Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 93 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 93 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5266-S5274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Portman):
S. 1228. A bill to establish a program to provide incentive payments
to participating Medicare beneficiaries who voluntarily establish and
maintain better health; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. 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. 1228

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 ``Medicare Better Health
Rewards Program Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. MEDICARE BETTER HEALTH REWARDS PROGRAM.

Part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395j et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:

``medicare better health rewards program

``Sec. 1849. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall
establish a Better Health Rewards Program (in this section
referred to as the `Program') under which incentives are
provided to Medicare beneficiaries who voluntarily agree to
participate in the Program.
``(b) Enrollment.--A health professional participating in
the Program shall provide their patients who are Medicare
beneficiaries with a description of and an opportunity to
enroll in the Program on a voluntary basis. If a Medicare
beneficiary elects to enroll in the Program, the health
professional shall inform the Secretary of the individual's
enrollment through a process established by the Secretary,
which does not impose additional administrative requirements
on the participating health professional.
``(c) Establishment of Better Health Target Standards.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish
standards for measuring better health targets and points for
achieving such standards for participating Medicare
beneficiaries, including such standards and points with
respect to the following:
``(i) Annual wellness visit.
``(ii) Tobacco cessation.
``(iii) Body Mass Index (BMI).
``(iv) Diabetes screening test.
``(v) Cardiovascular disease screening.
``(vi) Cholesterol level screening.
``(vii) Screening tests and specified vaccinations.
``(B) Consultation.--In establishing standards and points
for achieving such standards under this subsection, the
Secretary--
``(i) shall consult with 1 or more nationally recognized
health care quality organizations, as determined appropriate
by the Secretary; and
``(ii) may consult with physicians and other professionals
experienced with wellness programs.
``(C) Points.--The number of points awarded for a year for
achieving standards with respect to each of the targets
described in clauses (i) through (vii) of subparagraph (A)
shall not exceed 5. Such points may be awarded on a sliding
scale, based on standards established under this subsection,
as determined appropriate by the Secretary.
``(2) Modification of better health target standards and
assigned points.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may modify standards for
measuring better health targets and, subject to paragraph
(1)(C), points for achieving such standards for participating
Medicare beneficiaries under this subsection.
``(B) Consultation.--In modifying standards and points for
achieving such standards under this paragraph, the
Secretary--
``(i) shall consult with 1 or more nationally recognized
health care quality organizations, as determined appropriate
by the Secretary; and
``(ii) may consult with physicians and other professionals
experienced with wellness programs.
``(d) Conduct of Program.--
``(1) Duration.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Program
shall be conducted for not less than a 3-year period.
``(B) Expansion.--The Secretary shall expand the duration
and scope of the Program, to the extent determined
appropriate by the Secretary, if--
``(i) the Secretary determines that such expansion is
expected to--

``(I) reduce spending under this title without reducing the
quality of care; or
``(II) improve the quality of care and reduce spending;

``(ii) the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services certifies that such expansion would reduce
program spending under this title; and
``(iii) the Secretary determines that such expansion would
not deny or limit the coverage or provision of benefits under
this title for individuals.
``(2) Collection and use of baseline data.--During the
first year of the Program, a health professional shall
establish and report to the Secretary baseline information
for each participating Medicare beneficiary who is a patient
of the health professional as part of that beneficiary's
first year assessment under paragraph (3)(A). The health
professional shall use such data to aid in the determination
of whether and to what extent the participating Medicare
beneficiary is meeting the target standards under subsection
(c) in each of years 2 and 3 of the Program.
``(3) Required assessments for participating medicare
beneficiaries.--
``(A) First year.--During year 1 of the Program, a health
professional shall furnish to each participating Medicare
beneficiary that is a patient of the health professional
either an annual wellness visit or an initial preventive
physical examination.

[[Page S5267]]

``(B) Second and third years.--During each of years 2 and 3
of the Program, a health professional shall furnish to each
participating Medicare beneficiary that is a patient of the
health professional an annual wellness visit to determine
whether and to what extent the participating Medicare
beneficiary has met the target standards under subsection
(c).
``(e) Determination of Points and Payment of Incentives.--
``(1) Determination of points.--During each of years 2 and
3 of the Program, a health professional shall--
``(A) evaluate and report to the Secretary whether each
participating Medicare beneficiary that is a patient of the
health professional has achieved the target standards under
subsection (c); and
``(B) determine the total amount of points that each such
participating Medicare beneficiary has achieved for the year
based on the points assigned for achieving such standards
under subsection (c).
``(2) Incentive payment.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall pay to each
participating Medicare beneficiary who achieves at least 20
points under paragraph (1)(B) for the year an incentive
payment. Such payment shall be equal to an amount determined
appropriate by the Secretary, but no case shall such amount
exceed the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 3 or a
``Points Year 2 Payment Subsequent Year
Amount Payment Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-24 points...................... $100 $200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 or more points................. $200 $400.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

``(B) Inflation adjustment.--The dollar amounts specified
in this paragraph shall be increased, beginning with 2017,
from year to year based on the percentage increase in the
consumer price index for all urban consumers (all items;
United States city average), rounded to the nearest $1.
``(3) Final determination of standards achievement made by
participating health professional.--Under the Program, a
participating health professional shall make the final
determination as to whether or not a participating Medicare
beneficiary has met the target standards under subsection (c)
and what screening tests and specified vaccinations, or other
services, are necessary for purposes of making such
determination.
``(f) Spending Benchmarks.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall collect relevant
data, including data on claims paid under this title for
services furnished to participating Medicare beneficiaries
during the Program, for purposes of determining the aggregate
estimated savings achieved under this title for participating
Medicare beneficiaries during each of years 2 and 3 of the
Program in accordance with paragraph (2) (and for a
subsequent year if the Program is expanded under subsection
(d)(1)(B)).
``(2) Determination of aggregate estimated savings.--
``(A) In general.--The amount of the aggregate estimated
savings under this title for participating Medicare
beneficiaries under paragraph (1), with respect to a year,
shall be equal to--
``(i) the estimated savings determined under subparagraph
(B) for the year; minus
``(ii) the aggregate incentive payments made under the
Program during the year.
``(B) Determination of estimated savings.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A)(i), the estimated savings determined under
this subparagraph for a year shall be equal to--
``(i) the estimated aggregate expenditures under this title
(as projected under subparagraph (C)) for the year; minus
``(ii) the actual aggregate expenditures under this title
(as determined by the Secretary and taking into account any
reduction in specific health risks of the participating
Medicare beneficiaries) for the year.
``(C) Projection of estimated aggregate claims cost.--
``(i) Benchmark base year.--The Secretary shall establish a
benchmark base year amount of expenditures under this title
for participating Medicare beneficiaries during year 1 of the
Program.
``(ii) Projection.--The Secretary shall use the benchmark
base year amount established under clause (i) to project the
estimated aggregate expenditures for all participating
Medicare beneficiaries during each of years 2 and 3 of the
Program as if the beneficiaries were not participating in the
Program. In making such projection, the Secretary may include
adjustments for health status or other specific risk factors
and geographic variation for the participating Medicare
beneficiaries.
``(D) Public report of determination and other program
information.--Not later than 90 days after determining the
aggregate estimated savings (if any) under subparagraph (A)
with respect to a year, the Secretary shall make available to
the public a report containing a description of the amount of
the savings determined, including the methodology and any
other calculations or determinations involved in the
determination of such amount. Such report shall include--
``(i) a description of any reduction in specific health
risks of participating Medicare beneficiaries identified by
the Secretary;
``(ii) a description of--

