[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10516-10524]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 10517]]

     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.
       ``(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)).

[[Page 10518]]

       ``(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

       ``(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

       ``(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. 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--

       ``(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.''.

     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:

[[Page 10519]]



     ``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 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

[[Page 10520]]

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 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,

[[Page 10521]]

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
       (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;

[[Page 10522]]

       (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;
       (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

[[Page 10523]]

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 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.

[[Page 10524]]

  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.

                          ____________________