happened with the Job Corps Program is an utter disgrace. This program has significant shortfalls, which are caused entirely by the inexcusably poor management of this program for 2 years in a row by the Department of Labor. Job Corps is expected to be in a shortfall again next year.

The impact has led the administration to suspend new student enrollment into the Job Corps Program. These programs are critical for at-risk youth. They provide education, training, and job skills. It is a disgrace the administration has had such terrible management in Washington that furloughs are happening and students are being denied services.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to adopt my amendments today.

Mr. President, my amendment is No. 144. I ask unanimous consent that it be called up at this time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, my amendment would allow for legislation

setting a more sensible definition of ``full-time employee'' under the Affordable Care Act. Under the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, the definition of a full-time employee averages just 30 hours a week. That definition is not found in other areas of the law. It is creating this perverse incentive where employers are actually reducing the number of hours their employees work in order to keep under that 30-hour threshold and thus avoid penalties.

All this amendment does, however, is call for a more sensible definition of what a full-time employee should entail. I ask unanimous consent that we voice vote the amendment.

I would like to echo Senator Reed's comments and thank the Chairwoman for her support of the Weatherization Assistance Program.

This program is currently facing significant funding challenges and its viability in many States is threatened. Weatherization plays an important role in permanently reducing home energy costs for low-income families and seniors, lessening our reliance on foreign oil, and training a skilled workforce. The current funding level represents a substantial reduction for the program, and the ability of the program to continue to deliver services is in serious jeopardy.

I too would like to ask the Chairwoman if she would work with us and the Department of Energy to find ways to sustain the program through appropriate reprogramming, so that low-income families and seniors in every State can continue to receive the energy savings from the weatherization of their homes.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment sponsored by my friend from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, which would provide $150 million in disaster funding for officially declared fisheries disasters.

The funding for declared fisheries disasters is necessary to address the devastating economic consequences of significant projected reductions in the total allowable catch for critical groundfish stocks. In September of last year, the acting Secretary of Commerce, recognizing the economic difficulty fishing communities have faced and will continue to face, declared a federal fisheries disaster for Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Connecticut for the 2013 fishing year. This authority is provided under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act.

Fishing is more than just a profession in New England. Fishing is a way of life and a significant part of Maine's heritage. There are 45 vessels based in Maine which are actively fishing with Federal groundfish permits. Last year, more than five million pounds of groundfish, with a dockside value approaching $5.8 million, were landed in Maine. Despite strict adherence to rigorous management practices by fishermen, the projected reductions, which may be as high as 73 percent, could devastate groundfishing communities.

The requested funding would be used to provide economic relief to the region's struggling groundfish industry and to make targeted investments which will allow the fleet to survive and become more sustainable in the years ahead. These funds could also be used to fully cover the costs of at-sea monitoring and to address long-term overcapacity in the fishing industry. This is critical to rebuilding fish stocks and preserving a thriving fishing industry well into the future.

Slow recovery and declining fish stocks continue to have a negative impact on commercial fishing, which harms local communities and economies. This federal disaster assistance is vital to the long-term success and short-term survival of fishing communities throughout the region.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Formerly Owned Resources for Veterans to Express Thanks for Service Act of 2013, also known as the FOR VETS Act of 2013. I am pleased that Senators Leahy and Carper have joined me in cosponsoring this bill. This bill is necessary to ensure that veterans' service organizations are provided access to federal surplus personal property as the Senate intended when it passed the FOR VETS Act of 2010. The FOR VETS Act of 2010 provides that veterans' service organizations should be categorized as eligible nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations that may acquire surplus personal property for the purposes of education or public health.

Unfortunately, the General Services Administration, or GSA, has interpreted this law in the strictest of terms. In its published guidelines, veterans' service organizations may acquire the surplus property for the purposes of education or public health, but with minimal flexibility in what an educational or public health service may be. For example, acquiring a van to transport a disabled veteran to a doctor's appointment may not be considered an eligible use for a veterans' organization under current guidelines.

The bill that we are introducing today makes the legislative modification necessary for GSA to carry out the original intent of the FOR VETS Act of 2010.

The National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property, NASASP, has identified the need for this legislation to ensure that veterans' service organizations are able to receive surplus equipment to enable them to improve their provision of critical services to our nation's veterans. The American Legion has said that this bill would enable them to better serve our veterans, their families, and the communities in which they live.

Veterans' groups--whose work enhances the lives of countless veterans every day--should benefit from access to these goods just as other service organizations do. Many veterans' organizations offer career development and job training assistance to our nation's veterans, yet often lack the computer equipment needed to assist our veterans in the often difficult transition from military service to the civilian work force.

