[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 85 (Thursday, June 7, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3840-S3843]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 3271. A bill to provide all Medicare beneficiaries with the right
to guaranteed issue of a Medicare supplemental policy; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, approximately one in five Medicare
beneficiaries--or 9 million people--purchase a Medigap supplemental
insurance policy to protect against high out-of-pocket costs and to
make health care costs more predictable. Current law includes a
`guaranteed issue right' to Medigap for beneficiaries age 65 or older,
which means they cannot be denied Medigap coverage or charged a higher
Medigap premium because of their medical condition.
Unfortunately, current law discriminates against Medicare
beneficiaries with disabilities who are under age 65, as well as
beneficiaries with kidney failure, End Stage Renal Disease or ``ESRD''
by denying them the same right that seniors have to guaranteed issuance
of Medigap policies. This exposes individuals with disabilities and
kidney failure to substantial out-of-pocket costs and poses a
significant barrier to health care services. In the absence of equal
opportunity and access to Medigap policies at the Federal level, 29
States have enacted guaranteed issue rights to disabled and ESRD
beneficiaries.
Individuals with kidney failure are subject to an additional
discriminatory provision in federal law that prohibits Medicare ESRD
beneficiaries from joining Medicare Advantage plans. They are the only
group of Medicare beneficiaries currently denied the same Medicare
choices as other Medicare beneficiaries.
Today I am introducing the Equal Access to Medicare Options Act, a
bill that improves coverage options to Medicare beneficiaries. My
legislation would eliminate discriminatory treatment in the
supplemental insurance market, bring more financial stability to
Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities and ESRD with high out-of-
pocket health care costs, and reduce reliance on Medicaid as the payer
of last resort. Specifically, it would extend guaranteed issue of
Medigap policies to all Medicare beneficiaries, including beneficiaries
with disabilities and ESRD. It would ensure equal access to
supplemental insurance for all Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of
age, disability or ESRD status.
Additionally, my legislation recognizes that Medicare beneficiaries
need flexibility to adjust their coverage as changes to their plans are
made. It would give guaranteed issue rights to Medicare Advantage
enrollees if they decide to switch to traditional Medicare during an
enrollment period. Today, if a Medicare Advantage enrollee learns of
premium increases or benefit reduction in their plan, they have the
option of returning to traditional Medicare but they have no assurance
they can buy Medigap coverage if they do so.
The Equal Access to Medicare Options Act would provide guaranteed
[[Page S3841]]
issue to dual-eligibles who lose their Medicaid coverage and find
themselves in traditional Medicare without the cost protections of
Medicaid and without supplemental coverage options. Finally, this
legislation would--for the first time--give beneficiaries with end-
stage renal disease the option of enrolling in Medicare Advantage
plans.
I would like to thank the nearly 50 organizations who have been
integral to the development of the Equal Access to Medicare Options Act
and who have endorsed it today, including the California Health
Advocates, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Dialysis Patient Citizens,
Fresenius Medical Care, Medicare Rights Center, and the National Kidney
Foundation.
The Affordable Care Act prohibits discrimination based on health
status in the private health insurance market, beginning in 2014. It is
inconsistent and unconscionable for federal law to allow insurers to
discriminate based on health status in the Medigap market. All
individuals, regardless of their health status, deserve the same access
to comprehensive and affordable coverage options.
The reforms included in this legislation would finally end
discriminatory Medicare policies in Federal law and would ensure that
all Medicare beneficiaries regardless of their disability or age have
equal opportunity and access to affordable Medicare options. I look
forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to achieve these
goals in the context of health care reform.
______
By Mr. COONS (for himself, Mr. Moran, Mr. Tester, Mr. Franken,
Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mrs. Shaheen):
S. 3275. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
the publicly traded partnership ownership structure to energy power
generation projects and transportation fuels, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, when it comes to America's energy policy,
Republicans and Democrats alike have made it clear they support an all-
of-the-above energy strategy.
As the Presiding Officer knows, serving on the Energy Committee along
with me, there is broad agreement on the need for a comprehensive
approach that will develop secure, homegrown, efficient energy sources
for our next generation.
I believe an across-the-board policy that accepts the likely reality
of our current dependence on our fossil-based fuels going forward, as
well as the vital need to develop and deploy new, promising, clean
energy fuels of the future, is essential. Such a policy will provide
certainty to our markets, opportunities to our families and companies
and communities, and ensure that we are not--as some would say--picking
winners and losers in the energy space.
