[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 78 (Tuesday, June 20, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5460-S5467]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BENNETT (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 2754. A bill to provide for the exchange of certain land in the 
State of Utah; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


               utah west desert land exchange act of 2000

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Utah West 
Desert Land Exchange Act of 2000. I am pleased that my friend and 
colleague, Senator Hatch, joins me in introducing this important 
legislation.
  The Utah Enabling Act of 1894 granted to the state four sections, 
each section approximately 640 acres in size, in each 36 square-mile 
township. These lands were granted for the support of the public 
schools, and accordingly are referred to as school trust lands. The 
location of these lands, as they are not contiguous to each other, has 
made management by the state difficult. In addition, as school trust 
lands are interspersed with Federal lands, Federal land designations, 
such as wilderness study area, have further complicated the state's 
ability to manage its lands.
  The Utah West Desert Land Exchange Act of 2000 seeks to resolve these 
problems through an equal-value, equal-acreage land exchange between 
the state of Utah and the Federal Government. The lands that will be 
exchanged are located within the West Desert region of Utah. Each party 
will exchange approximately 106,000 acres. The Federal government will 
receive state lands located within wilderness study areas, lands 
identified as having wilderness characteristics in the Bureau of Land 
Management's Utah Wilderness Inventory, and lands identified for 
acquisition in the Washington County Habitat Conservation Plan. The 
state will receive federal lands that are more appropriate to carry out 
its mandate to generate revenue for Utah's public schools.
  I would like to address two issues some have raised about this land 
exchange. The first issue is regarding land valuation. Both the state 
of Utah and the Department of the Interior firmly believe that this 
exchange is approximately equivalent in value. The parties have reached 
this conclusion after many months of thorough research and evaluation 
of the parcels to be exchanged. The process of research and evaluation 
included review of comparable sales, mineral potential, access, and 
topography. One may ask why each parcel of land was not appraised 
individually. The answer is that for many of the 175 state parcels it 
would have cost more to have appraised those lands than their agreed 
upon value. Please note that the average value of the school trust 
lands outside of Washington County is $85 per-acre; if each individual 
parcel was required to be formally appraised the high appraisal costs 
would place this land exchange, and all of its benefits, in jeopardy. 
Nevertheless both the state of Utah and the Department of the Interior 
have maintained their fiduciary responsibility by putting together a 
package that is equal, in both value and acreage.

[[Page S5461]]

  The second issue that has been raised is in regard to the LaVerkin 
tract. Governor Leavitt, in his testimony before the United States 
House of Representatives Committee on Resources, stated: ``I want to 
assure you the state of Utah will be sensitive to local needs as this 
tract is developed, and will comply with, and participate in, local 
planning and zoning decisions. Also, you can be assured the scenic 
views at the entrance to Zion National Park will be protected to the 
maximum extent practicable,'' It is my hope that this commitment made 
by Governor Levitt will satisfy those concerned by the exchange of the 
LaVerkin tract.
  The Utah West Desert Land Exchange Act of 2000 is the result of over 
12 months of negotiations between the state of Utah and the Department 
of the Interior. For too long the school trust lands in the West Desert 
have been held captive by neighboring federal lands, unable to produce 
the revenue that are legally required to for Utah's schools. This bill 
provides that Congress with an opportunity to reduce the state of 
Utah's holdings in Federal wilderness study areas and other sensitive 
areas while increasing lands that are more suitable for long-term 
economic development to the state of Utah for its school children. 
Additionally, the Federal Government will consolidate its ownership in 
the existing wilderness study area, which will allow for more 
consistent management. This bill is a win-win proposal, and the right 
thing to do. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this 
legislation in the remaining months of the session.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to announce my support for the 
West Desert Wilderness Land Exchange Act, introduced by my good friend 
and colleague, Senator Robert Bennett. This is a proposal of importance 
to the citizens of my home state of Utah and to all Americans.
  Utah is the home to some of the most environmentally diverse lands in 
the nation. These lands contain environmentally significant plants, 
animals, geology, and many priceless archaeological sites.
  This legislation will transfer 106,000 acres of state school trust 
lands that are currently held within Wilderness Study Areas to areas 
where they may better benefit Utah schools. School trust lands are 
intended to raise revenue for Utah's schools. The economic benefits of 
these lands are vital to Utah schools and their funding. Trapped within 
Wilderness Study Areas, these lands have not been able to be developed, 
and Utah's school children have been left holding the short end of the 
stick. This proposal will allow for a land swap between the Department 
of the Interior and the State of Utah, and both parties have given 
their blessing to this proposal.
  The lands that will be given to the Department of the Interior are 
home to a variety of endangered and threatened species of plants and 
animals. A few of these are: the desert tortoise, the chuckawalla, 
purple-spined hedgehog cactus, and the golden and bald eagles. These 
lands also contain some of the most magnificent vistas in the western 
United States with views of Zions National Park, Elephant Butte, and 
the Deep Creek Mountains. This land exchange will preserve the 
unparalleled landscapes characteristic of Utah.
  The Utah State School Lands Trust was established at the time Utah 
became a state with lands deeded to the trust by the federal government 
for the purpose of creating a reliable source of income to support our 
state's educational system. Every student in Utah benefits from the 
resources made available by the school trust lands. It is a critical 
source of support for Utah education.
  This proposal, therefore, has the backing of all major Utah 
educational organizations, including the Utah PTA and Utah Education 
Association. This land exchange will unlock our school trust lands for 
the long-term benefit of Utah's school children. And, quite frankly, we 
will never be able to designate more wilderness in Utah without 
protecting the integrity of our Utah State School Lands Trust.
  This is one proposal where everyone benefits--our schools as well as 
our environmental interests. It is a logical proposal; it is a fair 
proposal. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look 
forward to working with them on this important piece of legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 2755. A bill to further continued economic viability in the 
communities on the southern High Plains by promoting sustainable 
groundwater management of the southern Ogallala Aquifer; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