``(I) standards for measuring better health targets under
subsection (c); and
``(II) the points available for achieving each such
standard under that subsection; and

``(iii) recommendations for such legislation and
administrative action as the Secretary determines
appropriate.
``(3) Monitoring of program costs.--During the operation of
the Program, the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services shall--
``(A) monitor the Program to determine whether or not the
Program is reducing aggregate expenditures under this title;
and
``(B) submit to the Secretary an annual report on the
results of such monitoring.
``(4) Required action if aggregate incentive payments
exceed savings.--If the Secretary, taking into account the
reports under paragraph (3)(B), determines that the aggregate
expenditures under this title exceed the aggregate
expenditures under this title that would have been made if
the Program had not been implemented, the Secretary shall
provide for changes to the provisions of the program in order
to eliminate such excess.
``(g) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary may waive such
requirements of titles XI and XVIII as may be necessary to
carry out the purposes of the Program established under this
section.
``(h) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Annual wellness visit.--The term `annual wellness
visit' includes personalized prevention plan services (as
defined in section 1861(hhh)(1)).
``(2) Health professional.--The term `health professional'
includes a physician (as defined in section 1861(r)(1)) and a
practitioner described in clause (i) of section
1842(b)(18)(C).
``(3) Initial preventive physical examination.--The term
`initial preventive physical examination' has the meaning
given that term in section 1861(ww)(1).
``(4) Medicare beneficiary.--The term `Medicare
beneficiary' means an individual enrolled in part B.
``(5) Participating medicare beneficiary.--The term
`participating Medicare beneficiary' means a Medicare
beneficiary who enrolls in the Program under subsection (b).
``(6) Screening tests.--The term `screening tests' means
any of the following that are determined by a health
professional to be appropriate for a participating Medicare
beneficiary:
``(A) Colorectal cancer screening tests (as defined in
section 1861(pp)).
``(B) Screening mammography (as described in section
1861(jj)).
``(C) Screening pap smear and screening pelvic exam (as
defined in section 1861(nn)).
``(D) Screening for glaucoma (as defined in section
1861(uu)).
``(E) Bone mass measurement (as defined in section
1861(rr)) for qualified individuals described in paragraph
(2)(A) of such section.
``(F) HIV screening for high-risk groups (as identified by
the Secretary).
``(7) Specified vaccinations.--The term `specified
vaccinations' means the vaccinations described in section
1861(ww)(1) that are determined by a health professional to
be appropriate for a participating Medicare beneficiary.''.

SEC. 3. PARTICIPATION BY MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLANS.

Section 1859 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
28) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(h) Providing Incentives for Voluntary Participation in a
Better Health Rewards Program.--
``(1) In general.--Effective for plan years beginning on or
after the date of enactment of the Medicare Better Health
Rewards Program Act of 2013, a Medicare Advantage
organization may provide to individuals enrolled in an MA
plan offered by the organization incentive payments,
including cash, cash-equivalent, or other types of
incentives, for voluntary participation in a Better Health
Rewards Program (in this subsection referred to as the
`Program') that rewards individuals for meeting certain
health targets established by the Secretary.
``(2) Limitation.--In no case shall the monthly bid amount
submitted by a Medicare Advantage organization under section
1834(a)(6) (or the monthly premium charged by the
organization under section 1854(b)) with respect to an MA
plan offered by the organization take into account any
incentive payments made to enrollees under the Program.
``(3) Implementation.--The Program under this subsection
shall be conducted in a similar manner to the manner in which
the program under section 1849 is conducted, in accordance
with standards established by the Secretary.
``(4) Notification and provision of information.--A
Medicare Advantage organization seeking to participate in the
Program shall--
``(A) notify the Secretary of the organization's intent to
participate in the Program; and
``(B) agree to provide to the Secretary--
``(i) information regarding--

``(I) which enrollees participate in the Program;
``(II) the scores of those enrollees with respect to
applicable health targets under the Program; and
``(III) the incentives enrollees receive for meeting such
health targets; and

[[Page S5268]]

``(ii) any other information specified by the Secretary for
purposes of this subsection.
``(5) Waiver authority.--The Secretary may waive such
requirements of titles XI and XVIII as may be necessary to
carry out the purposes of the Program established under this
subsection.''.

SEC. 4. PARTICIPATION OF SECTION 1876 COST PLANS.

Section 1876 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395mm)
is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``(l) Providing Incentives for Voluntary Participation in a
Better Health Rewards Program.--
``(1) In general.--Effective for contract periods beginning
on or after the date of enactment of the Medicare Better
Health Rewards Program Act of 2013, an eligible organization
may provide to members enrolled under this section with the
organization incentive payments, including cash, cash-
equivalent, or other types of incentives, for voluntary
participation in a Better Health Rewards Program (in this
subsection referred to as the `Program') that rewards members
for meeting certain health targets established by the
Secretary.
``(2) Limitation.--In no case shall the payment to an
eligible organization under this section (or the premium rate
charged by the organization under this section) with respect
to members enrolled with the organization take into account
any incentive payments made to members under the Program.
``(3) Implementation.--The Program under this subsection
shall be conducted in a similar manner to the manner in which
the program under section 1849 is conducted, in accordance
with standards established by the Secretary.
``(4) Notification and provision of information.--An
eligible organization seeking to participate in the Program
shall--
``(A) notify the Secretary of the organization's intent to
participate in the Program; and
``(B) agree to provide to the Secretary--
``(i) information regarding--

``(I) which members participate in the Program;
``(II) the scores of those members with respect to
applicable health targets under the Program; and
``(III) the incentives members receive for meeting such
health targets; and

SEC. 5. PARTICIPATION OF PROGRAMS OF ALL-INCLUSIVE CARE FOR
THE ELDERLY (PACE).

