[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 121 (Wednesday, July 29, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6138-S6143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. REED (for himself and Mrs. Capito):
S. 1883. A bill to maximize discovery, and accelerate development and
availability, of promising childhood cancer treatments, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Capito
in the introduction of the Childhood Cancer Survivorship, Treatment,
Access, and Research, STAR, Act of 2015. This legislation is an
extension of ongoing bipartisan efforts in the Senate over the past
decade to get us closer to the goal of hopefully one day curing cancers
in children, adolescents, and young adults. Representatives McCaul, Van
Hollen, and Speier are introducing the companion legislation in the
other body.
I first started working on this issue after meeting the Haight family
from Warwick, RI, in June of 2004. Nancy and Vincent lost their son,
Ben, when he was just 9 years old to neuroblastoma, a very aggressive
tumor in the brain.
The heart-wrenching story of Ben Haight highlights the importance of
this legislation. It is my hope that one day Ben's story, and thousands
of other children like him, will be one of survival. With the strong
support of families like the Haights for increased research into the
causes of childhood cancers and improved treatment options, I
introduced bipartisan legislation that eventually was signed into law
in 2008 as the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act.
This was an important step. Yet, more work remains. With the STAR
Act, we would take the next needed steps to advance pediatric cancer
research and child-focused cancer treatments, while also improving
childhood cancer surveillance and providing resources for survivors and
those impacted by childhood cancer.
If a treatment is working, doctors elsewhere should know immediately.
The same should happen if a treatment isn't working, or if other major
medical events occur during the course of a particular treatment. It is
critical that doctors, nurses, and other providers are able to
effectively communicate information about the disease, the treatment
process, and what other health and development impacts children can
expect to experience.
As such, the STAR Act reauthorizes the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer
Childhood Cancer Act to help create a comprehensive children's cancer
biorepository for researchers to use in searching for biospecimens to
study and would improve surveillance of childhood cancer cases.
Additionally, this legislation includes provisions dealing with
issues that arise for survivors of childhood cancer. Unfortunately,
even after beating cancer, as many as two-thirds of childhood cancer
survivors are likely to experience at least one late effect of
treatment; as many as one-fourth experience a late effect that is
serious or life-threatening, including second cancers and organ damage.
We must do more to ensure that children survive cancer and any late
effects so they can live a long, healthy, and productive life. This
legislation would enhance research on the late effects of childhood
cancers, improve collaboration among providers so that doctors are
better able to care for this population as they age, and establish a
new pilot program to begin to explore improved models of care for
childhood cancer survivors.
This legislation also provides some clarity for patients and their
physicians attempting to access new drugs and therapies from
pharmaceutical companies. When a patient has run out of other options,
the last thing they and their families need is to spend months being
given the run-around trying to access a potential treatment.
Lastly, this bill will ensure more pediatric expertise at the
National Institutes of Health to better leverage the research
investment to improve pediatric cancer research by requiring the
inclusion of at least one pediatric oncologist on the National Cancer
Advisory Board and improving childhood health reporting requirements to
include pediatric cancer.
I am pleased that the Childhood Cancer STAR Act has the support of
the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, St. Baldrick's
Foundation, and Children's Oncology Group, among others. I look forward
to working with these and other stakeholders, as well as Senator Capito
to urge the rest of our colleagues to join us in supporting this
crucial legislation.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Reed, Mr. Brown,
Ms. Baldwin, Mr. King, and Ms. Hirono):
S. 1884. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
deliver a meaningful benefit and lower prescription drug prices under
the Medicare
[[Page S6139]]
program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 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. 1884
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 ``Medicare Prescription Drug
Savings and Choice Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICARE OPERATED PRESCRIPTION DRUG
PLAN OPTION.
(a) In General.--Subpart 2 of part D of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act is amended by inserting after section
1860D-11 (42 U.S.C. 1395w-111) the following new section:
``medicare operated prescription drug plan option
``Sec. 1860D-11A. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this part, for each year (beginning with
2017), in addition to any plans offered under section 1860D-
11, the Secretary shall offer one or more Medicare operated
prescription drug plans (as defined in subsection (c)) with a
service area that consists of the entire United States and
shall enter into negotiations in accordance with subsection
(b) with pharmaceutical manufacturers to reduce the purchase
cost of covered part D drugs for eligible part D individuals
who enroll in such a plan.
``(b) Negotiations.--Notwithstanding section 1860D-11(i),
for purposes of offering a Medicare operated prescription
drug plan under this section, the Secretary shall negotiate
with pharmaceutical manufacturers with respect to the
purchase price of covered part D drugs in a Medicare operated
prescription drug plan and shall encourage the use of more
affordable therapeutic equivalents to the extent such
practices do not override medical necessity as determined by
the prescribing physician. To the extent practicable and
consistent with the previous sentence, the Secretary shall
implement strategies similar to those used by other Federal
purchasers of prescription drugs, and other strategies,
including the use of a formulary and formulary incentives in
subsection (e), to reduce the purchase cost of covered part D
drugs.