These are just a couple of examples of the needs of veterans' service organizations. This bill is one way to say ``thank you'' to those Americans who have worn the uniform and to the families that supported them. In these challenging fiscal times, the need for excess federal property to be used for job training, rehabilitation, and other important assistance to our veterans is greater now than ever. I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senators Leahy and Carper, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill through the Senate and into law.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Formerly Owned Resources for Veterans to Express Thanks for Service Act of 2013, also known as the FOR VETS Act of 2013. I am pleased that Senators Leahy and Carper have joined me in cosponsoring this bill. This bill is necessary to ensure that veterans' service organizations are provided access to federal surplus personal property as the Senate intended when it passed the FOR VETS Act of 2010. The FOR VETS Act of 2010 provides that veterans' service organizations should be categorized as eligible nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations that may acquire surplus personal property for the purposes of education or public health.

Unfortunately, the General Services Administration, or GSA, has interpreted this law in the strictest of terms. In its published guidelines, veterans' service organizations may acquire the surplus property for the purposes of education or public health, but with minimal flexibility in what an educational or public health service may be. For example, acquiring a van to transport a disabled veteran to a doctor's appointment may not be considered an eligible use for a veterans' organization under current guidelines.

The bill that we are introducing today makes the legislative modification necessary for GSA to carry out the original intent of the FOR VETS Act of 2010.

The National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property, NASASP, has identified the need for this legislation to ensure that veterans' service organizations are able to receive surplus equipment to enable them to improve their provision of critical services to our nation's veterans. The American Legion has said that this bill would enable them to better serve our veterans, their families, and the communities in which they live.

Veterans' groups--whose work enhances the lives of countless veterans every day--should benefit from access to these goods just as other service organizations do. Many veterans' organizations offer career development and job training assistance to our nation's veterans, yet often lack the computer equipment needed to assist our veterans in the often difficult transition from military service to the civilian work force.

These are just a couple of examples of the needs of veterans' service organizations. This bill is one way to say ``thank you'' to those Americans who have worn the uniform and to the families that supported them. In these challenging fiscal times, the need for excess federal property to be used for job training, rehabilitation, and other important assistance to our veterans is greater now than ever. I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senators Leahy and Carper, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill through the Senate and into law.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on an amendment I have offered with my colleague from Colorado, Senator Udall, but before I do so, I want to commend the senior Senators from Maryland and Alabama, Senators Mikulski and Shelby, for putting forth a bipartisan proposal to prevent a government shutdown, and to congratulate them both on their new roles as Chairwoman and Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I look forward to working with both of them as we complete work on the fiscal year 2013 funding bills and begin the fiscal year 2014 budget process.

I also want to thank my friend from Colorado, Senator Udall, for working with me to develop this bipartisan amendment, which is based on a stand-

alone bill that we introduced last week.

Our amendment would help mitigate the harmful effects of the indiscriminate across-the-board cuts, known as sequestration, which took effect on March 1.

Our amendment would not reverse the automatic spending reductions, but would empower the heads of Federal agencies and departments to set priorities and implement the cuts in a smarter way.

Without this amendment, sequestration will be applied without distinction between high and low priority programs, programs that have a proven track record of success and those that should be reduced or eliminated.

To ensure appropriate Congressional oversight, the amendment requires agency heads to submit their spending proposals to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees for approval.

This Congressional oversight is an important step in the process because the Appropriations Committees know the budget of each agency inside and out. This review process also provides a strong incentive for each department or agency to put forth a serious plan if it wants to avoid the across-the-board cuts that would otherwise take effect.

Mr. President, this is an approach that our intelligence community has requested. The Nation's senior intelligence officer, Director Clapper, testified yesterday before the Intelligence Committee that sequestration jeopardizes our Nation's safety and security and that the across-the-board nature of the cuts compounds the damage by limiting ``our ability to manage where to take deductions in a balanced, and rational way.'' His plea was for flexibility, saying ``All we're asking for is the latitude on how to take them to minimize the damage.''

The Udall-Collins amendment would provide that needed flexibility to the intelligence community and other areas of our government, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Finally, I would like to note how pleased I am that the legislation currently before the Senate includes full-year funding bills for a number of departments and agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, Veterans Affairs, Commerce, and Agriculture. While I wish we had been able to move all of the annual appropriations bills, at a minimum, we appear on the verge of passing full-year funding bills for the departments I just mentioned, which is particularly imprortant for the Department of Defense.

Military leaders have repeatedly warned that failure to enact a full- year defense funding bill would have dire consequences for our military. Military readiness would suffer, and the military would not be fully ready to respond to crises because DOD could not transfer funds from investment accounts into readiness accounts.

A year-long CR for the Defense Department would have resulted in a hollow force because the Pentagon would not have been able to increase production rates for existing weapons, start new programs, or sign multiyear procurement contracts that will provide significant savings for taxpayers.

When I questioned Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter on February 14, 2013, at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing about what the continuing resolution means for the Navy and our domestic shipbuilding capability, he testified that:

We're in the absurd position where we're five months into

the fiscal year and we have the authority to build the ships

that we built last year and no authority to build the ships

that we plan to build this year. That's crazy . . . and that

has nothing to do with sequester, by the way, that's the C.R.

The full-year funding bills that are included in the continuing resolution offered by Senators Mikulski and Shelby will help alleviate some of the impacts of sequestration on the departments and agencies funded through those bills.

