[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 90 (Wednesday, July 12, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7417-S7426]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 3639. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act to provide standards and procedures for the
review of water reclamation and reuse projects; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, from the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Dianne Feinstein of
California, in introducing the Reclaiming the Nation's Water Act--
ReNew.
We introduce this bill after months of review of the Nation's
program, now over a decade old, that attempts to encourage the
reclamation and use of water. The Bureau's title XVI program originated
in 1992 in response to the Southwestern drought of the late 1980s and
early 1990s. At that time, Congress authorized the program in an
attempt to alleviate pressure on the Colorado River system by
augmenting existing supplies and developing new water sources.
Since then, Congress has authorized some 31 projects and appropriated
about $325 million for the program. During a February 28, 2006, hearing
of the Senate Water and Power Subcommittee, the Congressional Research
Service reported that only three of these projects have received full
Federal funding and that 9 are listed as ``inactive,'' meaning they
have received little or no Federal moneys.
This massive backlog, which the Bureau of Reclamation has estimated
will take at least 15 years to resolve, has not stopped local
communities from seeking additional aid under the program. There are
bills pending in Congress that would authorize an additional 19
projects--projects that will likely overwhelm the Bureau of
Reclamation's budget, if they were all to be funded fully under the
existing program.
In an effort to clarify the Federal role in developing new sources of
water and in an effort to help local Government receive a dependable
and timely supply of Federal assistance for truly worthy water reuse
projects, we introduce this legislation to clarify and make permanent
title XVI water reuse/reclamation/recycling grant assistance.
Briefly, the bill:
Amends the Reclamation and Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act to provide standards and
[[Page S7418]]
procedures for the review of water reclamation and reuse projects.
Under existing law, the title XVI program has operated without defined
terms or specific purpose. This has led to confusion in recent years
whether the title XVI program is primarily a demonstration program or
was intended to finance permanent reclamation and reuse facilities.
This legislation clarifies that the purpose of the title XVI program
will be: (1) to assist in the development of permanent local and
regional water reclamation and reuse projects; and (2) to further
improve water reclamation and reuse technologies through research and
demonstration activities.
The legislation also authorizes the Secretary of Interior to
participate in opportunities for water reclamation and reuse, including
water recycling and desalination activities in reclamation States. The
legislation provides new authority for the Secretary of the Interior to
review non-Federal water reclamation and reuse project proposals,
pursuant to new standards and procedures for such review. New standards
would include providing sufficient evidence to the Secretary of
Interior that the project: (1) is technically viable and (2) has a
financially capable project sponsor. The Secretary would have 180 days
to submit to Congress: (1) a statement and explanation of the project's
technical and financial viability, and (2) a recommendation on whether
the project should be authorized for construction based on several
specific factors. Factors to be considered would range from items
related to project costs and benefits, to whether the project would
help serve an identified Federal interest. The bill also includes
transition procedures.
The bill as currently proposed also: (1) Strikes existing provisions
providing for appraisal investigations and replaces them in part with a
new planning and assistance program--$4.4 million authorized annually--
for non-Federal project sponsors electing to seek help in developing
project proposals.
(2) Strikes existing provisions providing for feasibility
investigations and replaces them with a new technical and financial
review process for evaluating non-Federal sponsor project proposals.
Deadlines are included for the technical and financial viability
reviews, and a process is established for reporting and making
recommendations to Congress on project proposals for funding.
(3) Clarifies that projects must be authorized for construction by
the Congress before funds may be expended by the Secretary of the
Interior for project construction.
(4) Limits the Federal cost-share for projects to the lesser of 20
percent or $20 million of total project costs--the current limit is 25
percent or $20 million--excluding operations and maintenance costs.
(5) And makes numerous technical and conforming amendments.
Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues, Members
of the House, and the administration to perfect and move this bill
through the process this year. I believe this bill will provide
valuable assistance to local areas to increase the available supplies
of potable water through the economic reuse and reclamation of water
supplies, while providing an affordable and orderly process that will
prove fairer to local communities and help them to receive federal
assistance in a timely manner.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3639
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 ``Reclaiming the Nation's
Water Act''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE; DEFINITIONS.
The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended--
(1) by striking section 1603;
(2) by redesignating section 1602 as section 1603; and
(3) by inserting after section 1601 the following:
``SEC. 1602. PURPOSES; DEFINITIONS.
``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
``(1) to assist in the development of permanent local and
regional water reclamation and reuse projects in--
``(A) the States and areas referred to in the first section
of the Act of June 17, 1902 (43 U.S.C. 391); and
``(B) the State of Hawaii; and
``(2) to further improvements in water reclamation and
reuse technologies through the conduct of--
``(A) research; and
``(B) demonstration activities in the States and areas
described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1).
``(b) Definitions.--In this title:
``(1) Financially capable project sponsor.--The term
`financially capable project sponsor' means a non-Federal
project sponsor that is capable of providing--
``(A) the non-Federal share of the project costs; and
``(B) 100 percent of the operations and maintenance costs
of the project.
``(2) Non-federal project sponsor.--The term `non-Federal
project sponsor' means a State, regional, or local authority
or other qualifying entity, such as a water conservation
district, water conservancy district, or rural water district
or association.
``(3) Federal reclamation laws.--The term `Federal
reclamation laws' means the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat.
388, chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory
of that Act (43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.).
``(4) Reclaim; reclamation.--The terms `reclaim' and
`reclamation' include recycling and desalination.
``(5) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
``(6) Technically and financially viable project.--The term
`technically and financially viable project' means a project
that--
``(A) is a technically viable project; and
``(B) has a financially capable project sponsor.
``(7) Technically viable project.--The term `technically
viable project' means a project that--
``(A) meets generally acceptable engineering, public
health, and environmental standards; and
``(B) has obtained or is expected to obtain approval of all
Federal, State, and local permits necessary for
implementation of the project.''.
SEC. 3. GENERAL AUTHORITY.
Section 1603(a) of the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (as redesignated by
section 2(2)), is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Secretary of the Interior'' and all
that follows through ``is directed to'' and inserting ``The
Secretary, acting pursuant to Federal reclamation laws,
shall'';
(2) by striking ``investigate and identify'' and inserting
``participate in''; and
(3) by striking ``to conduct research, including
desalting'' and inserting ``conduct research, including
desalination''.
SEC. 4. REVIEW OF PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY NON-FEDERAL PROJECT
SPONSORS.
The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by
striking section 1604 and inserting the following:
``SEC. 1604. REVIEW OF PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY NON-FEDERAL
PROJECT SPONSORS.
``(a) Authority To Review.--The Secretary shall review any
project proposal under this title that is--
``(1) developed by a non-Federal project sponsor--
``(A) independently; or
``(B) with the assistance of the Department of the Interior
or any other governmental or nongovernmental entity; and
``(2) submitted or resubmitted to the Secretary by a non-
Federal project sponsor, including a project proposal that
has been previously reviewed for feasibility by the
Secretary.