     the southern high plains groundwater resource conservation act

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
which will bring focus to an issue that concerns the long-term economic 
viability of communities in much of America's heartland: the southern 
High Plains stretching from the middle of Kansas through Oklahoma and 
the Texas Panhandle and including eastern portions of the State of 
Colorado, and the eastern counties of my home state of New Mexico. This 
is farm country, and the cornerstone of its economy is its groundwater 
supply, the Ogallala aquifer, which allows for irrigated agriculture.
  The Natural Resource & Conservation Service estimates that there are 
over six million acres of irrigated farmland overlying the southern 
Ogallala. These farms use between six and nine million acre-feet of 
water each year. The problem is that current use of the aquifer is not 
sustainable, and it is being depleted rapidly.
  As shown on this U.S. Geological Survey Map, the High Plains Aquifer, 
which is mostly the Ogallala Aquifer, starts in South Dakota, 
encompasses most of Nebraska and parts of Wyoming, and then continues 
down into the southern High Plains.
  This next chart shows the change in water levels in the aquifer over 
a seventeen year period from 1980 to 1997. As shown by the gray and 
blue markings on this map, the northern portion of this aquifer is in 
pretty good shape. The rate of water recharge from rainfall and 
irrigation water from the Platte River, for the most part matches or is 
greater than the rate of water depletions.
  However, the story is quite different in the southern High Plains. In 
just the 17 years characterized on this map, we have seen large areas 
of the southern aquifer experience a 10 to 20 foot drop in their water 
table. That is shown in the dark orange areas on the map. More alarming 
is that for an almost equal area, as depicted in red on the map, the 
drop in the water table has been 40 feet or greater.
  These changes in the level of the water table mean that it takes more 
wells at a greater pumping cost to produce the same amount of water, 
and that's if the wells don't go completely dry. This raises the 
serious question about the viability of continued farming on the 
southern High Plains. However, while irrigated agriculture uses the 
lion's share of the water, farm viability is only part of the economic 
story. This aquifer is also the primary source for municipal water on 
the southern High Plains. Diminishing productivity from municipal wells 
and the increased cost of pumping can place huge strains on local and 
county resources.
  The insecurity of groundwater resources on the southern High Plains 
is a multi-state issue with significant economic and social 
consequences for America as a nation. We must act now to help steer the 
communities on the southern High Plains toward a sustainable use of the 
Ogallala aquifer. Ignoring the problem and allowing continuing uses to 
go unabated invites tremendous economic dislocation for a large section 
of our country.
  To address this issue I am introducing the Southern High Plains 
Groundwater Resource Conservation Act. This bill creates three levels 
of approach to the problem.
  First, it recognizes that to guide government decision makers and 
private investors, accurate, up-to-date, scientific information about 
the groundwater resources in their area is necessary. Therefore it 
calls upon the United States Geological Survey to initiate a 
comprehensive hydrogeologic mapping, modeling, and monitoring program 
for the Southern Ogallala, to provide a report to Congress and to the 
relevant states with maps and information on a county by county basis, 
and to renew and update that report every year.

[[Page S5462]]

  Second, it acknowledges that an effective water conservation plan can 
only be measured against a multi-year goal. Also, modeling by the 
U.S.G.S. indicates that groundwater conservation is not economically 
effective if implemented on a small scale basis. Measures must be 
implemented over a sufficiently large area in order to see a long-term 
groundwater savings, and return on the investment in conservation. To 
ensure groundwater savings over an appropriate area, this bill would 
authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide planning assistance, 
on a cost-share basis, to states, tribes, counties, conservation 
districts, or other local government units to create water conservation 
plans designed to benefit their groundwater resource over at least 20 
years.
  Finally, if the Secretary certifies that such a plan is in place, 
this bill would provide two primary forms of assistance for groundwater 
conservation on individual farms. They are a cost-share assistance 
program to upgrade the water use efficiency of farming equipment, and 
the creation of an ``Irrigated Land Reserve.''
  The cost-share program is based on the knowledge that, while 
significant water savings could be made from moving farms from 
historical row or center-pivot irrigation to more modern techniques, 
the upfront cost is often prohibitive to family farmers. However, 
estimates by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the High 
Plains Underground Water Conservation District in Lubbock, Texas, are 
that an initial $20,000 in Federal investment in equipment on a cost-
share basis would save between 325 to nearly 490 acre-feet of water 
over a ten year period. A bargain price, considering water prices on 
the West.
  The Irrigated Land Reserve in this bill, is designed to convert 10 
percent, or approximately 600,000 acres, of the irrigated farmland on 
the southern High Plains to dryland agriculture. Dryland agriculture, 
obviously, is less productive than irrigation. So this bill would 
provide for a rental rate to farmers to ease the economic impact of 
changing over. It is estimated that when fully implemented this program 
would save between 600,000 and 900,000 acre-feet of water per year at a 
cost of $33 to $50 per acre-foot.
  These two programs, the cost-share program for water conservation, 
and enrollment in an Irrigated Land Reserve are completely voluntary. 
However, from the interest I have received in discussions with farmers 
on the southern High Plains, I expect that there will be no shortage of 
participants.
  The program outlined in this bill would cost $70 million per year if 
fully implemented. Given the opportunity to move the southern High 
Plains communities to a sustainable use of their groundwater without 
massive dislocations in their economy, I think it will be an investment 
worth making.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2755

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Southern High Plains 
     Groundwater Resource Conservation Act.''