(a) Medicare.--Section 1894 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395eee) is amended by inserting at the end the
following:
``(j) Providing Incentives for Voluntary Participation in a
Better Health Rewards Program.--
``(1) In general.--Effective for PACE program agreements
entered into on or after the date of enactment of the
Medicare Better Health Rewards Program Act of 2013, a PACE
provider may provide to PACE program eligible individuals
enrolled under this section with the PACE provider incentive
payments, including cash, cash-equivalent, or other types of
incentives, for voluntary participation in a Better Health
Rewards Program (in this subsection referred to as the
`Program') that rewards enrollees for meeting certain health
targets established by the Secretary.
``(2) Limitation.--In no case shall the payment to a PACE
provider under this section (or any premium charged by the
provider under this section) with respect to PACE program
eligible individuals enrolled with the PACE provider take
into account any incentive payments made to individuals under
the Program.
``(3) Implementation.--The Program under this subsection
shall be conducted in a similar manner to the manner in which
the program under section 1849 is conducted, in accordance
with standards established by the Secretary.
``(4) Notification and provision of information.--A PACE
provider seeking to participate in the Program shall--
``(A) notify the Secretary of the PACE provider's intent to
participate in the Program; and
``(B) agree to provide to the Secretary--
``(i) information regarding--

``(I) which PACE program eligible individuals enrolled with
the PACE provider participate in the Program;
``(II) the scores of those individuals with respect to
applicable health targets under the Program; and
``(III) the incentives individuals receive for meeting such
health targets; and

``(ii) any other information specified by the Secretary for
purposes of this subsection.
``(5) Waiver authority.--The Secretary may waive such
requirements of titles XI, XVIII, and XIX as may be necessary
to carry out the purposes of the Program established under
this subsection.''.
(b) Medicaid.--Section 1934 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396u-4) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(k) Providing Incentives for Voluntary Participation in a
Better Health Rewards Program.--
``(1) In general.--Effective for PACE program agreements
entered into on or after the date of enactment of the
Medicare Better Health Rewards Program Act of 2013, a PACE
provider may provide to PACE program eligible individuals
enrolled under this section with the PACE provider incentive
payments, including cash, cash-equivalent, or other types of
incentives, for voluntary participation in a Better Health
Rewards Program (in this subsection referred to as the
`Program') that rewards enrollees for meeting certain health
targets established by the Secretary.
``(2) Limitation.--In no case shall the payment to a PACE
provider under this section (or any premium charged by the
provider under this section) with respect to PACE program
eligible individuals enrolled with the PACE provider take
into account any incentive payments made to individuals under
the Program.
``(3) Implementation.--The Program under this subsection
shall be conducted in a similar manner to the manner in which
the program under section 1849 is conducted, in accordance
with standards established by the Secretary.
``(4) Notification and provision of information.--A PACE
provider seeking to participate in the Program shall--
``(A) notify the Secretary of the PACE provider's intent to
participate in the Program; and
``(B) agree to provide to the Secretary--
``(i) information regarding--

SEC. 6. EXCLUSION OF INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.

(a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting
after section 139D the following new section:

``SEC. 139E. MEDICARE BETTER HEALTH REWARDS PAYMENTS.

``Gross income shall not include any payment made under the
following programs:
``(1) The Medicare Better Health Rewards Program
established under section 1849 of the Social Security Act.
``(2) A Better Health Rewards Program established pursuant
to section 1859(h), 1876(l), 1894(j), or 1934(k) of the
Social Security Act.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III
of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 139D the
following new item:
``Sec. 139E. Medicare Better Health Rewards payments.''.
______

By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself and Ms. Warren):
S. 1229. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act to empower the
States to set the maximum annual percentage rates applicable to
consumer credit transactions, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joined on the
floor of the Senate by Senator Warren to introduce legislation we have
been working on since 2008.
Astute observers of this body will recognize that was before Senator
Warren was even Senator Warren. She has been, for years, a renowned
expert in consumer law and a leading advocate of reforms to protect
families from predatory lending. It has been a pleasure working with
her on this bill, and I am delighted to be working with her as Senate
colleagues now.
A little history. During President Obama's first 2 years in office
and before the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, Democrats
passed two significant landmark bills to protect ordinary consumers
from credit card company abuses.
The Credit CARD Act of 2009 outlawed some of the worst tricks and
traps that lenders used to squeeze money out of their customers. After
that law, big banks can no longer hike interest rates on preexisting
balances just because they feel like it, and they can no longer declare
that the day ends at lunchtime in order to impose late fees on payments
that arrive in the afternoon. As absurd as it sounds, credit card
companies routinely engage in those sort of shenanigans, but the Credit
CARD Act of 2009 put an end to a lot of it.
A second bill, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, established the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an essential agency first
proposed by Senator Warren when she was a law professor. That body will
be for mortgages and credit cards what the Consumer Product Safety
Commission is