``(b) Requirements.--In addition to complying with any
requirements of other Federal laws, a project proposal
submitted by a non-Federal project sponsor under this section
shall--
``(1) provide sufficient evidence, as determined by the
Secretary, to demonstrate that the project--
``(A) is a technically viable project; and
``(B) has a financially capable project sponsor; and
``(2) provide information on each of the factors described
in subsection (d)(1)(B)(ii).
``(c) Determination of Financial and Technical Viability.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date on
which a non-Federal project sponsor submits a project
proposal (including any supporting documentation) under
subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall provide to the non-
Federal project sponsor written notice on whether the project
proposal includes sufficient information under paragraph (2)
for the Secretary to determine whether the proposed project
is a technically and financially viable project.
``(2) Checklist.--A project proposal shall include
sufficient information for a determination under paragraph
(1) if the proposal includes--
``(A) a map of the proposed project area and service area;
``(B) a project description or plan, including engineering
plans;
``(C) the initial cost estimates for the project;
``(D) a financial plan for the project; and
``(E) a report on the status of any Federal, State, and
local permits that are necessary to implement the project.
``(3) Determination of insufficient information.--
[[Page S7419]]
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that there
is insufficient information in the project proposal for the
Secretary to determine whether the project is a technically
and financially viable project--
``(i) the Secretary shall provide to the non-Federal
project sponsor written notice that identifies any
information that the Secretary determines to be necessary to
make the determination; and
``(ii) the non-Federal project entity may submit a revised
project proposal to the Secretary.
``(B) Notification.--Not later than 21 days after the date
on which a non-Federal project sponsor submits a revised
proposal to the Secretary under subparagraph (A)(ii), the
Secretary shall provide to the non-Federal project sponsor
written notice that describes whether sufficient information
has been provided to make a determination on whether the
project is a technically and financially viable project.
``(d) Notice to Congress.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
on which the Secretary determines that a project proposal
includes sufficient information to make a determination on
whether the project is a technically and financially viable
project, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a written
notice of the findings of the Secretary that includes--
``(A) a statement and explanation of the determination on
whether the project is a technically and financially viable
project; and
``(B) a concise recommendation of the Secretary on whether
the project should be authorized for construction, that is
based on, but is not required to describe--
``(i) the results of the review of the project proposal
under subsection (a); and
``(ii) the consideration of the following factors:
``(I) The cost per acre-foot of water to be produced by the
project.
``(II) The quality and quantity of water to be produced by
the project.
``(III) The cost-effectiveness of the project compared with
other available alternatives, including whether other
comparatively cost-effective alternatives for meeting a
significant water supply need for the project exist.
``(IV) Any environmental benefits or adverse effects of the
project.
``(V) The extent to which the project would help serve an
identified Federal interest.
``(VI) The extent to which the project would provide
regional benefits.
``(VII) Whether the project demonstrates innovative or
alternative technologies or processes relating to water
treatment or waste minimization and management.
``(2) Availability.--To ensure that the determination and
recommendation submitted under paragraph (1) are made
publicly available, the Secretary shall--
``(A) transmit a copy of the written notice under paragraph
(1) to--
``(i) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate; and
``(ii) the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives; and
``(B) publish in the Federal Register notice of the
availability of the written notice.
``(e) Revisions to Proposal.--
``(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines under
subsection (d)(1)(A) that a project is not a technically and
financially viable project, the Secretary shall not be
required to conduct further analysis of the project until the
non-Federal project sponsor--
``(A) conducts an additional investigation of the project;
and
``(B) resubmits a revised project proposal in accordance
with this section.
``(2) Costs.--The non-Federal project sponsor shall pay any
costs associated with revising the project proposal under
paragraph (1).
``(f) Congressional Determination and Authorization.--
``(1) Congressional determination.--Congress may make the
determination on whether to authorize a project under this
title if--
``(A) the Secretary submits the written notice under
subsection (d)(1);
``(B) by the date that is 60 days after the date on which a
non-Federal project sponsor submits a project proposal under
subsection (a)(2), the Secretary does not submit written
notice to the non-Federal project sponsor under subsection
(c)(1); or
``(C) by the date that is 180 days after the date on which
the Secretary determines that a project proposal includes
sufficient information to make a determination on whether the
project is a technically and financially viable project, the
Secretary does not submit the written notice under subsection
(d)(1).
``(2) Congressional authorization.--Nothing in this section
precludes Congress from authorizing a project under this
title.
``(g) Transition Provisions.--
``(1) In general.--A non-Federal project sponsor that has
submitted to the Secretary for review a feasibility study for
a project under this title before the date of enactment of
the Reclaiming the Nation's Water Act may--
``(A) submit a new project proposal for approval under
subsection (a); or
``(B) notify the Secretary in writing that the non-Federal
project sponsor elects to seek approval of the project using
the previously submitted feasibility study.
``(2) Supplemental information.--If the non-Federal project
sponsor makes the election under paragraph (1)(B), the non-
Federal project sponsor may supplement the previously
submitted feasibility study to provide additional
information--
``(A) on whether the project is a technically and
financially viable project; and
``(B) to address each of the factors described in
subsection (d)(1)(B)(ii).
``(3) Determination of technical and financial viability.--
Not later than 90 days after the date on which the Secretary
receives notice of an election under paragraph (1)(B), the
Secretary shall determine whether the project is a
technically and financially viable project.
``(4) Notice to congress.--Not later than 180 days after
the date on which the Secretary receives notice of an
election under paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall submit
to Congress written notice on the determination and
recommendation of the Secretary with respect to the proposal
in accordance with subsection (d).''.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 1631 of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h-13) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) by striking ``may not be appropriated'' and inserting
``may not be expended by the Secretary''; and
(B) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the
following:
``(A) Congress has authorized the construction of the
project;
``(B) the Secretary has determined that the project has a
financially capable project sponsor; and'';
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``the non-Federal
project sponsor'' and all that follows through ``project's
costs'' and inserting ``the project has a financially capable
project sponsor''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Limitation on New Projects.--
``(1) In general.--The Federal share of the total costs of
any project authorized under this title after the date of
enactment of the Reclaiming the Nation's Water Act shall be
not more than 20 percent.
``(2) Operation and maintenance costs.--No Federal funds
shall be used to pay the costs of operating and maintaining
any project authorized under this title after the date of
enactment of the Reclaiming the Nation's Water Act.
``(f) Deauthorization.--Any project authorized under this
title that has not received Federal funding by the date that
is the later of the date that is 10 years after the date of
enactment of the Reclaiming the Nation's Water Act or 10
years after the date on which construction of the project is
authorized shall be deauthorized.''.
SEC. 6. REUSE PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``SEC. 1639. REUSE PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may cooperate with any
non-Federal project sponsor in the preparation of any plan
(including a project proposal) for the development of
reclaimed water for reuse applications or environmental
benefits that are in the public interest, as determined by
the Secretary.
``(b) Agreement.--
``(1) In general.--At the request of a non-Federal project
sponsor, the Secretary may enter into an agreement with the
non-Federal project sponsor to provide for the preparation of
a project proposal for review under section 1604(a).
``(2) Requirements.--Any project proposal prepared under an
agreement entered into under paragraph (1) shall comply with
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.), including any regulations promulgated to carry out
that Act.