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress Finds that--
       (1) A reliable source of groundwater is an essential 
     element of the economy of the communities on the High Plains.
       (2) The High Plains Aquifer and the Ogallala Aquifer are 
     closely related hydrogeographic structures. The High Plains 
     Aquifer consists largely of the Ogallala Aquifer with small 
     components of other geologic units.
       (3) The High Plains Aquifer experienced a dramatic decline 
     in water table levels in the latter half of the twentieth 
     century. The Average weighted decline in the aquifer from 
     1950 to 1997 was 12.6 feet (USGS Fact Sheet 124-99, Dec. 
     1999).
       (4) The decline in water table levels is especially 
     pronounced in the Southern Ogallala Aquifer, reporting that 
     large areas in the states of Kansas, New Mexico, and Texas 
     experienced declines of over 100 feet in that period (USGS 
     Fact Sheet 124-99, Dec. 1999).
       (5) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has 
     declined by over 50% in some areas (1186 USGS Circular 27, 
     1999). Furthermore, the Survey has reported that the 
     percentage of the High Plains Aquifer which has a saturated 
     thickness of 100 feet or more declined from 54 percent to 51 
     percent in the period from 1980 to 1997 (USGS Fact Sheet 124-
     99, Dec. 1999).
       (6) The decreased water levels in the High Plains Aquifer 
     coupled with higher pumping lift costs raise concerns about 
     the long-term sustainability of irrigated agriculture in the 
     High Plains. (``External Effects of Irrigators' Pumping 
     Decisions, High Plains Aquifer,'' Alley and Schefter, 
     American Geophysical Union paper #7W0326; Water Resources 
     Research, Vol. 23, No. 7 1123-1130, July 1987).
       (7) Hydrological modeling by the United States Geological 
     Survey indicates that in the context of sustained high 
     groundwater use in the surrounding region, reductions in 
     groundwater pumping at the single farm level or at a very 
     local level of up to 100 square miles, have a very time 
     limited impact on conserving the level of the local water 
     table, thus creating a disincentive for individual water 
     users to invest in water conservation measures. (``External 
     Effects of Irrigators' Pumping Decisions, High Plains 
     Aquifer,'' Alley and Schefter, American Geophysical Union, 
     paper #7W0326; Water Resources Research, Vol. 23, No. 7 1123-
     1130, July 1987).
       (8) Incentives must be created for conservation of 
     groundwater on a regional scale, in order to achieve an 
     agricultural economy on the Southern High Plains that is 
     sustainable.
       (9) For water conservation incentives to function, federal, 
     state, tribal, and local water policy makers, and individual 
     groundwater users must have access to reliable information 
     concerning aquifer recharge rates, extraction rates, and 
     water table levels at the local and regional levels on an 
     ongoing basis.
       (b) Purposes.--To promote groundwater conservation on the 
     Southern High Plains in order to extend the usable life of 
     the Southern Ogallala Aquifer.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (a) High Plains Aqifer:--The term ``High Plains Aquifer'' 
     is the groundwater reserve depicted as Figure 1 in the United 
     States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1400-B, titled 
     Geohydrology of the High Plains Aquifer in Parts of Colorado, 
     Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, 
     and Wyoming.
       (b) High Plains.--The term ``High Plains'' refers to the 
     approximately 174,000 square miles of land surface overlying 
     the High Plains Aquifer in the states of New Mexico, 
     Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, 
     and Texas.
       (c) Southern Ogallala Aquifer.--The term ``Southern 
     Ogallala Aquifer'' refers to that part of the High Plains 
     Aquifer lying below 39 degrees north latitude which underlies 
     the states of New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma, Colorado, and 
     Kansas.
       (d) Southern High Plans--The term ``Southern High Plains'' 
     refers to the portions of the states of New Mexico, Texas, 
     and Oklahoma, Colorado, and Kansas which overlie the Southern 
     Ogallala Aquifer.
       (e) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' refers to either the 
     secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture as 
     appropriate.
       (f) The term ``water conservation measures'' includes 
     measures which enhance the groundwater recharge rate of a 
     given piece of land, or which increase water use 
     efficiencies.

     SEC. 4. HYDROLOGIC MAPPING, MODELING, AND MONITORING.

       (a) The Secretary of the Interior, working though the 
     United States Geological Survey, shall develop a 
     comprehensive hydrogeologic mapping, modeling, and monitoring 
     program for the Southern Ogallala Aquifer. The program shall 
     include on a county-by-county basis--
       (1) A map of the hydrological configuration of the Aquifer; 
     and
       (2) An analysis of:
       (A) the current and past rate at which groundwater is being 
     withdrawn and recharged, and the net rate of decrease or 
     increase in aquifer storage;
       (B) the factors controlling the rate of horizontal 
     migration of water within the Aquifer;
       (C) the degree to which aquifer compaction caused by 
     pumping and recharge methods in impacting the storage and 
     recharge capacity of the groundwater body; and
       (D) the current and past rate of loss of saturated 
     thickness within the Aquifer.
       (b) Annual Report.--One year after the enactment of this 
     Act, and once per year thereafter, the Secretary shall submit 
     a report on the status of the Southern Ogallala Aquifer to 
     the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to the 
     House Committee on Resources, and to the Governors of the 
     States of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, and Kansas.

     SEC. 5. GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Federal Assistance.--The Secretary of Agriculture, 
     working through the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
     is hereby authorized and directed to establish a groundwater 
     conservation assistance program for Southern Ogallala 
     Aquifer.
       (b) Design and Planning.--The Secretary shall provide 
     financial and technical assistance, including modeling and 
     engineering design to states, tribes, and counties, 
     conservation districts, or other political subdivisions 
     recognized under state law, for the development of 
     comprehensive groundwater conservation plans within the 
     Southern High Plains. This assistance shall be provided on a 
     cost share basis ensuring that:

[[Page S5463]]

       (1) The federal funding for the development of any given 
     plan shall not exceed fifty percent of the cost; and
       (2) The federal funding for groundwater water conservation 
     planning for any one county, conservation district, or 
     similar political subdivision recognized under state law 
     shall not exceed $50,000.
       (c) Certification.--The Secretary shall create a 
     certification process for comprehensive groundwater 
     conservation plans developed under this program, or developed 
     independently by states, tribes, counties, or other political 
     subdivisions recognized under state law. To be certified, a 
     plan must:
       (1) Cover a sufficient geographic area to provide a benefit 
     to the groundwater resource over at least a 20 year time 
     scale; and
       (2) Include a set of goals for water conservation; and
       (3) Include a process for an annual evaluation of the 
     plan's implementation to allow for modifications if goals are 
     not being met.

     SEC. 6. IMPLEMENTATION ASSISTANCE.