[[Page S5269]]

for toasters and swimming pools. In an age when the fine print in a
financial agreement can be the door to a family bankruptcy, this new
agency is long overdue.
While the Consumer Financial Protection Board is working to protect
American families from many types of unfair and deceptive financial
practices, including ones that involve credit card fees, the Board is
barred from regulating credit card interest rates. In the final
negotiations on Dodd-Frank, the allies of the big credit card companies
kept interest rates beyond the reach of this consumer agency.
That is a shame, because unfair interest rates are a big problem for
families in Rhode Island and across the Nation. I have heard from so
many constituents enticed to sign up for a credit card with an
attractive teaser rate of 0 or 1 percent, and eventually the teaser
period ends and the rate goes up to 12 or 15 percent, and if the
cardholder slips up and misses a couple of payments, the rate can jump
to 30 percent or higher.
I think when most of us in this body were growing up, a 30-percent
interest rate was a matter you could usually take to the police because
it violated State law. A rate at 30 percent would have been illegal
under the laws of most, if not all, of the 50 States. But the Supreme
Court in 1978 ruled the Civil War-era National Bank Act only required a
lender, the credit card issuer, to abide by the law of the State that
is their home State and allowed them to ignore the law of the State
their customer called their home State. Well, it didn't take too long
for the big credit card companies to see the loophole. This meant if
they moved their legal home to States with no interest rate limits,
with lousy consumer protections, even dealing with those States to
reduce consumer protections as a consequence of moving there, well,
from these new havens they could lend to people in all 50 States at any
interest rate they wanted.
Since that Supreme Court decision, which is called the Marquette
ruling, high interest rate credit cards have mushroomed and consumer
debt has soared. According to the Federal Reserve, in the year before
the Marquette decision, 1977, only 38 percent of families had a bank-
issued credit card. By 2010, over 65 percent had credit cards, with
about one-third of all families holding four or more credit cards. And
the debt numbers coming off those credit cards are even worse.
Revolving consumer debt, which is mainly credit card debt, has exploded
over twentyfold in the 35 years since the Marquette decision. This
little bull's-eye represents the debt beforehand, the giant red circle
the debt afterward.
The credit card companies are taking full advantage. Interest rates,
as we know, are generally low right now. Banks are lending to one
another at less than one-quarter of 1 percent, and 30-year fixed
mortgage rates are near 4 percent. Savings bonds pay a paltry 1
percent. The Stafford loans we are discussing will move from 3.4
percent to 6.8 percent if we don't act. But credit cards? According to
bankrate.com, which tracks lending statistics, the average variable
rate credit card now charges over 15 percent, and many consumers pay
much higher rates.
At 15-percent interest, it would take a family, paying the monthly
minimum, which is often equal to 1 percent of the balance plus the
accrued interest, more than 22 years to pay off a $5,000 balance. An
emergency comes to your family, and you need to go to your credit card
to pay for it, so you have to run up $5,000. It will take you 22 years
to dig out from that at a 15-percent rate. Over those 20 years, the
total you would pay would be almost $11,000, meaning interest rate
charges would be more than the actual balance you owe. That is bad
enough, but imagine a family paying 30 percent. For them, it is much
worse. It would take 25 years to pay off a $5,000 balance making
minimum payments, and the total payments the family would have to make
would add up to $17,000, more than the original $5,000 that was
borrowed.
Families may turn to credit cards in times of emergency, and then,
when they get back on their feet, find the next quarter of a century
dedicated to paying off that debt. We should act to ensure that
families don't suffer lost decades to unnecessarily--and what would
once have been illegally--high interest rates.
The bill we introduce today, the Restoring States' Rights to Protect
Consumers Act, would not set a Federal interest rate cap but it would
restore to our sovereign 50 States their historic right--a right that
dated back to their status as colonies before the Revolution--to
determine what interest rate limits should apply and protect their own
citizens. This bill is 2 pages long. It is simple. It is a States
rights bill. It received bipartisan support when I offered it as an
amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, and I hope Senators of both parties
will consider supporting it now.
I will now yield the floor to my lead cosponsor, Senator Warren of
Massachusetts, with my thanks to her for her leadership in protecting
American consumers and for her help in drafting this measure. It is a
privilege to serve with Senator Warren in the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I want to start by commending Senator
Whitehouse for his extraordinary leadership. For 5 years he has worked
on this issue. He proved from the very beginning that he was open to
consumer groups that came to talk to him about a problem, and he has
been committed to helping working families and that has been his
central goal. It is a great honor to stand this afternoon with Senator
Whitehouse and to talk about a bill that can advance that goal--helping
working families.
For more than two centuries a State could pass a usury law and
enforce it against anyone who was lending money in the State. Congress
and Federal agencies played a central role in our banking policies, but
our system allowed States to play an important role too. The States
decided locally what were the highest interest rates they wanted their
citizens to be charged. We honored the traditions of federalism, and
things worked pretty well. The States protected their citizens.
Consumer financial products, such as credit cards, were easy to
understand and they were safe for consumers. They were not loaded with
tricks and traps.
That changed starting in 1978, when the Supreme Court issued its
decision in Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha
Service Corp. In that decision, the Court interpreted a banking law
that Congress had passed back in 1863, and they decided the statute
meant the States could not keep an out-of-State lender from charging
high rates within the State.
That all sounds pretty technical, but the result was that credit card
companies flocked to move their headquarters to States that had little
consumer protection. Then other States raced to the bottom, repealing
their consumer protection laws, hoping to attract more business to
their State. The basic idea that States could protect their citizens
from whatever tricks or traps the banks wanted to try simply
disappeared.
So I rise today to join my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator
Whitehouse, to introduce the Empowering States' Rights to Protect
Consumers Act. This bill will restore the ability of States to enforce
their own rules against all lenders that do business within the State.
It does not tell States what rules to put in place, it lets States
decide for themselves.
The Credit CARD Act, enacted in 2009, and the new Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, created by the Dodd-Frank act in 2010, were critical
steps in the right direction, and they are doing a good deal to help
protect consumers. But we need to recognize the value of State
partnerships by empowering our States to play a role too and by
restoring their ability to serve as a laboratory of democracy. If and
when credit card companies develop the next generation of tricks and
traps, buried in fine print and legalese, States ought to be able to
respond with their own rules and protections if they deem it necessary.
I ask my colleagues to carefully consider this bill.
I again thank Senator Whitehouse for his extraordinary leadership on
this. It is a great honor to stand today and cosponsor this bill with
him.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 1230. A bill to reduce oil consumption and improve energy
security, and