Yet there is today an obstacle standing in the way of a truly
comprehensive strategy that at least both parties say they want. It is
a provision in our Federal Tax Code that has its metaphoric thumb on
the scale, tipping the balance in favor of traditional fossil fuels.
That is why I am so glad I have been able to work with my colleague and
friend Senator Moran of Kansas to today introduce bipartisan
legislation that will level the playing field and bring parity to one
piece of Federal tax policy relating to energy.
Investors in oil, natural gas, coal, and pipelines have for nearly 30
years been able to form publicly traded entities called master limited
partnerships, or MLPs. These partnerships include a passthrough tax
structure that avoids double taxation and leaves more cash available to
distribute to investors. They have for investors the liquidity and the
return that is commonly associated with equity and the tax advantage
that is associated with partnerships, and they have been able to
aggregate and deploy a significant amount of private capital in the
traditional fossil fuel marketplace, roughly $350 billion today across
100 MLPs. They have access to private capital at a lower cost,
something that capital-intensive alternative energy projects in the
United States badly need now more than ever.
As a result, MLPs should be a great source for raising private
capital for clean energy projects as well as they have been for fossil
fuel projects. The only problem is, under current law, only fossil
fuel-based energy projects can attract this type of private energy
investment. That is right--we are currently in our tax policies working
against our broadly stated commitment as a country to an all-of-the-
above energy policy with a statute that explicitly excludes clean
energy projects from forming these MLPs. This inequity is starving a
growing portion of America's domestic energy sector of the very capital
it needs to build and grow and compete. So Senator Moran and I, along
with other colleagues, decided to fix it. We came together and said it
was time to level the playing field.
Sometimes when I have the opportunity, I have gone for a run here in
Washington or, even better, in my home State in Delaware. Something any
runner can tell you is that going up and down hills is what saps your
strength. When a surface is flat, you can go farther, you can go
faster, and it is the same with our Federal Tax Code. When it comes to
evening things out, we have two choices. We can either lower everything
to a common level by eliminating MLPs--by saying this tax advantage
shouldn't be given to its traditional beneficiaries in gas and oil and
coal, or we can raise the level of opportunity and attract greater
investment by broadening the fields that can take advantage of MLPs to
include wind and solar, biomass, geothermal, cellulosic, biodiesel.
In my view, the better strategy, the better approach is the
bipartisan one that takes our colleagues at their word and says we
intend to stop picking winners and losers and, instead, embrace an all-
of-the-above energy strategy. Senator Moran and I have chosen this
option and believe that rather than eliminating MLPs, bringing
everything together and making renewables on the same level playing
field with fossil fuels has a better promise for the future of the
American energy economy.
This is a relatively straightforward proposal. Our bill, the Master
Limited Partnerships Parity Act, will bring new fairness to the Tax
Code in this specific area. It recognizes revenue from projects that
sell electricity or fuels produced from clean energy sources as
qualifying MLPs.
This change will encourage investment in domestic energy resources,
and could bring substantial new private capital off the sidelines to
finance renewable projects ranging from wind and solar to geothermal
and cellulosic ethanol, just at a time when we so badly need it.
Harnessing the power of the private market is essential if
alternative energy projects are to grow and create jobs all across
America. Two experts in energy finance, Felix Mormann and Dan Reicher
from Stanford's Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance,
wrote an op-ed this past week in the New York Times endorsing this
legislation.
They said:
If renewable energy is going to become fully competitive
and a significant source of energy in the United States, then
further technological innovation must be accompanied by
financial innovation so that clean energy sources gain access
to the same low-cost capital that traditional energy sources
like coal and oil and natural gas enjoy.
In the search for common ground on energy policy, this kind of simple
fairness is the sort of thing I hope we can all agree on. That is why
the MLP Parity Act carries the strong support of a wide range of
business groups, financial experts, and energy organizations.
David Crane is the CEO of Fortune 300 company NRG Energy. NRG has
generating assets across a wide range of traditional fuel sources and
clean and alternative energy sources. Mr. Crane said:
The MLP Parity Act is a phenomenal idea. It's a fairly
arcane part of the tax law, but it's worked well and has been
extremely beneficial to the private investment in the oil and
gas space. The fact that it doesn't currently apply to
renewables is just a silly inequity in our current law.