       Farming operations within jurisdictions which have a 
     certified conservation plan in accordance with subsection 
     (5)(c) of this title shall be eligible for:
       (a) Water Conservation Cost-Share Assistance.--The 
     Secretary, working through the Natural Resources Conservation 
     Service, may provide grants to individual farming operations 
     of up to $50,000 for implementing on farm water conservation 
     measures including the improvement of irrigation systems and 
     the purchase of new equipment: Provided, that the Federal 
     share of the water conservation investment in any one 
     operation be no greater than 50%: Provided further, that each 
     water conservation measure be in accordance with a 
     conservation plan certified under section 5(c) of this title.
       (b) Irrigated Land Reserve.--Through the 2020 calendar 
     year, the Secretary shall formulate and carry out the 
     enrollment of lands in a groundwater conservation reserve 
     program through the use of multiple year contracts for 
     irrigated lands which would result in significant per acre 
     savings of groundwater resources if converted to dryland 
     agriculture.
       (c) Conservation Reserve Program Enhancement.--Lands 
     eligible for the Conservation Reserve Program established 
     under 16 U.S.C. 3831 which would result in significant per 
     acre savings of groundwater resources if removed from 
     agricultural production shall be awarded 20 Conservation 
     Reserve Program bid points, to be designated as groundwater 
     conservation points, in addition to any other ratings the 
     lands may receive.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     $70,000,000 annually through the fiscal year 2020 to carry 
     out this Act. Of that total amount:
       (1) There are authorized to be appropriated $5 million 
     annually through the fiscal year 2020 for hydrogeologic 
     mapping, modeling, and monitoring under this Act;
       (2) There are authorized to be appropriated $5 million 
     annually through fiscal year 2020 for groundwater 
     conservation planning, design, and plan certification under 
     this Act;
       (3) There are authorized to be appropriated $30 million 
     annually through fiscal year 2020 for cost-share assistance 
     for on farm water conservation measures; and
       (4) There are authorized to be appropriated $30 million 
     annually through fiscal year 2020 for enrollment of lands in 
     an Irrigated Lands Reserve.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBB:
  S. 2756. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
establish a National Clean Water Trust Fund and to authorize the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to use amounts in 
the Fund to carry out projects to promote the recovery of waters of the 
United States from damage resulting from violations of that Act, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


            THE NATIONAL CLEAN WATER TRUST FUND ACT 0F 2000

 Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm introducing a bill that will help 
clean up and restore our nation's waters. This bill, The National Clean 
Water Trust Fund Act of 2000, creates a trust fund from fines, 
penalties and other monies collected through enforcement of the Clean 
Water Act. The money deposited into the National Clean Water Trust Fund 
would be used to address the pollution problems that initiated those 
enforcement actions.
  A highly publicized case in Virginia illustrated the need for this 
legislation. On August 8 1997, U.S. District Court Judge Rebecca Smith 
issued a $12.6 million judgement against Smithfield Foods for polluting 
the Pagan River in Isle of Wight County, Virginia. The judge stated in 
her opinion that the civil penalty imposed on Smithfield should be 
directed toward the restoration of the Pagan and James Rivers, 
tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay. Unfortunately, due to current 
federal law, the court had no discretion over the damages, and the fine 
was deposited into the Treasury's general fund, defeating the very 
spirit of the Clean Water Act.
  Today, there is no guarantee that fines or other money levied against 
parties who violate provisions in the Clean Water Act will be used to 
correct short and long term damage from water pollution. Instead the 
money is directed into the fund of the U.S. Treasury with no provision 
that it be used to improve the quality of our water. Pollution from 
spills or illegal discharges can have a profound effect on our 
environment and can degrade our public water supplies, and recreational 
areas. Water pollution causes long term damage to fish and shellfish 
habitat and destroys the livelihood of watermen, and leads to the long 
term degradation of scenic areas. While the Environmental Protection 
Agency's enforcement activities are extracting large sums of money from 
industry and others through enforcement of the Clean Water Act, we are 
missing an opportunity to pay for the cleanup and restoration of 
pollution problems for which the penalties were levied. To ensure the 
successful implementation of the Clean Water Act, we should put these 
enforcement funds to work and actually clean up the nation's waters.
  This legislation will establish a National Clean Water Trust Fund 
within the U.S. Treasury to earmark fines, penalties, and other funds, 
including consent decrees, obtained through enforcement of the Clean 
Water Act that would otherwise be placed into the Treasury's general 
fund. The EPA Administrator would be authorized, after consultation 
with the States, to prioritize and carry out projects to restore and 
recover waters of the United States using the funds collected from the 
violations of the Clean Water Act. This legislation would not preempt 
citizen suits or in any way preclude EPA's authority to undertake and 
complete supplemental environmental projects as part of settlements 
related to violations of the Clean Water Act or any other legislation. 
The bill also provides court discretion over civil penalties from Clean 
Water Act violations to be used to carry out mitigation and restoration 
projects. In this bill, EPA is directed to give priority consideration 
to projects in the watershed where the original violation was 
discovered. With this legislation, we can avoid another predicament 
like the one faced in Virginia.
  Mr. President, it only makes sense that fines occurring from 
violations of the Clean Water Act be used to restore the waters that 
were damaged. This bill provides a real opportunity to improve the 
quality of our nation's waters.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2756

       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 ``National Clean Water Trust 
     Fund Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. NATIONAL CLEAN WATER TRUST FUND.

       Section 309 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1319) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) National Clean Water Trust Fund.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury 
     a National Clean Water Trust Fund (referred to in this 
     subsection as the `Fund') consisting of amounts transferred 
     to the Fund under paragraph (2) and amounts credited to the 
     Fund under paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Transfer of amounts.--For fiscal year 2001, and each 
     fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     transfer to the Fund an amount determined by the Secretary to 
     be equal to the total amount deposited in the general fund of 
     the Treasury in the preceding fiscal year from fines, 
     penalties, and other funds obtained through judgments from 
     courts of the United States for enforcement actions conducted 
     under this section and section 505(a)(1), excluding any 
     amounts ordered to be used to carry out mitigation projects 
     under this section or section 505(a).
       ``(3) Investment of amounts.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     invest in interest-bearing obligations of the United States 
     such portion of the Fund as is not, in the Secretary's 
     judgment, required to meet current withdrawals.
       ``(B) Administration.--The obligations shall be acquired 
     and sold and interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or 
     redemption of, the obligations shall be credited to the

[[Page S5464]]