``(3) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult and
cooperate with appropriate Federal, State, regional, and
local entities during the development of each project
proposal prepared under an agreement entered into under
paragraph (1).
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section not more than $4,400,000 for fiscal
year 2007 and each fiscal year thereafter, of which--
``(A) not more than $500,000 shall be expended in any 1
fiscal year for a plan for any 1 project; and
``(B) not more than a total of $1,000,000 shall be made
available to a non-Federal project sponsor to prepare a plan
for any 1 project.
``(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the total costs
of any plan for a project prepared under an agreement entered
into under subsection (b)(1) shall be not more than 50
percent.''.
SEC. 7. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Technical Amendments.--The Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.)
is amended--
(1) in section 1612(a) (43 U.S.C. 390h-10(a)), by striking
``California or'' and inserting ``California, or''; and
(2) in section 1632(a) (43 U.S.C. 390h-14(a))--
(A) by striking ``Secretary of the Interior'' and inserting
``Secretary''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the comma and inserting a
semicolon.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--The table of sections in
section 2 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and
Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. prec. 371) is amended--
[[Page S7420]]
(1) by striking the items relating to sections 1602 through
1604 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 1602. Purposes; Definitions.
``Sec. 1603. General authority.
``Sec. 1604. Review of proposals submitted by non-Federal project
sponsors.'';
and
(2) by inserting after the item relating to section 1638
the following:
``Sec. 1639. Reuse planning assistance program.''.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today to join my distinguished
colleague, Senator Murkowski, chair of the Subcommittee on Water and
Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in introducing
legislation to provide new authority and streamlined review criteria
for the Bureau of Reclamation's title XVI Water Recycling Program.
I first want to thank Senator Murkowski for her leadership in this
area. I deeply appreciate her willingness to work with me on this
issue.
I also want to thank my California colleague and friend,
Representative Grace Napolitano, ranking member on the Water and Power
Subcommittee, who is introducing identical companion legislation in the
House of Representatives today.
This legislation is an outgrowth of subcommittee oversight hearings
last February and is the product of more than 2 years of discussion,
evaluation, and consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation as well as
numerous water agencies and communities.
Today, the West faces two daunting challenges simultaneously. The
first is drought and the impacts of continued climate gyration--wild
swings in previously established weather patterns. The second is the
unprecedented growth throughout California and the Western States.
Population continues to not just grow but surge throughout this region.
The title XVI, Water Recycling Program enables water users in the
West to stretch existing supplies through the application of
reclamation, reuse, recycling and desalination technologies.
Title XVI was initially authorized in 1992, following a severe
multiyear drought in California and other Western States. A drought of
equal severity reduced the mighty Colorado River to record lows only a
few years ago. We must find ways to expand our water supplies, and do
so without generating regional or environmental conflict. Reusing our
existing supplies and stretching those supplies is a significant part
of the solution. The title XVI program provides the authority and
framework to accomplish these water resource development objectives to
meet the needs of our cities and urban areas, our farms and ranches and
our diverse environment.
This legislation clarifies and makes permanent the U.S. Department of
the Interior and Bureau of Reclamation's title XVI water reuse/
reclamation/recycling grant authority for the development of new
sources of water. In so doing, this proposed legislation will help
State and local governments and water departments and agencies develop
new water and reliable water supplies.
The bill amends the Reclamation and Wastewater and Groundwater Study
and Facilities Act, 1992, to provide new standards and procedures for
the review of water reclamation and reuse projects by the Interior
Department's Bureau of Reclamation. Additionally, the legislation sets
forth specific criteria to assist Congress in the evaluation and
selection of projects for Federal funding.
In the recent past, the Bureau of Reclamation was not able to review
and report on proposed projects in a timely fashion. This legislation
establishes firm deadlines, a clear process, and very specific criteria
by which project reviews are to be conducted.
This program, unlike traditional Bureau of Reclamation project
funding, provides a grant, not to exceed 20 percent of the capital
costs or $20 million making this the most leveraged and most cost-
shared Federal water resources program. In setting the 20 percent cap,
this legislation reduces the overall percentage Federal participation
to 20 percent from the 1992 standard of 25 percent to enable more
projects to receive Federal cost-share support.
Reclaiming the Nation's Water Act is designed to accomplish one major
objective--development of new water supplies responsibly--and in a
timely manner. From a California perspective, this legislation
compliments and is fully consistent with the recently published
California Water Plan Update 2005--published in 2006--by California
Department of Water Resources and the 2002 State of California's Water
Recycling Task Force, Water Recycling 2030. Both reports conclude that
a significant portion of new water to be developed in California will
come from water recycling.
Throughout the Nation's more than 200-year history, water conflicts
in the West have ``erupted'' periodically. This program is designed to
reduce conflict through sound planning, improved management, expanding
existing supplies, leveraged financing and meaningful partnerships.
The Subcommittee on Water and Power will hold a hearing on this
proposed legislation later this month. At that time, the subcommittee
will also hear testimony on three proposed projects, one each in
Riverside, Orange and San Bernardino Counties. I have carefully
reviewed these projects. They are designed to produce approximately
300,000 acre-feet of new water annually. These projects simultaneously
reduce pressure on the Bay Delta--and other Federal and State water
users dependent on the water from the delta--as well as the Colorado
River. They will help drought-proof their water service areas.
Not too long ago, in a speech delivered at a WateReuse Association
conference, John Keys, the recently retired Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, called recycled water The Last River to Tap. Commissioner
Keys was right.
I would like to provide some additional detail on the legislation.
The legislation provides new authority for the Secretary of the
Interior to review non-Federal water reclamation and reuse project
proposals, pursuant to new standards and procedures for such review.
New standards would include providing sufficient evidence to the
Secretary of Interior that the project: (1) is technically viable and
(2) has a financially capable project sponsor. The Secretary would have
180 days to submit to Congress: (1) a statement and explanation of the
project's technical and financial viability, and (2) a recommendation
on whether the project should be authorized for construction based on
several specific factors. Factors to be considered would range from
items related to project costs and benefits, to whether the project
would help serve an identified Federal interest. The bill also includes
transition procedures.
This program is vital to the West's future. I look forward to working
with Senator Murkowski and my colleagues on the Energy Committee. I
want to also thank Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici and the
committee's ranking member, Senator Jeff Bingaman for their support and
assistance in the preparation of this legislation.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 3646. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to create
a bureau of Reclamation partnership with the North Bay Water Reuse
Authority and other regional partners to achieve objectives relating to
water supply, water quality, and environmental restoration; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the North
Bay Water Reuse Program Act of 2006. The act would authorize an
innovative program to protect the environment while meeting the future
water needs of urban and agricultural water users in the North Bay
region of California for years to come.
As regulations continue to tighten restrictions on wastewater
discharges into the San Francisco Bay, communities are faced with major
financial challenges as they determine the best way to discharge their
treated wastewater. At the same time, agricultural producers in the
North Bay region are facing serious water shortages resulting from a
serious overdraft of groundwater. The North Bay Water Reuse Program
will solve both problems together.