[[Page S5270]]

for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Stabenow and I are
introducing legislation designed to reduce our dependence on oil in the
transportation sector by replacing it with cleaner, domestic sources of
energy to power our cars, trucks, buses, tractors, and ships. Until
very recently, our nation was dependent upon foreign, often unstable
governments for its energy supply--particularly for the oil that fuels
our transport--70 percent of which was imported from overseas. Now,
recent advances in drilling technologies have uncovered abundant
domestic energy resources and it is predicted that the U.S. will be a
net oil and gas exporter in the near future. Today, we are introducing
legislation that builds on our introduction of a similar bill last
Congress which was approved by Committee, our continual work with a
broad array of stakeholders and the feedback received during the series
of natural gas forums held by the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee. Those forums served as a reminder of the great opportunity
no one imagined we'd have even a few years ago, of being able to chart
our own energy future rather than relying on other countries or single
technologies to drive our economy forward.
While the natural gas forums served as a reminder, it is crucial that
we don't just supplant reliance on oil for reliance on another single
resource or technology. At the end of the day, different fuels are
going to work better in different types of vehicles and in different
parts of the country. For that reason, our bill does not pick
technology winners and losers. It is ``technology neutral,''
``geography neutral'' and ``market neutral.'' An alternative fuel that
is readily available in one part of the country may not be readily
available in every part of the country, or it may not work as well in
an 18 wheel tractor-trailer as in the family car. Our bill does not
choose which fuel is used where, or for what kinds of vehicles. We
leave that up to the free market so that fuel providers and vehicle
manufacturers can compete for what works best for their customers. This
bill brings us closer to the day when conventional gas stations give
way to the ``Fueling Station of the Future'' where consumers will have
the option to choose between whichever fuel serves their needs.
Energy legislation, including the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, have instituted a number
of programs at the Department of Energy and the Environmental
Protection Agency to address the need to strengthen our energy security
by replacing a significant portion of the oil Americans use for
transportation with alternative fuels such as electricity, natural gas,
propane, biofuels, and hydrogen. However, these programs currently fail
to provide workable solutions for many of the obstacles alternative
fuels suppliers and alternative fuel vehicles manufacturers face when
attempting to get their technologies to market.
Modifying these existing programs--and bolstering them with cohesive
policies enshrined in law to make them more useful for potential
applicants--will help our nation exploit our newfound abundant energy
resources, target climate change by incentivizing more widespread use
of cleaner transportation fuels, and create jobs by catalyzing new
businesses in the diverse alternative fuel and alternative fuel
vehicles sector.
Our bottom line goal is to help American businesses, which build
vehicles and supply fuel, provide genuine alternatives to conventional
fuels and engine technologies so that Americans can reduce our
dependence on oil as a transportation fuel. The bill does this by
providing a set of tools to promote the deployment of these
technologies. In several instances, the bill modifies existing
programs, rather than creating new ones.
First, the bill takes the existing advanced vehicle manufacturing
support program at the Department of Energy, which is now focused on
providing financial support to major manufacturers of light duty
vehicles, and opens it up to alternative fuel technologies. It also
expands the program to component manufacturers further down the supply
chain and to the production of medium and heavy trucks, buses, and
transit vehicles and lifts the cap on the amount of loans that can be
made to American manufacturers and their suppliers.
Alternative fuel vehicles need alternative fuel. So the next major
initiative in the bill is to provide financial support for the
production and distribution of those alternative fuels. Again, instead
of creating a whole new program to support this alternative fuel
infrastructure, the bill modifies the existing clean energy Department
of Energy loan guarantee program created in section 1703 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. This loan program was aimed at financing new,
innovative low-carbon electricity generation technologies. That is all
well and good, but those investments do not address the very real
energy security challenge facing our country from oil imports,
especially since so little electricity in the U.S. is actually
generated using oil. Our bill would allow this already existing program
to be used for alternative fuel infrastructure.
The bill includes additional measures to provide technical assistance
to States, local and tribal governments, public-private partnerships,
and utility companies and utility commissions to help overcome barriers
to the deployment of these alternative fuel vehicles. The bill further
provides worker training provisions to ensure our nation has a skilled
workforce capable of making the goals of this bill a reality. Taken
altogether, these provisions are designed to provide the tools for
manufacturers, parts suppliers, fuel providers, transportation
planners, utility regulators, and State, local, and tribal officials to
deploy alternative fuel vehicles, and the fuels to power them, in
numbers that make a difference and truly reduce our dependence on
imported oil.
Our bill has broad support from industry groups and has been endorsed
by the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers, Natural Gas Vehicles for
America, Global Automakers, the American Public Gas Association, Drive
Oregon, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, and the
Electric Drive Transportation Association. We ask our colleagues to
stand with us in support of this 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. 1230

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Alternative Fueled Vehicles Competitiveness and Energy
Security Act of 2013''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Loan guarantees for alternative fuel infrastructure.
Sec. 4. Advanced technology vehicles manufacturing incentive program.
Sec. 5. Conventional fuel replacement calculation and assessment.
Sec. 6. Technical assistance and coordination.
Sec. 7. Workforce training.
Sec. 8. Reduction of engine idling and conventional fuel consumption.
Sec. 9. Electric, hydrogen, and natural gas utility and oil pipeline
participation.
Sec. 10. Federal fleets.
Sec. 11. HOV lane access extension.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Alternative fuel.--The term ``alternative fuel'' has
the meaning given the term in section 301 of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13211).
(2) Alternative fueled vehicle.--The term ``alternative
fueled vehicle'' has the meaning given the term in section
301 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13211).
(3) Community college.--The term ``community college'' has
the meaning given the term ``junior or community college'' in
section 312 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1058).
(4) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of Energy.
(5) Nonroad vehicle.--
(A) In general.--The term ``nonroad vehicle'' means a
vehicle that is not licensed for onroad use.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``nonroad vehicle'' includes a
vehicle described in subparagraph (A) that is used
principally--
(i) for industrial, farming, or commercial use;
(ii) for rail transportation;
(iii) at an airport; or

[[Page S5271]]

(iv) for marine purposes.
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.

SEC. 3. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE.

Section 1703(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C.
16513(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(11) Infrastructure for provision and distribution of
alternative fuels.''.

SEC. 4. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING INCENTIVE
PROGRAM.