     Fund in accordance with section 9602 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986.
       ``(4) Use of amounts for remedial projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), amounts in 
     the Fund shall be available, as provided in appropriations 
     Acts, to the Administrator to carry out projects to restore 
     and recover waters of the United States from damage resulting 
     from violations of this Act that are subject to enforcement 
     actions under this section or from the discharge of 
     pollutants into the waters of the United States, including--
       ``(i) soil and water conservation projects;
       ``(ii) wetland restoration projects; and
       ``(iii) such other similar projects as the Administrator 
     determines to be appropriate.
       ``(B) Condition for use of funds.--Amounts in the Fund 
     shall be available under subparagraph (A) only for a project 
     conducted in the watershed, or in a watershed adjacent to the 
     watershed, in which a violation of this Act described in 
     subparagraph (A) results in the institution of an enforcement 
     action.
       ``(5) Selection of projects.--
       ``(A) Priority.--In selecting projects to carry out under 
     this subsection, the Administrator shall give priority to a 
     project described in paragraph (4) that is located in the 
     watershed, or in a watershed adjacent to the watershed, in 
     which there occurred a violation under this Act for which an 
     enforcement action was brought that resulted in the payment 
     of any amount into the general fund of the Treasury.
       ``(B) Consultation with states.--In selecting a project to 
     carry out under this section, the Administrator shall consult 
     with the State in which the Administrator is considering 
     carrying out the project.
       ``(C) Allocation of amounts.--In determining an amount to 
     allocate to carry out a project to restore and recover waters 
     of the United States from damage described in paragraph (4), 
     the Administrator shall, in the case of a priority project 
     described in subparagraph (A), take into account the total 
     amount deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as a 
     result of enforcement actions conducted with respect to the 
     violation under this section or section 505(a)(1).
       ``(6) Implementation.--The Administrator may carry out a 
     project under this subsection directly or by making grants 
     to, or entering into contracts with, another Federal agency, 
     a State agency, a political subdivision of a State, or any 
     other public or private entity.
       ``(7) Report to congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection, and every 2 years 
     thereafter, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a 
     report on implementation of this subsection.''.

     SEC. 3. USE OF CIVIL PENALTIES FOR MITIGATION PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 309(d) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1319(d)) is amended by 
     inserting after the second sentence the following: ``The 
     court may order that a civil penalty be used for carrying out 
     mitigation, restoration, or other projects that are 
     consistent with the purposes of this Act and that enhance 
     public health or the environment.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 505(a) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1365(a)) is amended in 
     the last sentence by inserting before the period at the end 
     the following: ``, including ordering the use of a civil 
     penalty for carrying out mitigation, restoration, or other 
     projects in accordance with section 309(d)''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 2757. A bill to provide for the transfer or other disposition of 
certain lands at Melrose Air Force Range, New Mexico, and Yakima 
Training Center, Washington; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


  LAND TRANSFER AND WITHDRAWAL OF CERTAIN LANDS IN MELROSE AIR FORCE 
                           RANGE, NEW MEXICO

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that 
would allow for the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over the 
Melrose Air Force Range in New Mexico and the Yakima Training Center in 
Washington to the appropriate Service in the Defense Department. Both 
of these affected areas are public domain lands under the Department of 
Interior. This legislation simply transfers authority from the 
Department of Interior to the Secretary of the Air Force in the case of 
the Melrose Range and to the Secretary of the Army in the case of the 
Yakima Training Center.
  Transfer and conversion of the lands to real property is proposed in 
lieu of the more customary withdrawal pursuant to the Act of February 
28, 1958. The affected lands are multiple parcels of public domain 
lands within a large block of Military Service acquired real property. 
Enactment on this transfer would provide for simplified management of 
these lands by the respective Defense Department Service.
  Melrose Air Force Range in Roosevelt County, New Mexico, is comprised 
of six parcels of public land, totaling about 6,714 acres. Over 1,118 
acres are utilized as bomb impact zone; the remainder is required as a 
safety buffer. The transfer is needed to provide the Air Force with 
complete control over land uses on the Range. This should serve to 
minimize potential safety concerns, liability of the United States, and 
land use conflicts that could interfere with the training mission.
  The lands have been used as part of the Range since 1957, under lease 
or other arrangement with the State of New Mexico which had ownership 
of the lands at the time. Expansion of the Range was authorized by 
Public Law 89-568, in September 1966. In 1970 and 1973, the Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) acquired the lands through a land exchange with 
the State. During this same period, a land acquisition program to 
enlarge the Range was being conducted by the Air Force through the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers. The BLM exchange was undertaken in aid of that 
effort. In 1975, the U.S. Army Corps, on behalf of the Air Force, 
applied for withdrawal of the lands that the BLM had acquired.
  The lands that would be transferred through enactment of this 
legislation are an integral part of the Range, and continue to be 
suitable for training purposes. These lands will continue to be needed 
for Air Force training for the foreseeable future.
  The second installation affected by this legislation is the Yakima 
Training Center in Kittitas County, Washington. Congress authorized a 
63,000 acre expansion of the existing Center by the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 and the Military 
Construction Appropriations Act of 1992.
  The lands to be transferred at the Center consist of 19 scattered 
small tracts of public lands totaling 6,649 acres within the expansion 
area. The remaining approximately 56,400 acres of real property within 
the expansion have already been acquired by the Army. There are an 
additional 3,090 acres of public domain mineral estate associated with 
the acquired land to be withdrawn from the general mining laws.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, this bill provides for the transfer of 
public domain lands to the Secretaries of the appropriate military 
service to complete the acquisitions at both installations as 
authorized by previous Acts of Congress. The consolidation of these 
lands as real property with the surrounding military acquired lands 
would provide a common management situation for the Military Service. 
This should serve to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of their 
range operations and natural resource management.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation 
be printed in the Record following my statement.
  There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2757

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

     SECTION 1. LAND TRANSFER AND WITHDRAWAL, MELROSE AIR FORCE 
                   RANGE, NEW MEXICO, AND YAKIMA TRAINING CENTER, 
                   WASHINGTON.