When completed, the North Bay Water Reuse Program will provide for
[[Page S7421]]
the collection and conveyance of treated urban wastewater to
agricultural growers, promising a permanent and dedicated supply of
about 30,000 acre-feet of water per year. The use of reclaimed water
for irrigation will reduce the demand on both surface and groundwater
supplies, and thus improve instream flows for riparian habitat and
fisheries recovery.
In the off-season when irrigation demand is diminished, the reclaimed
water will be used to increase surface water flows for restoration of
wetland habitat in the former Cargill Salt Ponds.
This reclaimed water that would be applied productively to vineyards,
fields and wetlands is now being discharged as treated wastewater into
the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. The North Bay Water Reuse Program
will benefit the ecosystem of the bay by providing a cost-effective,
environmentally sound alternative for the disposal of urban wastewater.
The legislation I am introducing today allows for the Federal
participation of the first phase of this long-term regional project.
This cost-shared water reclamation and reuse program is the first of
its kind in Northern California, and the first to provide water
primarily for agricultural and environmental uses. It is supported by
the local governments in three counties--Napa, Sonoma and Marin--that
have joined together to undertake the project. Agricultural
organizations, such as the Napa and Sonoma County Farm Bureaus, the
Carneros Quality Alliance, the Winegrape Growers of Napa County, the
Napa Vintners Association, and the North Bay Agriculture Alliance,
support the program. And environmental organizations, such as The Bay
Institute, likewise endorse the program.
The North Bay Water Reuse Program brings together stakeholders that
are usually at odds with one another and provides an ideal solution to
guarantee water to the environment and agricultural producers, and
simultaneously providing regulatory relief to wastewater agencies.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3646
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 ``North Bay Water Reuse
Program Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a
member agency of the North Bay Water Reuse Authority of the
State located in the North San Pablo Bay watershed in--
(A) Marin County;
(B) Napa County;
(C) Solano County; or
(D) Sonoma County.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
California.
(4) Water reclamation and reuse project.--The term ``water
reclamation and reuse project'' means a project carried out
by the Secretary and an eligible entity in the North San
Pablo Bay watershed relating to--
(A) water quality improvement;
(B) wastewater treatment;
(C) water reclamation and reuse;
(D) groundwater recharge and protection;
(E) surface water augmentation; or
(F) other related improvements.
SEC. 3. NORTH BAY WATER REUSE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through a
cooperative agreement with the State or a subdivision of a
State, may offer to enter into cooperative agreements with
eligible entities for the planning, design, and construction
of water reclamation and reuse projects.
(b) Coordination With Other Federal Agencies.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary and the eligible entity
shall, to the maximum extent practicable, use the design work
and environmental evaluations initiated by--
(1) non-Federal entities; and
(2) the Corps of Engineers in the San Pablo Bay Watershed
of the State.
(c) Cooperative Agreement.--
(1) Requirements.--A cooperative agreement entered into
under paragraph (1) shall, at a minimum, specify the
responsibilities of the Secretary and the eligible entity
with respect to--
(A) ensuring that the cost-share requirements established
by subsection (e) are met;
(B) completing--
(i) a needs assessment for the water reclamation and reuse
project; and
(ii) the planning and final design of the water reclamation
and reuse project;
(C) any environmental compliance activity required for the
water reclamation and reuse project;
(D) the construction of facilities for the water
reclamation and reuse project; and
(E) administrating any contract relating to the
construction of the water reclamation and reuse project.
(2) Phased project.--
(A) In general.--A cooperative agreement described in
paragraph (1) shall require that any water reclamation and
reuse project carried out under this section shall consist of
2 phases.
(B) First phase.--During the first phase, the Secretary and
an eligible entity shall complete the planning, design, and
construction of the main treatment and main conveyance system
of the water reclamation and reuse project.
(C) Second phase.--During the second phase, the Secretary
and an eligible entity shall complete the planning, design,
and construction of the sub-regional distribution systems of
the water reclamation and reuse project.
(d) Financial Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may provide financial and
technical assistance to an eligible entity to assist in
planning, designing, conducting related preconstruction
activities for, and constructing a water reclamation and
reuse project.
(2) Use.--Any financial assistance provided under paragraph
(1) shall be obligated and expended only in accordance with a
cooperative agreement entered into under this section.
(e) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the total cost of
any activity or construction carried out using amounts made
available under this section shall be not more than 25
percent of the total cost of a water reclamation and reuse
project.
(2) Form of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share may
be in the form of any in-kind services that the Secretary
determines would contribute substantially toward the
completion of the water reclamation and reuse project,
including--
(A) reasonable costs incurred by the eligible entity
relating to the planning, design, and construction of the
water reclamation and reuse project; and
(B) the fair-market value of land that is--
(i) used for planning, design, and construction of the
water reclamation and reuse project facilities; and
(ii) owned by an eligible entity.
(f) Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs.--
(1) In general.--The eligible entity shall be responsible
for the annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs
associated with the water reclamation and reuse project.
(2) Operation, maintenance, and replacement plan.--The
eligible entity, in consultation with the Secretary, shall
develop an operation, maintenance, and replacement plan for
the water reclamation and reuse project.
(g) Effect.--Nothing in this Act--
(1) affects or preempts--
(A) State water law; or
(B) an interstate compact relating to the allocation of
water; or
(2) confers on any non-Federal entity the ability to
exercise any Federal right to--
(A) the water of a stream; or
(B) any groundwater resource.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for the Federal share of the total cost of
the first phase of water reclamation and reuse projects
carried out under this Act, an amount not to exceed 25
percent of the total cost of those reclamation and reuse
projects or $25,000,000, whichever is less, to remain
available until expended.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Stabenow, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Menendez, and Mr. Akaka):
S. 3647. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
waive the monthly beneficiary premium under a prescription drug plan or
an MA-PD plan during months in which an individual enrolled in such a
plan has a gap in prescription drug coverage; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, nearly one-third of Medicare beneficiaries
are going to become all too familiar with what is called the ``doughnut
hole'' over the next several months. The doughnut hole is a gap in
coverage that exists in most Medicare prescription drug plans.
Here is how the doughnut hole works: Under most plans, Medicare will
pay for 75 percent of drug costs up to $2,250 after an initial $250
deductible. But then Medicare pays nothing until drug expenses exceed
$5,100. During this gap in coverage, beneficiaries continue to pay
monthly premiums but get no drug coverage at all. I think this is
unfair.
That is why I am introducing the Prescription for Fairness Act. This
legislation is simple. It says seniors should not have to pay monthly
premiums during the time when they have
[[Page S7422]]
no drug coverage. The legislation would waive the monthly premium for
any month that a senior is trapped in the doughnut hole.
The legislation will help people like Mrs. McLain, an 88-year-old
woman who lives in a long-term care facility in Bottineau, ND. She
enrolled in the Medicare prescription drug benefit earlier this year.
Her brother, who helps pay her health care bills, was recently
contacted by their local pharmacist. The pharmacist explained that Mrs.
McLain no longer has Medicare drug coverage and must pay about $500
every month for her diabetes medications. This is not an expense that
they had planned for, nor one they can afford. They did not realize
that this coverage gap existed when they enrolled in the plan. This is
one of countless stories that we will hear over the next several months
as seniors fall into this coverage gap.