We are also grateful for the support of national organizations such
as the American Wind Energy Association, the Solar Energy Industries
Association, the American Council on Renewable Energy, and many others,
and thank them for their hard work in promoting this commonsense energy
future for our country.
I also wish to specifically thank Dr. Chris Avery and Franz
Wuerfmanns-
[[Page S3842]]
dobler who worked in my office so well in preparing this and moving
this forward as public policy. And I wish to thank Josh Freed of Third
Way for bringing this to our attention and producing one of the first
policy papers on how master limited partnerships can be a great
financing vehicle for clean energy.
I have no doubt there is significant growing opportunity worldwide in
alternative fuels. There is a clean energy future coming. The only
question is whether American workers, American communities, and
American companies will benefit from this, or will simply be bystanders
and watch our competitors pass us by. I think if we are going to lead,
we have to work together. The private sector can and will provide the
financing and the researchers to develop critical innovations and
deploy them, but the Federal Government--the Congress in particular--
must set a realistic and positive policy pathway to sustain these
innovations and let the market work to its fullest potential. The
Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act moves us toward that goal. By
leveling the playing field for fair competition, this market-driven
solution could provide vital and needed support for the kind of
comprehensive energy strategy we need to power our country for
generations to come.
Some of us who will support this bill also support things such as the
ITC, the PTC, and other clean energy financing vehicles. Others may
not. On the specific question of master limited partnerships, the bill
we introduced today simply allows us to come together in a bipartisan
way to open it up to all energy sources, and to build a sustainable
energy financing future on this planet.
Once again, I want to thank my cosponsor, Senator Moran. I look
forward to working with all of my colleagues, on the Energy Committee
and throughout the Senate and the House, to move forward this important
legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3275
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Master Limited Partnerships
Parity Act''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PUBLICLY TRADED PARTNERSHIP OWNERSHIP
STRUCTURE TO ENERGY POWER GENERATION PROJECTS
AND TRANSPORTATION FUELS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (E) of section 7704(d)(1) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``,
industrial source carbon dioxide,'' and all that follows and
inserting ``or of any industrial source carbon dioxide; or
the generation, storage, or transmission to the electrical
grid of electric power exclusively utilizing any resource
described in section 45(c)(1) or energy property described in
section 48, or the accepting or processing of such resource
or property for such utilization; or the generation or
storage of thermal power exclusively utilizing any such
resource or property; or the transportation or storage of any
fuel described in subsection (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section
6426; or the production for sale by the taxpayer, the
transportation, or the storage of any renewable fuel
described in section 211(o)(1)(J) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7545(o)(1)(J)),''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act,
in taxable years ending after such date.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Coburn):
S. 3281. A bill to terminate the Federal authorization of the
National Veterans Business Development Corporation; to the Committee on
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
cease federal involvement in the National Veterans Business Development
Corporation.
This bipartisan bill would cease, once and for all, Federal
involvement in the National Veterans Business Development Corporation,
also known as The Veterans Corporation or simply TVC. Let me begin by
thanking the bill's cosponsors, former Small Business Committee Chair
Kerry and Senator Coburn. Senator Coburn, as most in this body will
recognize, is a true leader in efforts to streamline the Federal
Government. Recently he spoke with us about ideas for Federal entities
or programs that could be eliminated and we readily provided TVC as an
example of an entity that we had already identified that the Federal
Government should sever its ties with.
I want to say at the outset that an amendment, with identical text as
our legislation, passed the Senate by a vote of 99 0 in May of 2011,
but the bill it was attached to did not pass. We are introducing this
repeal as a standalone bill because TVC has been ineffective and
controversial since its inception as part of the Veterans
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act, P.L. 106 50 in
1999. In December of 2008, former Small Business Committee Chairman
Kerry and I investigated TVC, and issued a report detailing the
organization's blatant mismanagement and wasting of taxpayers' dollars.
The report found, among other things, that TVC failed to support
Veteran Business Resource Centers; had wasteful programs; lacked
outcomes-based measurements; provided its employees with unacceptably
high executive compensation; engaged in dubious expenditures, and
failed to properly fundraise.