       (a) Melrose Air Force Range, New Mexico.--
       (1) Transfer.--Administrative jurisdiction over the surface 
     estate of the following lands is hereby transferred from the 
     Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Air Force:


                       New Mexico Prime Meridian

       T. 1 N., R. 30 E.
       Sec. 2: S\1/2\.
       Sec. 11: All.
       Sec. 20: S\1/2\SE\1/4\.
       Sec. 28: All.
       T. 1 S., R. 30 E.
       Sec. 2: Lots 1-12, S\1/2\.
       Sec. 3: Lots 1-12, S\1/2\.
       Sec. 4: Lots 1-12, S\1/2\.
       Sec. 6: Lots 1 and 2.
       Sec. 9: N\1/2\, N\1/2\S\1/2\.
       Sec. 10: N\1/2\, N\1/2\S\1/2\.
       Sec. 11: N\1/2\, N\1/2\S\1/2\.
       T. 2 N., R. 30 E.
       Sec. 20: E\1/2\SE\1/4\.
       Sec. 21: SW\1/4\, W\1/2\SE\1/4\.
       Sec. 28: W\1/2\E\1/2\, W\1/2\.
       Sec. 29: E\1/2\E\1/2\.
       Sec. 32: E\1/2\E\1/2\.
       Sec. 33: W\1/2\E\1/2\, NW\1/4\, S\1/2\SW\1/4\.
       Aggregating 6,713.90 acres, more or less.
       (2) Status of surface estate.--Upon transfer of the surface 
     estate of the lands described in paragraph (1), the surface 
     estate shall be treated as real property subject to the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 
     U.S.C. 471 et seq.).

[[Page S5465]]

       (3) Withdrawal of mineral estate.--Subject to valid 
     existing rights, the mineral estate of the lands described in 
     paragraph (1) is withdrawn from all forms of appropriation 
     under the public land laws, including the mining laws and the 
     mineral and geothermal leasing laws, but not the Act of July 
     31, 1947 (commonly known as the Materials Act of 1947; 30 
     U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
       (4) Use of mineral materials.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this subsection or the Act of July 31, 1947, the 
     Secretary of the Air Force may use, without application to 
     the Secretary of the Interior, the sand, gravel, or similar 
     mineral material resources on the lands described in 
     paragraph (1), of the type subject to disposition under the 
     Act of July 31, 1947, when the use of such resources is 
     required for construction needs on Melrose Air Force Range, 
     New Mexico.
       (b) Yakima Training Center, Washington.--
       (1) Transfer.--Administrative jurisdiction over the surface 
     estate of the following lands is hereby transferred from the 
     Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Army:


                          Willamette Meridian

       T. 17 N., R. 20 E.
       Sec. 22: S\1/2\.
       Sec. 24: S\1/2\SW\1/4\ and that portion of the E\1/2\ lying 
     south of the Interstate Highway 90 right-of-way.
       Sec. 26: All.
       T. 16 N., R. 21 E.
       Sec. 4: SW\1/4\SW\1/4\.
       Sec. 12: SW\1/4\.
       Sec. 18: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, E\1/2\ and E\1/2\W\1/2\.
       T. 17 N., R. 21 E.
       Sec. 30: Lots 3 and 4.
       Sec. 32: NE\1/4\SE\1/4\.
       T. 16 N., R. 22 E.
       Sec. 2: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, S\1/2\N\1/2\ and S\1/2\.
       Sec. 4: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, S\1/2\N\1/2\ and S\1/2\.
       Sec. 10: All.
       Sec. 14: All.
       Sec. 20: SE\1/4\SW\1/4\.
       Sec. 22: All.
       Sec. 26: N\1/2\.
       Sec. 28: N\1/2\.
       T. 16 N., R. 23 E.
       Sec. 18: Lots 3 and 4, E\1/2\SW\1/4\, W\1/2\SE\1/4\, and 
     that portion of the E\1/2\SE\1/4\ lying westerly of the 
     westerly right-of-way line of Huntzinger Road.
       Sec. 20: That portion of the SW\1/4\ lying westerly of the 
     easterly right-of-way line of the railroad.
       Sec. 30: Lots 1 and 2, NE\1/4\ and E\1/2\NW\1/4\.
       Aggregating 6,640.02 acres.
       (2) Status of surface estate.--Upon transfer of the surface 
     estate of the lands described in paragraph (1), the surface 
     estate shall be treated as real property subject to the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 
     U.S.C 471 et seq.).
       (3) Withdrawal of mineral estate.--Subject to valid 
     existing rights, the mineral estate of the lands described in 
     paragraph (1) and of the following lands are withdrawn from 
     all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, 
     including the mining laws and the geothermal leasing laws, 
     but not the Act of July 31, 1947 (commonly known as the 
     Materials Act of 1947; 30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Mineral 
     Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.):


                          Willamette Meridian

       T. 16 N., R. 20 E.
       Sec. 12: All.
       Sec. 18: Lot 4 and SE\1/4\.
       Sec. 20: S\1/2\.
       T. 16 N., R. 21 E.
       Sec. 4: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, S\1/2\NE\1/2\.
       Sec. 8: All.
       T. 16 N., R. 22 E.
       Sec. 12: All.
       T. 17 N., R. 21 E.
       Sec. 32: S\1/2\SE\1/4\.
       Sec. 34: W\1/2\.
       Aggregating 3,090.80 acres.
       (4) Use of mineral materials.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this subsection or the Act of July 31, 1947, the 
     Secretary of the Army may use, without application to the 
     Secretary of the Interior, the sand, gravel, or similar 
     mineral material resources on the lands described in 
     paragraphs (1) and (3), of the type subject to disposition 
     under the Act of July 31, 1947, when the use of such 
     resources is required for construction needs on the Yakima 
     Training Center, Washington.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Robb, Mr. Conrad, Mr. 
        L. Chafee, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Rockfeller, and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 2758. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs under the Medicare 
Program; to the Committee on Finance.


             the medicare outpatient drug act (the mod act)