Some will say that beneficiaries trapped in the doughnut hole should
have selected plans that provide better coverage. I think it is unfair
to blame beneficiaries for selecting the wrong plan. A new report by
the Government Accountability Office found that the call centers
operated by the Medicare prescription drug plan sponsors only gave
accurate and complete information to callers about one-third of the
time. More than one in five callers received completely inaccurate
information.
It is worth noting that the Prescription for Fairness Act will have
no affect on the bottom lines of the participating Medicare
prescription drug plans. Under the legislation, the Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services will simply pay the monthly
premium on behalf of the beneficiary. It is offset by reducing the
Medicare stabilization fund. This fund is completely unnecessary. It is
a $10 billion pot of money that was added to the Medicare Modernization
Act to provide bonus payments and incentives to managed care companies
to enter the Medicare market. It is time that Congress provides a
safety net for seniors, not health plans.
This legislation merely provides seniors some relief in the short
term. The legislation would expire after fiscal year 2008. This
Congress still needs to close the doughnut hole. In October, I joined
Senator Bill Nelson to introduce the Medicare Prescription Drug Gap
Reduction Act, which would allow the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to negotiate fair drug prices and the savings would be used to
eliminate the doughnut hole. Believe it or not, the Medicare
Modernization Act contained a provision that explicitly prohibits the
government from using its market clout to negotiate for fair drug
prices for our seniors.
I am hopeful that the Senate will take up the Medicare Prescription
Drug Gap Reduction Act. In the meantime, let's make sure seniors are
not charged for a benefit that they are not receiving. The Prescription
for Fairness Act does just that.
I am pleased to be joined by Senators Bingaman, Stabenow, Lautenberg,
Johnson, Mikulski, Clinton, Menendez and Akaka in introducing this
important legislation. I am also pleased that Families USA has endorsed
this legislation.
I ask for unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3647
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 ``Prescription for Fairness
Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. WAIVER OF MONTHLY BENEFICIARY PREMIUM DURING COVERAGE
GAP.
(a) In General.--Section 1860D-13(a) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-113(a)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(7) Waiver of monthly beneficiary premium during coverage
gap.--
``(A) In general.--During the period beginning on the date
of enactment of the Prescription for Fairness Act of 2006 and
ending on September 30, 2008, in the case of an individual
enrolled in a prescription drug plan or an MA-PD plan which
does not provide any coverage of benefits after the
individual has reached the initial coverage limit under
paragraph (3) of section 1860D-2(b) and before the individual
has reached the annual out-of-pocket threshold specified in
paragraph (4)(B) of such section, the following rules shall
apply:
``(i) The individual is not responsible for payment of the
monthly beneficiary premium (as computed under paragraph (2)
and adjusted under paragraph (1)) under such a plan for any
month during which such coverage is not provided.
``(ii) The Secretary shall provide for payment of such
monthly beneficiary premium under such a plan on behalf of
such an individual for any month described in clause (i).
Such payment shall be made from the Medicare Prescription
Drug Account.
``(B) Refund of premiums paid.--In the case of such an
individual who pays the monthly beneficiary premium under
such a plan for a month during which such coverage is not
provided, the Secretary shall refund an amount equal to the
premium paid. Such refund shall be made from such Account.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1854(b)(1) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-24(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and, if applicable,
the waiver under subparagraph (D)'' after ``subparagraph
(C)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Waiver of ma monthly prescription drug beneficiary
premium.--During the period beginning on the date of
enactment of the Prescription for Fairness Act of 2006 and
ending on September 30, 2008, the provisions of section
1860D-13(a)(7) shall apply to the MA monthly prescription
drug beneficiary premium in the same manner as they apply to
the monthly beneficiary premium under such section.''.
SEC. 3. REDUCTION OF MEDICARE ADVANTAGE REGIONAL PLAN
STABILIZATION FUND AMOUNT.
(a) In General.--Section 1858(e)(2) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-27a(e)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``There shall'' and
inserting ``Subject to subparagraph (E), there shall''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) Reduction in initial funding to offset cost of waiver
of prescription drug premium.--The Secretary shall reduce the
amount available under subparagraph (A)(i) by an amount equal
to the Secretary's estimate of the increased expenditures
from the Medicare Prescription Drug Account by reason of the
amendments made by section 2 of the Prescription for Fairness
Act of 2006.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
221(c) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat.
2181).
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 3648. A bill to compromise and settle all claims in the case of
Pueblo of Isleta v. United States, to restore, improve, and develop the
valuable on-reservation land and natural resources of the Pueblo, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and
colleague, Senator Bingaman, to introduce the Pueblo of Isleta
Settlement and Natural Resources Restoration Act of 2006, an important
piece of legislation for some of our constituents, the people of the
Pueblo of Isleta.
The Pueblo filed suit against the United States under Public Law 104-
198, which conferred jurisdiction on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
with respect to land claims of the Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe,
alleging loss and injury to the Pueblo's lands and property interests
because of mismanagement by the Federal Government. The parties to the
suit have spent several years reviewing and discussing these
allegations, and this year the Pueblo of Isleta, the U.S. Department of
Justice, and the U.S. Department of Interior have come to an agreement
on how to resolve those claims. The legislation I am introducing today
with Senator Bingaman will codify the parties' agreement.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the parties have agreed
on how to use the funds paid to the Pueblo of Isleta. Some of the funds
will be used for drainage and remediation of the Pueblo's agricultural
lands that have been waterlogged. Some of the funds will be spent to
rehabilitate and remediate the Pueblo's forest lands. Other funds will
be used for the acquisition, restoration, improvement, development, and
protection of land, natural resources and cultural resources of the
Pueblo and for the payment and reimbursement of expenses incurred in
connection with this lawsuit.
The Pueblo of Isleta, the Department of Interior, and the Department
of Justice have worked long and hard to resolve this matter. I believe
Congress should act expeditiously to ratify the agreement they have
reached.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record
[[Page S7423]]
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3648
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 ``Pueblo of Isleta Settlement
and Natural Resources Restoration Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) there is pending before the United States Court of
Federal Claims a civil action filed by the Pueblo against the
United States in which the Pueblo seeks to recover damages
pursuant to the Isleta Jurisdictional Act;
(2) the Pueblo and the United States, after a diligent
investigation of the Pueblo claims, have negotiated a
Settlement Agreement, the validity and effectiveness of which
is contingent on the enactment of enabling legislation;
(3) certain land of the Pueblo is waterlogged, and it would
be to the benefit of the Pueblo and other water users to
drain the land and return water to the Rio Grande River; and
(4) there is Pueblo forest land in need of remediation in
order to improve timber yields, reduce the threat of fire,
reduce erosion, and improve grazing conditions.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to improve the drainage of the irrigated land, the
health of the forest land, and other natural resources of the
Pueblo; and
(2) to settle all claims that were raised or could have
been raised by the Pueblo against the United States under the
Isleta Jurisdictional Act in accordance with section 5.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Isleta jurisdictional act.--The term ``Isleta
Jurisdictional Act'' means Public Law 104-198 (110 Stat.