Section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (42 U.S.C. 17013) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (C) as
clauses (i) through (iii), respectively, and indenting
appropriately;
(ii) in the matter preceding clause (i) (as redesignated by
clause (i)), by striking ``means an ultra efficient vehicle
or a light duty vehicle that meets--'' and inserting
``means--
``(A) an ultra efficient vehicle or a light duty vehicle
that meets--'';
(iii) in clause (iii) (as redesignated by clause (i)), by
striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) a vehicle (such as a medium-duty or heavy-duty work
truck, bus, or rail transit vehicle) that--
``(i) is used on a public street, road, highway, or
transitway;
``(ii) meets each applicable emission standard that is
established as of the date of the application; and
``(iii) will reduce consumption of conventional motor fuel
by 25 percent or more, as compared to existing surface
transportation technologies that perform a similar function,
unless the Secretary determines that--

``(I) the percentage is not achievable for a vehicle type
or class; and
``(II) an alternative percentage for that vehicle type or
class will result in substantial reductions in motor fuel
consumption within the United States.'';

(B) in paragraph (3)(B)--
(i) by striking ``equipment and'' and inserting
``equipment,''; and
(ii) by inserting ``, and manufacturing process equipment''
after ``suppliers''; and
(C) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) Qualifying components.--The term `qualifying
components' means components, systems, or groups of
subsystems that the Secretary determines--
``(A) to be designed to improve fuel economy or otherwise
substantially reduce consumption of conventional motor fuel;
or
``(B) to contribute measurably to the overall improved fuel
use of an advanced technology vehicle, including idle
reduction technologies.'';
(2) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``to automobile'' and inserting ``to
advanced technology vehicle'';
(3) in subsection (d)(1), in the first sentence, by
striking ``a total of not more than $25,000,000,000 in'';
(4) in subsection (h)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Automobile''
and inserting ``Advanced Technology Vehicle''; and
(B) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``automobiles'' each
place it appears and inserting ``advanced technology
vehicles''; and
(5) in subsection (i), by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''.

SEC. 5. CONVENTIONAL FUEL REPLACEMENT CALCULATION AND
ASSESSMENT.

(a) Methodology.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, by rule, develop
a methodology for calculating the equivalent volumes of
conventional fuel displaced by use of each alternative fuel
to assess the effectiveness of alternative fuel and
alternative fueled vehicles in reducing oil imports.
(b) National Assessment.--Not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
(1) conduct a national assessment (using the methodology
developed under subsection (a)) of the effectiveness of
alternative fuel and alternative fueled vehicles in reducing
oil imports into the United States, including as assessment
of--
(A) market penetration of alternative fuel and alternative
fueled vehicles in the United States;
(B) successes and barriers to deployment identified by the
programs established under this Act; and
(C) the maximum feasible deployment of alternative fuel and
alternative fueled vehicles by 2020 and 2030; and
(2) report to Congress the results of the assessment.

SEC. 6. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COORDINATION.

(a) Technical Assistance to State, Local, and Tribal
Governments.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out this title, the Secretary
shall provide, at the request of the Governor, mayor, county
executive, public utility commissioner, or other appropriate
official or designee, technical assistance to State, local,
and tribal governments or to a public-private partnership
described in paragraph (2) to assist with the deployment of
alternative fuel and alternative fueled vehicles and
infrastructure.
(2) Public-private partnership.--Technical assistance under
this section may be awarded to a public-private partnership,
comprised of State, local or tribal governments and
nongovernmental entities, including--
(A) electric or natural gas utilities or other alternative
fuel distributors;
(B) vehicle manufacturers;
(C) alternative fueled vehicle or alternative fuel
technology providers;
(D) vehicle fleet owners;
(E) transportation and freight service providers; or
(F) other appropriate non-Federal entities, as determined
by the Secretary.
(3) Assistance.--The technical assistance described in
paragraph (1) may include--
(A) coordination in the selection, location, and timing of
alternative fuel recharging and refueling equipment and
distribution infrastructure, including the identification of
transportation corridors and specific alternative fuels that
would be made available;
(B) development of protocols and communication standards
that facilitate vehicle refueling and recharging into
electric, natural gas, and other alternative fuel
distribution systems;
(C) development of codes and standards for the installation
of alternative fuel distribution and recharging and refueling
equipment;
(D) education and outreach for the deployment of
alternative fuel and alternative fueled vehicles; and
(E) utility rate design and integration of alternative
fueled vehicles into electric and natural gas utility
distribution systems.
(b) Cost Sharing.--Cost sharing for assistance awarded
under this section shall be consistent with section 988 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352).
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.

SEC. 7. WORKFORCE TRAINING.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Labor, shall award grants to community colleges,
other institutions of higher education, and other qualified
training and education institutions for the establishment or
expansion of programs to provide training and education for
vocational workforce development for--
(1) the manufacture and maintenance of alternative fueled
vehicles; and
(2) the manufacture, installation, support, and inspection
of alternative fuel recharging, refueling, and distribution
infrastructure.
(b) Purpose.--Training funded under this section shall be
intended to ensure that the workforce has the necessary
skills needed to manufacture, install, and maintain
alternative fuel infrastructure and alternative fueled
vehicles.
(c) Scope.--Training funded under this section shall
include training for--
(1) electricians, plumbers, pipefitters, and other trades
and contractors who will be installing, maintaining, or
providing safety support for alternative fuel recharging,
refueling, and distribution infrastructure;
(2) building code inspection officials;
(3) vehicle, engine, and powertrain dealers and mechanics;
and
(4) others positions as the Secretary determines necessary
to successfully deploy alternative fuels and vehicles.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.

SEC. 8. REDUCTION OF ENGINE IDLING AND CONVENTIONAL FUEL
CONSUMPTION.

(a) Definition of Idle Reduction Technology.--Section
756(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16104(a))
is amended by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the
following:
``(5) Idle reduction technology.--The term `idle reduction
technology' means an advanced truck stop electrification
system, auxiliary power unit, or other technology that--
``(A)(i) is used to reduce long-duration idling; and
``(ii) allows for the main drive engine or auxiliary
refrigeration engine to be shut down; or
``(B) uses an alternative fuel to reduce consumption of
conventional fuel and environmental emissions.''.
(b) Funding.--Section 756(b)(4)(B) of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16104(b)(4)(B)) is amended in clauses (i)
and (ii) by striking ``fiscal year 2008'' each place it
appears and inserting ``each of fiscal years 2008 through
2018''.

SEC. 9. ELECTRIC, HYDROGEN, AND NATURAL GAS UTILITY AND OIL
PIPELINE PARTICIPATION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall identify barriers and
remedies in existing electric and natural gas and oil
pipeline transmission and distribution systems to the
distribution of alternative fuels and the deployment of
alternative fuel recharging and refueling capability, at
economically competitive costs of alternative fuel for
consumers, including--
(1) model regulatory rate design and billing for recharging
and refueling alternative fueled vehicles;
(2) electric grid load management and applications that
will allow batteries in plug-in electric drive vehicles to be
used for grid storage, ancillary services provision, and
backup power;
(3) integration of plug-in electric drive vehicles with
smart grid technology, including protocols and standards,
necessary equipment, and information technology systems;

[[Page S5272]]

(4) technical and economic barriers to transshipment of
biofuels by oil pipelines, or distribution of hydrogen; and
(5) any other barriers to installing sufficient and
appropriate alternative fuel recharging and refueling
infrastructure.
(b) Consultation.--The Secretary shall carry out this
section in consultation with--
(1) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
(2) State public utility commissions;
(3) State consumer advocates;
(4) electric and natural gas utility and transmission
owners and operators;
(5) oil pipeline owners and operators;
(6) hydrogen suppliers; and
(7) other affected entities.
(c) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing actions taken to carry out this section.