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Bryan, Robb, 
Conrad, Chafee, Baucus, Rockefeller, and Lincoln to introduce the 
Medicare Outpatient Drug Act of 2000.
  We are all aware of the fundamental changes in Americans' life 
expectancy throughout the century. When Medicare was created in 1965, 
the average life expectancy for a woman who reached the age of 65 was 
80 and for a man 78 years of age. In 1998, the life expectancy jumped 
to 84 years for a woman and 81 for a man. Projections for the year 2100 
assume that the average life span for an individual who reaches 65 will 
be 94 years for a woman and 91 for a man.
  These statistics paint a clear picture--seniors are living longer and 
to ensure their quality of life, they must have guaranteed access to 
prescription medications. The Republicans say that they want a 
prescription drug benefit. The Democrats say that they want a 
prescription drug benefit. The question facing both parties is this: Do 
they really want a benefit or just an election year bully pulpit? If 
the answer is a benefit, we're here today to help.
  On far too many occasions in the last few years, important 
legislation has been knocked off the tracks by election year, partisan 
train wrecks. We hope that this year can be different. That is why we 
are offering a new Medicare prescription drug benefit--one that we 
believe represents a workable compromise between the Democratic and 
Republican positions.
  Our Proposal--the Medicare Outpatient Drug Act of 2000--is centrist. 
It is bipartisan. It is innovative. And we think it can pass Congress 
this year. I must mention that this effort has been a truly 
collaborative one from start to finish. The MOD Act has several key 
components:
  Universality--access for everyone;
  Consistency--keeps with the important tradition of the Medicare 
program by providing a defined, reliable benefit for all seniors alike. 
A senior in Fargo, North Dakota is assured access to the same defined 
benefit structure as a senior in Miami, Florida;
  Voluntary participation, like Medicare Part B;
  Special protections for low income Americans;
  True stop-loss protection, which ensures seamless insurance without 
gaps in coverage;
  A ramp-up payment system, which decreases beneficiary payments based 
on their increased prescription medication needs; and
  The use of Multiple Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) to administer 
the benefit and promote competition and choice.
  For many years I have spoken about the need to move the Medicare 
program from one based on acute care and illness to one focused on 
prevention and wellness. The Medicare Wellness Act of 2000, of which 
many of my colleague are cosponsors and which ensures seniors access to 
a variety of preventive programs and screenings, represents the first 
piece of this puzzle--The MOD Act represents the second step in my 
three-point plan for accomplishing this goal.
  Prescription drugs are an integral part of health care and must be 
integrated in to the current Medicare system as a defined benefit--not 
as an ``add on.'' It is my understanding that the House Republicans 
have proposed a bill that entrusts the private insurance market to 
provide a prescription drug benefit to seniors. Though, on the surface 
these ideals have appeal and they are initially less expensive or claim 
to be ``more flexible'' than a comprehensive, universal benefit, I find 
myself asking the question: Are there other Medicare benefits that are 
or should be treated in this capacity?
  Let's take the example of physician services, for example, 
anesthesiology services. Would we ask private insurance companies to 
create anesthesiology-only insurance packages? Would beneficiaries 
purchase such policies? Would they be available? What would be the 
result of extricating this benefit from the Medicare program.
  With prescription drugs representing one of the most prevalent 
treatments in health care today--I ask myself, ``Is it wise to look 
toward an approach to providing coverage of prescritpion medication 
which is arguably unworkable in everyother sector of medicine?''
  Leaders in the health insurance industry have stated that ``Lawmakers 
should avoid drug insurance-only coverage, which is unlikely to get off 
the ground and which would be impossible to price affordably.'' The MOD 
Act creates a defined, affordable, consistent prescription drug benefit 
within the Medicare system where it should be.
  The third piece to solving the Medicare puzzle lies in the need to 
give the Medicare program the tools to compete in the current health 
care market

[[Page S5466]]