2418).
(2) Pueblo.--The term ``Pueblo'' means the Pueblo of
Isleta, a federally-recognized Indian tribe.
(3) Restoration fund.--The term ``Restoration Fund'' means
the Pueblo of Isleta Natural Resources Restoration Fund
established by section 4(a).
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(5) Settlement agreement.--The term ``Settlement
Agreement'' means the Agreement of Compromise and Settlement
entered into between the United States and the Pueblo dated
July 12, 2005, as modified by the Extension and Modification
Agreement executed by the United States and the Pueblo on
June 22, 2006, to settle the claims of the Pueblo in Docket
No. 98-166L, a case pending in the United States Court of
Federal Claims.
SEC. 4. PUEBLO OF ISLETA NATURAL RESOURCES RESTORATION TRUST
FUND.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a trust fund, to be known as the ``Pueblo
of Isleta Natural Resources Restoration Fund'', consisting
of--
(1) such amounts as are transferred to the Restoration Fund
under subsection (b); and
(2) any interest earned on investment of amounts in the
Restoration Fund under subsection (d).
(b) Transfers to Restoration Fund.--Upon entry of the final
judgment described in section 5(b), there shall be
transferred to the Restoration Fund, in accordance with
conditions specified in the Settlement Agreement and this
Act--
(1) $32,838,750 from the permanent judgment appropriation
established pursuant to section 1304 of title 31, United
States Code; and
(2) in addition to the amounts transferred under paragraph
(1), at such times and in such amounts as are specified for
that purpose in the annual budget of the Department of the
Interior, authorized to be appropriated by subsection (f),
and made available by an Act of appropriation, a total of
$7,200,000.
(c) Distribution of Amounts From Restoration Fund.--
(1) Appropriated amounts.--
(A) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), upon the request
of the Pueblo, the Secretary shall distribute amounts
deposited in the Restoration Fund pursuant to section V of
the Settlement Agreement and subsection (b)(2), in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and
this Act, on the condition that the Secretary, before any
such distribution, receives from the Pueblo such assurances
as are satisfactory to the Secretary that--
(i) the Pueblo shall deliver funds in the amount of
$7,100,000 toward drainage and remediation of the
agricultural land and rehabilitation of forest and range land
of the Pueblo in accordance with section IV(C) and IV(D) of
the Settlement Agreement; and
(ii) those funds shall be available for expenditure for
drainage and remediation expenses as provided in sections
IV(C) and IV(D) of the Settlement Agreement on the dates on
which the Secretary makes distributions, and in amounts equal
to the amounts so distributed, in accordance with sections
IV(A) and IV(B) of the Settlement Agreement.
(B) Use of funds.--Of the amounts distributed by the
Secretary from the Restoration Fund under subparagraph (A)--
(i) $5,700,000 shall be available to the Pueblo for use in
carrying out the drainage and remediation of approximately
1,081 acres of waterlogged agricultural land, as described in
section IV(A) of the Settlement Agreement; and
(ii) $1,500,000 shall be available to the Pueblo for use in
carrying out the rehabilitation and remediation of forest and
range land, as described in section IV(B) of the Settlement
Agreement.
(C) Federal consultation.--Restoration work carried out
using funds distributed under this paragraph shall be planned
and performed in consultation with--
(i) the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and
(ii) such other Federal agencies as are necessary.
(D) Unused funds.--Any funds, including any interest
income, that are distributed under this paragraph but that
are not needed to carry out this paragraph shall be available
for use in accordance with paragraph (2)(A).
(2) Amounts from judgment fund.--
(A) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), the amount paid
into the Restoration Fund under subsection (b)(1), and
interest income resulting from investment of that amount,
shall be available to the Pueblo for--
(i) the acquisition, restoration, improvement, development,
and protection of land, natural resources, and cultural
resources within the exterior boundaries of the Pueblo,
including improvements to the water supply and sewage
treatment facilities of the Pueblo; and
(ii) for the payment and reimbursement of attorney and
expert witness fees and expenses incurred in connection with
Docket No. 98-166L of the United States Court of Federal
Claims, as provided in the Settlement Agreement.
(B) No contingency on provision of funds by pueblo.--The
receipt and use of funds by the Pueblo under this paragraph
shall not be contingent upon the provision by the Pueblo of
the funds described in paragraph (1)(A)(i).
(3) Expenditures and withdrawal.--
(A) Tribal management plan.--
(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the Pueblo may
withdraw all or part of the Restoration Fund on approval by
the Secretary of a tribal management plan in accordance with
section 202 of the American Indian Trust Fund Management
Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4022).
(ii) Requirements.--In addition to the requirements under
the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994
(25 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), a tribal management plan described
in clause (i) shall require that the Pueblo shall expend any
funds withdrawn from the Restoration Fund under this
paragraph in a manner consistent with the purposes described
in the Settlement Agreement.
(B) Enforcement.--The Secretary may take judicial or
administrative action to enforce the provisions of any tribal
management plan described in subparagraph (A)(i) to ensure
that any funds withdrawn from the Restoration Fund under this
paragraph are used in accordance with this Act.
(C) Liability.--If the Pueblo exercises the right to
withdraw funds from the Restoration Fund under this
paragraph, neither the Secretary nor the Secretary of the
Treasury shall retain any liability for the accounting,
disbursement, or investment of the funds withdrawn.
(D) Expenditure plan.--
(i) In general.--The Pueblo shall submit to the Secretary
for approval an expenditure plan for any portion of the funds
in the Restoration Fund made available under this Act that
the Pueblo does not withdraw under this paragraph.
(ii) Description.--The expenditure plan shall describe the
manner in which, and the purposes for which, funds of the
Pueblo remaining in the Restoration Fund will be used.
(iii) Approval.--On receipt of an expenditure plan under
clause (i), the Secretary shall approve the plan if the
Secretary determines that the plan is reasonable and
consistent with this Act and the Settlement Agreement.
(E) Annual report.--The Pueblo shall submit to the
Secretary an annual report that describes expenditures from
the Restoration Fund during the year covered by the report.
(d) Maintenance and Investment of Restoration Fund.--
(1) In general.--The Restoration Fund and amounts in the
Restoration Fund shall be maintained and invested by the
Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the first section of
the Act of June 24, 1938 (52 Stat. 1037, chapter 648).
(2) Credits to restoration fund.--The interest on, and the
proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held
in the Restoration Fund shall be credited to, and form a part
of, the Restoration Fund.
(e) Prohibition on Per-Capita Payments.--No portion of the
amounts in the Restoration Fund shall be available for
payment on a per-capita basis to members of the Pueblo.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Restoration Fund $7,200,000.
SEC. 5. RATIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT, DISMISSAL OF LITIGATION,
AND COMPENSATION TO PUEBLO.
(a) Ratification of Settlement Agreement.--The Settlement
Agreement is ratified.
(b) Dismissal.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Pueblo and the United States shall
execute
[[Page S7424]]
and file a joint stipulation for entry of final judgment in
the case of Pueblo of Isleta v. United States, Docket 98-
166L, in the United States Court of Federal Claims in such
form and such manner as are acceptable to the Attorney
General and the Pueblo.