SEC. 10. FEDERAL FLEETS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary (in consultation with the
Administrator of General Services, the Secretary of Defense,
the Postmaster General, and the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget) shall establish an interagency
coordination council for the development and procurement of
alternative fueled vehicles by Federal agencies.
(b) Electricity and Natural Gas.--Electricity and natural
gas consumed by Federal agencies to fuel alternative fueled
vehicles shall be--
(1) considered an alternative fuel; and
(2) accounted for under Federal fleet management reporting
requirements, rather than under Federal building management
reporting requirements.
(c) Assessment and Report.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary (in
consultation with the Administrator of General Services, the
Secretary of Defense, the Postmaster General, and the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget) shall
complete an assessment of Federal Government fleets
(including the United States Postal Service and the
Department of Defense) and submit to Congress a report that
describes--
(1) for each Federal agency with a fleet of more than 200
vehicles, which types of vehicles the agency uses that would
or would not be suitable for alternative fuel use either
through the procurement of new alternative fueled vehicles,
or the conversion to alternative fuel, taking into account
the types of vehicles for which alternative fuel could
provide comparable functionality and lifecycle costs;
(2) the quantity of alternative fueled vehicles that could
be deployed by the Federal Government in 5 years and in 10
years, assuming that the vehicles are available and are
purchased when new vehicles are needed or existing vehicles
are replaced; and
(3) the estimated cost and benefits to the Federal
Government for vehicle purchases or conversions described in
this subsection.

SEC. 11. HOV LANE ACCESS EXTENSION.

Section 166(b)(5) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Before September 30,
2017, the State'' and inserting ``The State''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``Before September 30,
2017, the State'' and inserting ``The State''.
______

By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Kirk, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Klobuchar,
Mr. Brown, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Franken, Mr. Schumer, and Ms.
Baldwin):
S. 1232. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
protect and restore the Great Lakes; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Great Lakes are a magnificent resource
and unique in the world. These water bodies, formed during the last ten
thousand years, are the largest source of surface freshwater on the
planet. The lakes shaped how people settled and secured resources for
their survival. Native Americans, French explorers, early European
settlers, immigrants flocking to new industrial cities, along with the
current populations of today all rely on the lakes for their survival--
providing food and drinking water, transportation, power, recreation,
and magnificent beauty. However, the vast resources the Great Lakes
provide must not be taken for granted. We must do all we can to protect
these waters and clean up the areas that have been harmed by toxic
contaminants, polluted runoff, untreated wastewater, and destructive
invasive species. That is why as co-chairs of the Senate Great Lakes
Task Force, Senator Kirk and I, along with several of our colleagues,
are introducing today the Great Lakes Ecological and Economic
Protection Act of 2013, or GLEEPA.
This bill builds upon the work of a multitude of stakeholders--
environmental organizations, business associations, tribal governments,
community leaders, and Federal, State and local officials--who worked
together to craft the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy, a
2005 plan to guide restoration and protection for the Great Lakes. The
legislation we are introducing today would formally authorize the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative, GLRI, an inter-agency program designed to
implement the plan articulated in the Collaboration Strategy. The GLRI
is an action-oriented, results-driven initiative targeting the most
significant problems in the Great Lakes, including aquatic invasive
species, toxics and contaminated sediment, nonpoint source pollution,
and habitat and wildlife protection and restoration. While broadly
authorized under the Clean Water Act, the GLRI should be specifically
authorized in law to clarify its purpose and objectives and to
demonstrate support from Congress. Since the GLRI was launched in
fiscal year 2010 with $475 million in funding, real progress has been
made to restore the health of the Great Lakes: More than a million
cubic yards of contaminated sediments have been cleaned up. More than
20,000 acres of wetland, coastal, upland and island habitat have been
restored or enhanced. New technologies are being developed to combat
the sea lamprey. Asian carp have been prevented from establishing a
sustaining population in the Great Lakes. Hundreds of river miles have
been restored to enable free fish passage from the Great Lakes to their
spawning grounds. Reduction of nutrient loading from agriculture runoff
has lessened occurrences of harmful algal blooms.
In addition to authorization of the GLRI, this legislation would
reauthorize two existing programs: the Great Lakes Legacy program,
which supports the removal of contaminated sediments at more than
thirty Areas of Concern, AOCs, across the Great Lakes; and the Great
Lakes National Program Office, which handles Great Lakes matters for
the EPA.
The health and vitality of the Great Lakes not only provide immense
public health and environmental benefits, but they are also critical to
the economic health of the region. For example, in Muskegon Lake, which
is directly connected to Lake Michigan, cleanup of 430,000 cubic yards
of sediment contaminated with mercury and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, or PAHs, also provided jobs to barge and dredge
operators, truck drivers, biologists, chemists, toxicologists, and
general laborers. The cleanup will help lift fish consumption
advisories and restore fish habitat, which is vital to this area that
is a popular fishing and boating destination. Reports find a two to
three dollar return for every dollar invested in cleanup and
restoration activity. And preventing future damage to the lakes--from
aquatic invasive species for example--could easily save the public
hundreds of millions of dollars in future expenditures. With a $7
billion fishery, $16 billion in annual expenditures related to
recreational boating, and about 37 million hunters, anglers and bird
watchers enjoying the Great Lakes each year, we cannot afford to not
protect and restore this precious resource.
The legislation we are introducing today includes important
safeguards to ensure that tax dollars are wisely spent on activities
that actually achieve results. Projects are directed to be selected so
that they achieve strategic and measurable outcomes and which can be
promptly implemented through leveraging additional non-Federal
resources. The bill would also authorize an inter-agency task force to
coordinate Federal resources in a way that most efficiently uses
taxpayer funds, focusing on measurable outcomes such as cleaner water,
improved public health, and sustainable fisheries in the Great Lakes.
Finally, State and local officials, tribal governments, business
organizations, environmental organizations, and other stakeholders need
an avenue to communicate on matters pertaining to Great Lakes
restoration. Recently, the EPA created a board that advises the EPA and
other Federal agencies on Great Lakes cleanup and protection
activities. This bill would make the advisory board permanent to ensure
that the many voices across the Great Lakes region can have a direct
conduit to the Federal Government.
The Great Lakes are home to more than 3,500 species of plants and
animals and support 1.5 million direct jobs, $62 billion in wages and a
$7 billion fishery. This legislation is needed to address

