[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.
____________________