(c) Compensation.--After the date of enactment of this Act,
in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, and upon entry
of the final judgment described in subsection (b)--
(1) compensation to the Pueblo shall be paid from the
permanent judgment appropriation established pursuant to
section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, in the total
amount of $32,838,750 for all monetary damages and attorney
fees, interest, and any other fees and costs of any kind that
were or could have been presented in connection with Docket
No. 98-166L of the United States Court of Federal Claims; but
(2) the Pueblo shall retain all rights, including the right
to bring civil actions based on causes of action, relating to
the removal of ordnance under--
(A) the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.);
(B) the Defense Environmental Restoration Program under
section 2701 of title 10, United States Code; and
(C) any contract entered into by the Pueblo for the removal
of ordnance.
(d) Other Limitations on Use of Funds.--The Indian Tribal
Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act (25 U.S.C. 1401 et
seq.) shall not apply to funds distributed or withdrawn from
the Restoration Fund under this Act.
(e) No Effect on Land, Resources, or Water Rights.--Nothing
in this Act affects the status of land and natural resources
of the Pueblo or any water right of the Pueblo.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I'm pleased today to join my colleague
Senator Domenici in sponsoring the Pueblo of Isleta Settlement and
Natural Resources Restoration Act. This bill would settle a
longstanding dispute over federal mismanagement of lands that resulted
in lands within the Pueblo being rendered unusable due to water
intrusion. The money provided under the settlement would be designated
towards remedying these losses.
Like any settlement, I imagine neither side is completely happy with
the result but it is a significant step and will begin the process of
restoring inundated lands and acquiring substitute lands. I am happy
both sides were able to work out their differences and come up with a
solution we can support in Congress. I hope that, in addition to the
financial commitment in the bill, the Department of Interior will
continue to be a partner with the Pueblo in achieving the restoration
of their lands.
I hope my colleagues will join us to quickly move this legislation
along so we can begin to restore these lands for the people of the
Pueblo of Isleta.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Menendez, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Johnson,
Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Akaka):
S. 3650. A bill to include costs incurred by the Indian Health
Service, a Federally qualified health center, an AIDS drug assistance
program, certain hospitals, or a pharmaceutical manufacturer patient
assistance program in providing prescription drugs toward the annual
out of pocket threshold under part D of title XVIII of the Social
Security Act and to provide a safe harbor for assistance provided under
a pharmaceutical manufacturer patient assistance program; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
with Senators Lautenberg, Menendez, Dorgan, Kennedy, Stabenow, Dayton,
Johnson, Clinton, and Akaka entitled the ``Helping to Fill the Medicare
Rx Gap Act of 2006.'' This legislation and companion legislation to be
introduced by Congressman Dingell fixes an important problem for
Medicare beneficiaries and safety net providers by allowing costs
incurred by AIDS Drug Assistance Programs, ADAPs, the Indian Health
Service, IHS, federally qualified health centers, certain safety net
hospitals, and pharmaceutical manufacturer-sponsored Patient Assistance
Programs, PAPs--entities that provide prescription drugs or drug
assistance for populations under their care--to count toward a
beneficiary's annual out-of-pocket threshold as established under the
Medicare Modernization Act, MMA.
With the Medicare drug benefit now in effect for more than six
months, approximately 3.4 million seniors are reaching the point at
which coverage is eliminated until they reach the catastrophic limit.
Under the MMA, Medicare pays 75 percent of drug costs until a
beneficiary's expenses reach $2,250 in a year. Then it stops paying
until costs exceed $5,100, leaving a so-called ``doughnut hole'' of
$2,850 that seniors are expected to manage on their own. According to
the Kaiser Family Foundation, about 6.9 million Medicare beneficiaries
will have to deal with a gap in their drug coverage at some point this
year.
An important part of the MMA's prescription drug benefit requires the
tracking of beneficiaries' ``true out-of-pocket'' costs, TrOOP, to
determine the point at which a beneficiary becomes eligible for
catastrophic coverage. In an additional effort to constrain the cost of
the prescription drug benefit, the MMA limited the types of
expenditures that could count toward a beneficiary's TrOOP, including
only:
Cost-sharing related to the annual deductible; costs borne by the
Part D enrollee (or contributions by friends or family members on the
beneficiary's behalf); contributions from qualifying State Pharmacy
Assistance Programs, SPAPs; contributions from eligible charitable
organizations; and waivers or reductions by commercial pharmacies of
cost-sharing requirements of Medicare prescription drug plans.
Under current law, costs incurred by AIDS Drug Assistance Programs,
Indian Health Service, IHS, pharmacies, community health centers, and
certain safety net hospital pharmacies on behalf of Part D enrollees
during their coverage gap--i.e. while the enrollee is in the so-called
``doughnut hole''--are not permitted to count for TrOOP purposes. In
turn, many individuals with HIV/AIDS, Native Americans, and other low-
income individuals receiving assistance through community health
centers or other qualified safety net hospital pharmacies are never
able to reach the catastrophic limit--the point at which Medicare would
pay 95 percent of the beneficiary's drug costs. As a result, these
beneficiaries are forced to pay premiums to their Medicare drug plan
and to absorb the monthly drug costs for a benefit they are not able to
access.
A study that was recently published in the New England Journal of
Medicine found that prescription drug plans that include doughnut hole-
like coverage gaps may lower beneficiary drug costs but any savings are
offset by increases in the costs of hospitalizations and emergency room
use. Specifically, the study found that patients with such capped
benefits had higher rates of nonelective hospitalizations, visits to
the emergency department, and even death. It certainly is not
surprising that the coverage gap will result in many Americans going
without needed medications but it is important to note that overall
medical costs are not reduced and that providers will be
disproportionately affected when the doughnut hole is reached.
And just when charity pharmaceutical assistance programs are needed
most, the current policy is making it difficult for pharmaceutical
companies to continue to provide free pharmaceuticals to our nation's
poor elderly. The HHS OIG has issued guidance that prohibits costs
incurred on behalf of Part D beneficiaries by pharmaceutical
manufacturer-sponsored Pharmaceutical Assistance Programs, PAPs--
programs run by the pharmaceutical industry that provide free or low-
cost drugs to eligible poor and low-income individuals to count toward
a patient's TrOOP due to concerns that providing drugs through these
programs might violate the federal anti-kickback statute. The anti-
kickback statute prohibits offering or receiving payment to increase
the use of products or services--in this case, to steer prescription
drug use--at the cost of Federal health care programs. In turn, several
pharmaceutical manufacturers are considering terminating their PAPs to
avoid running afoul of the law. According to a January article in the
Washington Post, 37 pharmaceutical companies donated 22 million
prescriptions worth $4.1 billion through PAPs. Across the Nation
seniors who benefit from these programs are fearful that they will be
forced to go off needed medications or to go into bankruptcy if these
programs are not available to help them.
