[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.

                          ____________________