place. My colleagues and I will soon be introducing a reform bill that 
will have the dual effect of providing significant savings to offset 
the bill that we are introducing today.
  I encourage my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleagues in 
unveiling this important bipartisan legislation. Our proposal to offer 
a prescription drug benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries is sound, 
comprehensive, and workable.
  We are introducing this bill for a very simple reason: the majority 
of Medicare beneficiaries lack meaningful prescription drug coverage, 
and we have an historic opportunity to do something about.
  The inadequacy of the current Medicare benefits package is clear. It 
simply does not make sense for a health insurance program to exclude 
coverage of one of the most critical components of health care.
  In 1996, 90 percent of Medicare beneficiaries had at least one 
chronic condition; drugs are frequently the best way to manage those 
conditions. Why offer hospitalization and physician visits to treat 
high blood pressure, heart problems, and depression, but not one of the 
most effective treatment options?
  Many Medicare beneficiaries are faced with the choice of paying 
extremely high prices at retail outlets--much higher than the prices 
paid by those with coverage--or going without medically necessary 
prescription drug.
  With bipartisan support and unprecedented budget surpluses we can 
give our seniors and those with disabilities another choice: to enroll 
in a Medicare prescription drug plan that is guaranteed to be 
accessible and affordable.
  What should this plan look life? The Medicare Outpatient Drug Act 
contains several important provisions:
  First, it provides prescription drugs as a defined, comprehensive and 
integral component of the Medicare Program. We need to be able to say 
exactly what we are promising seniors, and we need to make sure they 
will get it--the only way to do that is to include it in the basic 
Medicare benefits package along with everything else.
  Relying on private insurers to offer this benefit ``would result in a 
false promise'' to use the words of the President of the HIAA.
  Second, our bill provides the greatest help to those with the 
greatest need--beneficiaries with the lowest incomes and the highest 
drug expenditures.
  We do that by providing additional subsidies for those with the 
lowest-incomes, increasing the government's share of coinsurance as the 
beneficiaries out-of-pocket costs increase, and income-relating the 
premium for high-income beneficiaries.
  The bottom line: all seniors will be guaranteed access to affordable 
drugs, and will have the peace of mind of knowing that full coverage is 
provided for any and all expenses above $4000.
  Third, ``The Medicare Outpatient Drug Act'' encourages maximum 
competition to achieve the greatest discounts, and uses the private 
sector to deliver and manage the benefit.
  Finally, it is consistent with the need to strengthen and modernize 
the Medicare program overall. Providing drug coverage is the first 
step, but more work is needed. We will be introducing legislation soon 
that takes the next steps.
  The bill we are offering today bridges the gap between the proposals 
offered by the President and the House GOP.
  It gives beneficiaries what they need: long-overdue coverage of 
prescription drugs, and also injects competition into the program and 
provides choices for beneficiaries.
  This is the first bill to offer universal, guaranteed, affordable, 
fully-defined comprehensive coverage--no limits, not gaps, no gimmicks.
  Beneficiaries will know what they are getting, and they will know 
without a doubt that the benefit will actually be provided.
  ``The Medicare Outpatient Drug Act'' is not a tough call. It will 
accomplish our goals of providing affordable, accessible coverage, and 
it will work.
  This is legislation that Congress should enact this year. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
ensure that we do just that.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, at a health care forum I 
sponsored in Virginia, a doctor told me of a woman with breast cancer 
splitting her Tamoxofin pills with two other breast cancer patients, 
because the drug was so expensive that the other two couldn't afford 
it. This is a touching story from the perspective of a woman trying to 
help two peers, but from a health care perspective, it's an 
abomination. Not only does splitting a dose for one person into three 
negate the effects of the drug for all three women, but the lack of 
access to this drug only makes them sicker.
  Unfortunately, stories like these are all too common today. Modern 
medicine has become more and more dependent on prescription drugs, yet 
the Medicare program, which provides health care for our nation's 
elderly and disabled, has not changed with the times. As a result, 
Medicare often finds itself in the position of paying for expensive 
hospital care, yet not paying for the prescription drugs that could 
help keep a patient out of the hospital. And as prescription drugs 
become more essential to seniors' health care, we hear many stories 
like the one I've told you today.
  It's time we did something to change this. While over 90 percent of 
private sector employees with employer-based health insurance have 
prescription drug coverage, the 38 million Medicare beneficiaries in 
America today have no basic prescription drug benefit. At the same 
time, the average Medicare beneficiary fills eighteen prescriptions 
each year, and will have an estimated average annual drug cost of 
nearly $1,100 in 2000. We have an obligation to our seniors, and future 
generations of seniors, to strengthen and modernize Medicare by adding 
a prescription drug benefit.
  Unfortunately, both the House and Senate have made little progress 
toward passing a drug benefit this year. By and large, moderate, 
bipartisan solutions have been absent from the debate.
  I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator Graham, Senator Bryan, 
Senator Conrad, Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus in introducing a bill 
which we believe will break this logjam, the Medicare Outpatient Drug 
Act, or MOD Act, of 2000. In crafting the MOD Act, we have combined the 
best elements of insurance-based plans--which aim to promote 
competition and innovation--and the President's plan--which offers a 
dependable, universal benefit to all seniors. The result is a bill that 
all sides should be able to agree on.
  Like the President's plan, our bill will offer a defined Medicare 
benefit that will be available to all seniors, regardless of their 
health status or place of residence. But unlike the President's plan, 
our bill will allow private entities to compete for Medicare 
beneficiaries--allowing seniors and the disabled to choose from a 
variety of options that are custom-tailored to their specific 
prescription drug needs.
  Moreover, the MOD Act is the first prescription drug bill to offer 
Medicare beneficiaries a comprehensive drug benefit, with no gaps in 
coverage, and full protection against sky-high out-of-pocket costs. The 
MOD Act gradually increases its level of coverage as beneficiaries get 
sicker, so that the greatest assistance is devoted to those who need it 
most.
  There is only a handful of legislative days left in the Senate this 
year, and if we're going to get anything done on the prescription drug 
front, we'll have to settle on a proposal that is moderate and 
bipartisan. The Medicare Outpatient Drug Act is that bill, and I urge 
each of my colleagues to give it their full support.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Graham, 
Bryan, Robb, Conrad, and Baucus in introducing the Medicare Outpatient 
Drug (MOD) Act of 2000 today.
  The Medicare Outpatient Drug Act addresses an area of great concern 
to our nation's seniors: the need for a Medicare prescription drug 
benefit. Seniors today are facing staggering and burdensome drug 
prices. Studies show that the average American over 65 spends more than 
$700 per year on drug prescriptions. In Rhode Island, seniors pay twice 
as much for certain prescription drugs as the drug companies' most 
favored customers (for example, Medicaid and the Veteran's 
Administration). On average, Rhode Island seniors pay 84 percent more 
than prescription drug consumers in Canada or Mexico.

[[Page S5467]]

  We must update the Medicare program to include a prescription drug 
benefit. This bipartisan, comprehensive bill will provide universal 
coverage to all 39 million Medicare beneficiaries in this country. As 
you know, Medicare was established in 1965 at a time when prescription 
drugs were not widely used. These days, drug therapies have replaced 
overnight stays in hospitals and long convalescence in nursing 
facilities. In light of this, we must update the Medicare program to 
keep pace with these scientific and medical advances.
  This legislation does many things that other legislative proposals do 
not. First, it provides universal coverage on a voluntary basis to 
every Medicare-eligible individual. Second, it is based on a standard 
insurance model, with coinsurance, a deductible, and a defined stop-
loss benefit. In other words, once a senior pays $4,000 in annual drug 
costs, our plan covers the rest. Third, the amount of a senior's 
premium would be directly related to his/her income, on a sliding 
scale. In other words, the lowest-income senior will receive the 
greatest subsidy. Conversely, the highest-income senior will receive 
the lowest federal subsidy.
  Finally, this legislation emulates market-based insurance coverage by 
allowing multiple ``pharmacy benefit managers'' (PBMs) to contract with 
Medicare to provide the pharmaceutical benefit to seniors. This would 
ensure competition in the delivery of this benefit, which means a 
better benefit and lower prices for consumers. This competition would 
also prevent the government from ``setting'' drug prices. In my view, 
price setting would weaken the ability of pharmaceutical companies to 
conduct valuable research and development into new drug therapies that 
one day may cure diseases such as cancer, Parkinson's Alzheimer's, 
diabetes, and HIV/AIDS.
  In sum, I believe our proposal to be one of the most responsible and 
comprehensive drug bills in Congress. It achieves these twin goals 
while relieving seniors of the huge burden of high drug bills. Seniors 
should never have to choose between filling a prescription for needed 
medication or buying groceries. Sadly, this is often the case today.
  This past April, I received a letter from an elderly couple in Rhode 
Island, with a list of their prescription drug expenses for 1999 
enclosed. This couple spent almost $7,000 in 1999 on these 
prescriptions. They are living on a fixed income, and told me that 
their savings are being wiped out by the high cost of prescription 
medications. In addition, the grandmother of one of my staffers cannot 
afford Prilosec, which she needs to prevent nausea. She cannot hold 
down food without this drug. This grandmother has to get her Prilosec 
prescription from her daughter, who has it prescribed and then ships it 
to her mother.
  This should not be happening. Our bill will ensure that these seniors 
will get the prescription medications they need without having to wipe 
out their personal savings or resort to getting the prescription 
through a relative.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important 
legislation and finally provide this necessary medical coverage to our 
nation's seniors.

                          ____________________