Alternative Fueled Vehicles Competitiveness and Energy Security Act of 2013

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.