[[Page S7425]]
While HHS is working with the pharmaceutical industry to develop
guidelines that would allow PAPs to continue to operate in compliance
with current law, the HHS OIG maintains that PAP costs will not be
permitted to count toward a patient's TrOOP in any circumstance. As a
result, similar to the ADAPs, IHS pharmacies, community health centers
and safety net hospital pharmacies, PAPs that provide prescription
drugs for patients during the coverage gap are forced to become the
``payer of last resort'' because the costs they incur are not permitted
to count toward TrOOP expenses and thus, the patient is unable to reach
the catastrophic limit.
Pharmacy Assistance Programs, AIDS Drug Assistance Programs,
community health centers, and safety net hospital pharmacies will
maintain their commitment to provide assistance to low-income senior
citizens and people with disabilities in the coverage gap but the
current policy imposes a significant financial burden on our nation's
health care safety net. While we all recognize the importance of
controlling costs, this policy stands to harm vulnerable beneficiaries
and safety net providers by permitting the Medicare program to shift
the cost burden on to a variety of other federal programs, including
discretionary safety net programs, and PAPs. It does not make sense
that the Federal Government pays private drug plans a capitated rate to
provide services and beneficiaries pay monthly premiums to Medicare
while ADAPs, IHS pharmacies, community health centers and certain
safety net hospital pharmacies and pharmaceutical manufacturer PAPs are
left to shoulder the cost of providing prescription medications to
their population of enrollees who will never reach the catastrophic
limit. Just as current policy allows SPAP spending to count toward the
catastrophic limit so should the costs incurred by these entities.
In addition, this legislation would correct the inequity in the
current policy which unfairly discriminates between beneficiaries who
receive their prescription drugs from commercial pharmacies and those
who receive their medications through PAPs or from safety net
pharmacies run by the IHS, community health centers, and certain public
hospitals. Currently, only commercial pharmacies' waivers or reductions
in Medicare Part D cost-sharing requirements are allowed to count
towards TrOOP. This legislation would prevent lower-income Medicare
beneficiaries from getting trapped in the doughnut hole by leveling the
playing field so that beneficiaries who get their drugs through PAPs or
pharmacies run by the IHS, community health centers, or public
hospitals pharmacies can move just as quickly toward the catastrophic
coverage benefit.
Mr. President, I urge your support for this important legislation to
allow Part D-related costs incurred by ADAPs, IHS, federally qualified
health centers, and certain safety net hospitals as well as
pharmaceutical manufacturer PAPs to count toward a beneficiary's TrOOP
expenses. This bill would ensure that all Part D enrollees are
permitted appropriate access to the catastrophic coverage that was
promised under the MMA.
Mr. President, I commend to my colleagues the New England Journal of
Medicine study entitled ``Unintended Consequences of Caps on Medicare
Drug Benefits,'' and I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post
article and the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3650
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 ``Helping Fill the Medicare Rx
Gap Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. INCLUDING COSTS INCURRED BY THE INDIAN HEALTH
SERVICE, A FEDERALLY QUALIFIED HEALTH CENTER,
AN AIDS DRUG ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, CERTAIN
HOSPITALS, OR A PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURER
PATIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM IN PROVIDING
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS TOWARD THE ANNUAL OUT OF
POCKET THRESHOLD UNDER PART D.
(a) In General.--Section 1860D-2(b)(4)(C) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-102(b)(4)(C)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in clause (ii)--
(A) by striking ``such costs shall be treated as incurred
only if'' and inserting ``subject to clause (iii), such costs
shall be treated as incurred if''
(B) by striking ``, under section 1860D-14, or under a
State Pharmaceutical Assistance Program''; and
(C) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(3) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new
clause:
``(iii) such costs shall be treated as incurred and shall
not be considered to be reimbursed under clause (ii) if such
costs are borne or paid--
``(I) under section 1860D-14;
``(II) under a State Pharmaceutical Assistance Program;
``(III) by the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe or
tribal organization, or an urban Indian organization (as
defined in section 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act);
``(IV) by a Federally qualified health center (as defined
in section 1861(aa)(4));
``(V) under an AIDS Drug Assistance Program under part B of
title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act;
``(VI) by a subsection (d) hospital (as defined in section
1886(d)(1)(B)) that meets the requirements of clauses (i) and
(ii) of section 340B(a)(4)(L) of the Public Health Service
Act; or
``(VII) by a pharmaceutical manufacturer patient assistance
program, either directly or through the distribution or
donation of covered part D drugs, which shall be valued at
the negotiated price of such covered part D drug under the
enrollee's prescription drug plan or MA-PD plan as of the
date that the drug was distributed or donated.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to costs incurred on or after January 1, 2006.
SEC. 3. PROVIDING A SAFE HARBOR FOR PHARMACEUTICAL
MANUFACTURER PATIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) Safe Harbor.--Section 1128B(b)(3) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (H), as added by section 237(d) of the
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization
Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat. 2213)--
(A) by moving such subparagraph 2 ems to the left; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting a
semicolon;
(3) by redesignating subparagraph (H), as added by section
431(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat.
2287), as subparagraph (I);
(4) in subparagraph (I), as so redesignated--
(A) by moving such subparagraph 2 ems to the left; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(J) any remuneration paid by a pharmaceutical
manufacturer patient assistance program, either in cash or
through the distribution or donation of covered Part D drugs
(as defined in section 1860D-2(e)), to an individual enrolled
in a prescription drug plan under part D of title XVIII or in
an MA-PD plan under part C of such title.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to remuneration paid on or after January 1, 2006.
____
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
The High Cost of Drug Caps
benefit limits mean more hospital visits, study says
June 6, 2006.--People with limited prescription drug
coverage skip their medicines, make more trips to the
hospital and die sooner than patients with unlimited
benefits, a New England Journal of Medicine study found.
The study compared the medical records of 157,275 people in
a plan that covered only the first $1,000 worth of drugs with
those of 41,904 people who had unlimited drug coverage.
Those with limited drug coverage spent 31 percent less on
drugs, but their total medical costs were not significantly
lower, as they had a 9 percent greater chance of going to the
emergency room and a 13 percent greater chance of landing in
the hospital.
``The savings in drug costs from the cap were offset by
increases in the costs of hospitalization and emergency
department care,'' concluded the researchers, who were led by
John Hsu of Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif.
The annual death rate of people whose drug benefits were
capped was 22 percent higher than those with unlimited
benefits.
``These changes affect the sickest patients the most, since
they reach their caps on benefits earlier in the year than
other patients,'' said Kenneth Thorpe, of Emory University in
Atlanta, in a Journal editorial.
The study is especially relevant to the new Medicare Part D
drug plans: Many of them have significant gaps in coverage,
or ``doughnut holes,'' where enrollees must pay in full for
annual drug costs between $2,250 and $5,100.
``In short, caps on drug benefits, such as those used in
Medicare, for a population of patients with chronic illnesses
result in worse outcomes and do not reduce spending
considerably,'' said Thorpe.
[[Page S7426]]
The study showed that while 26 percent of people with
diabetes skipped at least 20 percent of their doses if their
drug benefits were capped, the rate was 21 percent for those
who dIdn't have a cap.
All patients in the study had a required co-payment of $15
to $30 for brand-name drugs, and $10 for generic medicines.
____________________