[[Page S5273]]

the threat of invasive species such as Asian carp, polluted runoff that
can harm aquatic and public health, toxic sediments, and harmful algal
blooms that kill fish, foul coastlines, and threaten public health. The
legislation will also help the United States implement its commitment
to the bi-national 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. We hope
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will promptly act
on this important legislation, as it did in 2010 when it approved
similar legislation.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell,
Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr. Casey, Mr. Coons, Mr. Cowan, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Franken, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Heinrich,
Ms. Hirono, Mr. Kaine, Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Levin, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Mikulski,
Mr. Murphy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Schatz, Mr.
Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr.
Udall of New Mexico, Ms. Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr.
Wyden):
S. 1236. A bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure
respect for State regulation of marriage; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the
Respect for Marriage Act.
Today is an historic day. The Supreme Court issued two decisions that
are major victories for the cause of equality for same-sex couples in
this nation.
In United States v. Windsor, the Court struck down Section 3 of the
Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which denies the federal benefits and
obligations of marriage to legally married same-sex couples. I was one
of 14 members of this body to vote against DOMA in 1996, and I am
pleased a major part of the law has been declared unconstitutional.
In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court left in place a trial court
injunction finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional--which will bring
marriage equality back to my home State of California.
I am thrilled by these decisions, which will mean a great deal for
same-sex couples in California and across the Nation.
Our work, however, is not done. It remains critical that Congress act
to fully repeal DOMA. That is what the Respect for Marriage Act will
do.
This legislation is cosponsored by 40 members of the Senate--Senators
Baldwin, Baucus, Bennet, Blumenthal, Boxer, Brown, Cantwell, Cardin,
Carper, Casey, Coons, Cowan, Durbin, Franken, Gillibrand, Harkin,
Heinrich, Hirono, Kaine, King, Klobuchar, Leahy, Levin, McCaskill,
Menendez, Merkley, Mikulski, Murphy, Murray, Reed, Sanders, Schatz,
Schumer, Shaheen, Stabenow, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, Warren, Whitehouse,
and Wyden.
I want to thank them for their strong support of this legislation. I
would also like to thank Representative Jerry Nadler for his staunch
leadership on this issue in the House of Representatives.
Today, 12 States: Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia allow same-sex
couples to marry.
Because of today's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which left, in
effect, a trial court order finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional, my
home State of California will soon once again recognize the freedom to
marry for same-sex couples. I am thrilled about that result.
According to the 2010 Census, there are over 131,000 same-sex married
couples in this Nation--a number that is sure to grow.
I think most Americans have come to recognize that same-sex couples
live their lives like other married couples. They raise children
together. They care for each other in good times and in bad. They take
the same vows and make the same commitments as straight couples.
Simply put, they are families. Like other families, they reap life's
joys and bear the brunt of life's hardships together.
Until the Supreme Court's decision today in United States v. Windsor,
DOMA turned these families into second-class families.
Under over 1,100 Federal laws, DOMA prohibited the Federal Government
from recognizing the equal dignity and commitment of legally married
same-sex couples.
These couples were barred from filing joint tax returns, forced to
pay much higher taxes on employer-provided health benefits, and
stripped of protections for married couples from the estate tax.
They could not receive Social Security survivor benefits, which
protect a surviving spouse from becoming destitute when the other
spouse passes away.
Critical protections and benefits for service members and veterans
were also denied. According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense
Network, well over 100 statutory protections granted by Congress to
servicemembers turn on marital status.
Today's decision in United States v. Windsor is a major victory for
equality. It says that Section 3 of DOMA--which denies Federal
recognition to legally married same-sex couples--is unconstitutional
because it is a denial of equal protection.
The Windsor case had to do with two women--Edie Windsor and Thea
Spyer--who met in 1963 and were together for over 40 years. They
married in 2007. Yet when Thea died in 2009, Edie was forced to pay
over $360,000 in estate taxes because of DOMA. Had her spouse been a
man, Edie would not have had to pay those taxes.
Even after the Court decision, which hinged on a bare 5-4 majority,
the Respect for Marriage Act remains critically important legislation,
for several reasons.
First, DOMA is a discriminatory law--all of it should be fully
stricken from the books. It was wrong when it was passed, and it should
be repealed.
Second, even after the Windsor decision, there will remain
inconsistencies in how certain Federal programs are administered.
For example, the Social Security Act provides Survivors' Benefits--
which are critical for families after a spouse dies--based on the law
of the state where the deceased spouse was domiciled at the time of
death.
So, a married couple could live together for 40 years, contribute
equally to the system, and then be stripped of what they have earned--
just because they moved to another state for medical reasons before one
spouse passed. That's just not right.
Veterans benefits are based on the law of the state where the parties
resided at the time of the marriage, or when the right to benefits
accrued.
So, different veterans benefits might be granted or denied, depending
on where a couple lived at different times, without any rhyme or
reason. That is not fair to former servicemembers who may have moved
around as part of their military service.
This bill is simple. It would strike all of DOMA, a discriminatory
law, from the U.S. Code.
It would provide a clear rule that the Federal Government would
recognize a marriage if that marriage is valid in the State where it
was entered into.
This rule will provide clarity and predictability for legally married
same-sex couples, and it will be easy to administer for federal
agencies tasked with ending DOMA in the programs they administer.
The bill would not require any state to issue a marriage license it
does not wish to issue, nor would it require any religious institution
to perform any marriage.
In 2011, after I first introduced this bill, I gave a press
conference about it at the National Press Club. I said I was not faint-
hearted about this, and that I was in it for the long march.
Today, I remain committed to that cause and determined to see it
through. Our work is not finished until DOMA is fully off the books,
which is what this bill will do.

[[Page S5274]]

____________________