Unfortunately, the departments and agencies that find themselves funded under a continuing resolution, operating under a budget based on last year's needs, are not as lucky. It is all the more important for these departments and agencies that we provide additional flexibility, as the Udall-Collins amendment would do, in carrying out the cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment so that the cuts that are taking place now can be targeted at programs that do not work while sparing those programs that do.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, on April 10, 1963, the submarine USS Thresher sank off the New England coast. The loss of 129 officers, sailors, and civilian technicians was a tragedy for the Navy, our Nation, and especially for the families of that gallant crew.

The USS Thresher was built in Kittery, ME, at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Each year, the people of Kittery and neighboring communities in Maine and New Hampshire gather on the anniversary of the loss of the Thresher to pay their solemn respects to those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our Nation.

This year is the 50th anniversary of that tragedy. On April 10, 2013, the USS Thresher Memorial will be dedicated. Located at Kittery Memorial Circle, this tribute features a flagpole rising from a black granite base. The height of the flagpole--129 feet--is a powerful reminder of those who perished.

The memorial is made possible by contributions from throughout the region--from schoolchildren and civic organizations to such U.S. Navy veterans as President George H.W. Bush. The depth of support for this inspiring project demonstrates the gratitude the American people have for all who serve.

The USS Thresher was the first of a new class of submarines for the Navy that was designed to be the world's most modern, quiet, deep- diving fast-attack submarines. It was during deep-diving trials some 200 miles east of Cape Cod when a crucial system failed.

The loss of life on the USS Thresher was the worst submarine disaster in American history. Among the 129 lost were a veteran submariner whose service began during World War II and extended into the Cold War, 2 brothers, and a young husband who had just learned he was to become a father. Each of the 129 men left behind a grieving family and a hometown in sorrow.

They did not die in vain. The Thresher disaster directly led to the SUBSAFE program that ensures every submarine in America's fleet undergoes rigorous testing to safeguard our submariners. Every safe voyage and every crisis survived since that terrible time is the legacy of the USS Thresher.

The courage and sacrifice of those aboard the USS Thresher exemplify the devotion of all submariners, past and present, and their commitment to the mission. The ``silent service'' is a critical component of America's defenses, and those who step forward to serve willingly take on one of the most challenging assignments in our armed forces. The USS Thresher Memorial in Kittery, ME, ensures that we will never forget those who are on eternal patrol.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Volunteer Emergency Services Recruitment and Retention Act of 2013. This bill fixes a long-standing problem with the tax code that impedes the ability of volunteer fire departments to recruit and retain both firefighter and emergency service personnel.

For years, local and State governments have provided their volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel with different forms of benefits including Length of Service Award Plans, commonly known as LOSAPs. These are pension-like benefits for volunteer emergency responders.

Unfortunately, the way the tax code handles LOSAPs hinders departments' abilities to administer the plans and makes it more difficult for volunteer emergency personnel to receive the benefits.

My bill would simplify the taxation of LOSAPs in two steps. First, it would allow LOSAPs to be elected as deferred compensation plans, and second, it would exempt them from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. These two changes will improve access to LOSAP benefits for volunteer emergency responders, without increasing federal spending.

Today, an estimated 180,000 volunteer firefighters across 27 states participate in some form of LOSAP. Many States that do not offer these benefits would be more likely to do so if the Federal tax code were simplified. This, in turn, would help volunteer fire departments to recruit more easily and retain personnel. These men and women, our local first responders, are the foundation of our emergency response capabilities.

These volunteers put their lives on the line to help protect our communities, and their spirit of selflessness and service should be rewarded. I am pleased to introduce this legislation with Senator Schumer, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill through the Senate and into law.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Volunteer Emergency Services Recruitment and Retention Act of 2013. This bill fixes a long-standing problem with the tax code that impedes the ability of volunteer fire departments to recruit and retain both firefighter and emergency service personnel.

For years, local and State governments have provided their volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel with different forms of benefits including Length of Service Award Plans, commonly known as LOSAPs. These are pension-like benefits for volunteer emergency responders.

Unfortunately, the way the tax code handles LOSAPs hinders departments' abilities to administer the plans and makes it more difficult for volunteer emergency personnel to receive the benefits.

My bill would simplify the taxation of LOSAPs in two steps. First, it would allow LOSAPs to be elected as deferred compensation plans, and second, it would exempt them from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. These two changes will improve access to LOSAP benefits for volunteer emergency responders, without increasing federal spending.

Today, an estimated 180,000 volunteer firefighters across 27 states participate in some form of LOSAP. Many States that do not offer these benefits would be more likely to do so if the Federal tax code were simplified. This, in turn, would help volunteer fire departments to recruit more easily and retain personnel. These men and women, our local first responders, are the foundation of our emergency response capabilities.

These volunteers put their lives on the line to help protect our communities, and their spirit of selflessness and service should be rewarded. I am pleased to introduce this legislation with Senator Schumer, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill through the Senate and into law.