For instance, our report concluded that TVC had spent only 15 percent
of the Federal funding that it had received on veterans business
resource centers, which TVC was required to establish and maintain
under law. In fiscal year 2008, the percentage dropped to about 9
percent. We also found that TVC's executives received unacceptably high
levels of compensation given the organization's limited resources and
reach. While an average of 15 percent of TVC's federally appropriated
funds went to the Centers, 22 percent of TVC's fiscal year 2007 Federal
appropriation dollars were spent on its top two executives'
compensation packages alone. Moreover, the organization miserably
failed to fundraise--which was required by law in order for it to
become self-sufficient--and during fiscal years 2005 through 2007, TVC
leaders spent $2.50 for every $1.00 they raised through the
organization's fundraising efforts--almost entirely at the taxpayers'
expense. Additionally, through broad decision-making powers granted to
TVC's executive committee under the organization's bylaws, the
committee approved a number of measures without proper approval or
ratification from the full Board, including $40,000 in employee bonuses
in 1 year alone.
Since the issuing of the Small Business Committee's report, Congress
has appropriated no further funding for TVC, and the Small Business
Administration, SBA, has incorporated the Veteran Business Resource
Centers, VBRCs, that TVC previously funded into its existing network of
Veteran Business Outreach Centers, VBOCs. These moves were publically
supported by a variety of veteran service organizations, including the
American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, VFW. For instance, in
August of 2008, the American Legion passed a resolution at its national
convention, Resolution No. 223, stating that the Legion ``. . . no
longer support[s] the continuing initiatives or existence of the
national Veterans Business Development Corporation.''
At present, TVC is still federally chartered. At the same time, it
receives no Federal funds, has no Department or Agency oversight. In
light of everything I have discussed, it is my belief that the Federal
government must take the next step and fully sever all ties with the
organization. I ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3281
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NATIONAL VETERANS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION.
(a) In General.--The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et
seq.) is amended by striking section 33 (15 U.S.C. 657c).
(b) Corporation.--On and after the date of enactment of
this Act, the National Veterans Business Development
Corporation and any successor thereto may not represent that
the corporation is federally chartered or in any other manner
authorized by the Federal Government.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
[[Page S3843]]
(1) Small business act.--The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
631 et seq.), as amended by this section, is amended--
(A) by redesignating sections 34 through 45 as sections 33
through 44, respectively;
(B) in section 9(k)(1)(D) (15 U.S.C. 638(k)(1)(D)), by
striking ``section 34(d)'' and inserting ``section 33(d)'';
(C) in section 33 (15 U.S.C. 657d), as so redesignated--
(i) by striking ``section 35'' each place it appears and
inserting ``section 34'';
(ii) in subsection (a)--
(I) in paragraph (2), by striking ``section 35(c)(2)(B)''
and inserting ``section 34(c)(2)(B)'';
(II) in paragraph (4), by striking ``section 35(c)(2)'' and
inserting ``section 34(c)(2)''; and
(III) in paragraph (5), by striking ``section 35(c)'' and
inserting ``section 34(c)''; and
(iii) in subsection (h)(2), by striking ``section 35(d)''
and inserting ``section 34(d)'';
(D) in section 34 (15 U.S.C. 657e), as so redesignated--
(i) by striking ``section 34'' each place it appears and
inserting ``section 33''; and
(ii) in subsection (c)(1), by striking section
``34(c)(1)(E)(ii)'' and inserting section
``33(c)(1)(E)(ii)'';
(E) in section 36(d) (15 U.S.C. 657i(d)), as so
redesignated, by striking ``section 43'' and inserting
``section 42'';
(F) in section 39(d) (15 U.S.C. 657l(d)), as so
redesignated, by striking ``section 43'' and inserting
``section 42''; and
(G) in section 40(b) (15 U.S.C. 657m(b)), as so
redesignated, by striking ``section 43'' and inserting
``section 42''.
(2) Title 10.--Section 1142(b)(13) of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``and the National
Veterans Business Development Corporation''.
(3) Title 38.--Section 3452(h) of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``any of the'' and all that
follows and inserting ``any small business development center
described in section 21 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
648), insofar as such center offers, sponsors, or cosponsors
an entrepreneurship course, as that term is defined in
section 3675(c)(2).''.
(4) Food, conservation, and energy act of 2008.--Section
12072(c)(2) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(15 U.S.C. 636g(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``section 43 of
the Small Business Act, as added by this Act'' and inserting
``section 42 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657o)''.
(5) Veterans entrepreneurship and small business
development act of 1999.--Section 203(c)(5) of the Veterans
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999
(15 U.S.C. 657b note) is amended by striking ``In cooperation
with the National Veterans Business Development Corporation,
develop'' and inserting ``Develop''.
____________________