``(c) Medicare Operated Prescription Drug Plan Defined.--
For purposes of this part, the term `Medicare operated
prescription drug plan' means a prescription drug plan that
offers qualified prescription drug coverage and access to
negotiated prices described in section 1860D-2(a)(1)(A). Such
a plan may offer supplemental prescription drug coverage in
the same manner as other qualified prescription drug coverage
offered by other prescription drug plans.
``(d) Monthly Beneficiary Premium.--
``(1) Qualified prescription drug coverage.--The monthly
beneficiary premium for qualified prescription drug coverage
and access to negotiated prices described in section 1860D-
2(a)(1)(A) to be charged under a Medicare operated
prescription drug plan shall be uniform nationally. Such
premium for months in 2017 and each succeeding year shall be
based on the average monthly per capita actuarial cost of
offering the Medicare operated prescription drug plan for the
year involved, including administrative expenses.
``(2) Supplemental prescription drug coverage.--Insofar as
a Medicare operated prescription drug plan offers
supplemental prescription drug coverage, the Secretary may
adjust the amount of the premium charged under paragraph (1).
``(e) Use of a Formulary and Formulary Incentives.--
``(1) In general.--With respect to the operation of a
Medicare operated prescription drug plan, the Secretary shall
establish and apply a formulary (and may include formulary
incentives described in paragraph (2)(C)(ii)) in accordance
with this subsection in order to--
``(A) increase patient safety;
``(B) increase appropriate use and reduce inappropriate use
of drugs; and
``(C) reward value.
``(2) Development of initial formulary.--
``(A) In general.--In selecting covered part D drugs for
inclusion in a formulary, the Secretary shall consider
clinical benefit and price.
``(B) Role of ahrq.--The Director of the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality shall be responsible for
assessing the clinical benefit of covered part D drugs and
making recommendations to the Secretary regarding which drugs
should be included in the formulary. In conducting such
assessments and making such recommendations, the Director
shall--
``(i) consider safety concerns including those identified
by the Food and Drug Administration;
``(ii) use available data and evaluations, with priority
given to randomized controlled trials, to examine clinical
effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, safety, and
enhanced compliance with a drug regimen;
``(iii) use the same classes of drugs developed by the
United States Pharmacopeia for this part;
``(iv) consider evaluations made by--
``(I) the Director under section 1013 of the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of
2003;
``(II) other Federal entities, such as the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs; and
``(III) other private and public entities, such as the Drug
Effectiveness Review Project and State plans under title XIX;
and
``(v) recommend to the Secretary--
``(I) those drugs in a class that provide a greater
clinical benefit, including fewer safety concerns or less
risk of side-effects, than another drug in the same class
that should be included in the formulary;
``(II) those drugs in a class that provide less clinical
benefit, including greater safety concerns or a greater risk
of side-effects, than another drug in the same class that
should be excluded from the formulary; and
``(III) drugs in a class with same or similar clinical
benefit for which it would be appropriate for the Secretary
to competitively bid (or negotiate) for placement on the
formulary.
``(C) Consideration of ahrq recommendations.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary, after taking into
consideration the recommendations under subparagraph (B)(v),
shall establish a formulary, and formulary incentives, to
encourage use of covered part D drugs that--
``(I) have a lower cost and provide a greater clinical
benefit than other drugs;
``(II) have a lower cost than other drugs with the same or
similar clinical benefit; and
``(III) have the same cost but provide greater clinical
benefit than other drugs.
``(ii) Formulary incentives.--The formulary incentives
under clause (i) may be in the form of one or more of the
following:
``(I) Tiered copayments.
``(II) Reference pricing.
``(III) Prior authorization.
``(IV) Step therapy.
``(V) Medication therapy management.
``(VI) Generic drug substitution.
``(iii) Flexibility.--In applying such formulary incentives
the Secretary may decide not to impose any cost-sharing for a
covered part D drug for which--
``(I) the elimination of cost sharing would be expected to
increase compliance with a drug regimen; and
``(II) compliance would be expected to produce savings
under part A or B or both.
``(3) Limitations on formulary.--In any formulary
established under this subsection, the formulary may not be
changed during a year, except--
``(A) to add a generic version of a covered part D drug
that entered the market;
``(B) to remove such a drug for which a safety problem is
found; and
``(C) to add a drug that the Secretary identifies as a drug
which treats a condition for which there has not previously
been a treatment option or for which a clear and significant
benefit has been demonstrated over other covered part D
drugs.
``(4) Adding drugs to the initial formulary.--
``(A) Use of advisory committee.--The Secretary shall
establish and appoint an advisory committee (in this
paragraph referred to as the `advisory committee')--
``(i) to review petitions from drug manufacturers, health
care provider organizations, patient groups, and other
entities for inclusion of a drug in, or other changes to,
such formulary; and
``(ii) to recommend any changes to the formulary
established under this subsection.
``(B) Composition.--The advisory committee shall be
composed of 9 members and shall include representatives of
physicians, pharmacists, and consumers and others with
expertise in evaluating prescription drugs. The Secretary
shall select members based on their knowledge of
pharmaceuticals and the Medicare population. Members shall be
deemed to be special Government employees for purposes of
applying the conflict of interest provisions under section
208 of title 18, United States Code, and no waiver of such
provisions for such a member shall be permitted.
``(C) Consultation.--The advisory committee shall consult,
as necessary, with physicians who are specialists in treating
the disease for which a drug is being considered.
``(D) Request for studies.--The advisory committee may
request the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or an
academic or research institution to study and make a report
on a petition described in subparagraph (A)(i) in order to
assess--
``(i) clinical effectiveness;
``(ii) comparative effectiveness;
``(iii) safety; and
``(iv) enhanced compliance with a drug regimen.
``(E) Recommendations.--The advisory committee shall make
recommendations to the Secretary regarding--
``(i) whether a covered part D drug is found to provide a
greater clinical benefit, including fewer safety concerns or
less risk of side-effects, than another drug in the same
class that is currently included in the formulary and should
be included in the formulary;
``(ii) whether a covered part D drug is found to provide
less clinical benefit, including greater safety concerns or a
greater risk of side-effects, than another drug in the same
class that is currently included in the formulary and should
not be included in the formulary; and
``(iii) whether a covered part D drug has the same or
similar clinical benefit to a drug in the same class that is
currently included
[[Page S6140]]
in the formulary and whether the drug should be included in
the formulary.
``(F) Limitations on review of manufacturer petitions.--The
advisory committee shall not review a petition of a drug
manufacturer under subparagraph (A)(i) with respect to a
covered part D drug unless the petition is accompanied by the
following:
``(i) Raw data from clinical trials on the safety and
effectiveness of the drug.
``(ii) Any data from clinical trials conducted using active
controls on the drug or drugs that are the current standard
of care.
``(iii) Any available data on comparative effectiveness of
the drug.
``(iv) Any other information the Secretary requires for the
advisory committee to complete its review.
``(G) Response to recommendations.--The Secretary shall
review the recommendations of the advisory committee and if
the Secretary accepts such recommendations the Secretary
shall modify the formulary established under this subsection
accordingly. Nothing in this section shall preclude the
Secretary from adding to the formulary a drug for which the
Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or
the advisory committee has not made a recommendation.
``(H) Notice of changes.--The Secretary shall provide
timely notice to beneficiaries and health professionals about
changes to the formulary or formulary incentives.
``(f) Informing Beneficiaries.--The Secretary shall take
steps to inform beneficiaries about the availability of a
Medicare operated drug plan or plans including providing
information in the annual handbook distributed to all
beneficiaries and adding information to the official public
Medicare website related to prescription drug coverage
available through this part.
``(g) Application of All Other Requirements for
Prescription Drug Plans.--Except as specifically provided in
this section, any Medicare operated drug plan shall meet the
same requirements as apply to any other prescription drug
plan, including the requirements of section 1860D-4(b)(1)
relating to assuring pharmacy access.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1860D-3(a) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-103(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(4) Availability of the medicare operated prescription
drug plan.--A Medicare operated prescription drug plan (as
defined in section 1860D-11A(c)) shall be offered nationally
in accordance with section 1860D-11A.''.
(2)(A) Section 1860D-3 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-103) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(c) Provisions Only Applicable in 2006 Through 2016.--The
provisions of this section shall only apply with respect to
2006 through 2016.''.
(B) Section 1860D-11(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
111(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(8) No authority for fallback plans after 2016.--A
fallback prescription drug plan shall not be available after
December 31, 2016.''.
(3) Section 1860D-13(c)(3) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-113(c)(3)) is amended--
(A) in the heading, by inserting ``and medicare operated
prescription drug plans'' after ``Fallback plans''; and
(B) by inserting ``or a Medicare operated prescription drug
plan'' after ``a fallback prescription drug plan''.
(4) Section 1860D-16(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-116(b)(1)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) payments for expenses incurred with respect to the
operation of Medicare operated prescription drug plans under
section 1860D-11A.''.
(5) Section 1860D-41(a) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-151(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(19) Medicare operated prescription drug plan.--The term
`Medicare operated prescription drug plan' has the meaning
given such term in section 1860D-11A(c).''.
SEC. 3. IMPROVED APPEALS PROCESS UNDER THE MEDICARE OPERATED
PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN.
Section 1860D-4(h) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1305w-104(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(4) Appeals process for medicare operated prescription
drug plan.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a well-
defined process for appeals for denials of benefits under
this part under the Medicare operated prescription drug plan.
Such process shall be efficient, impose minimal
administrative burdens, and ensure the timely procurement of
non-formulary drugs or exemption from formulary incentives
when medically necessary. Medical necessity shall be based on
professional medical judgment, the medical condition of the
beneficiary, and other medical evidence. Such appeals process
shall include--
``(i) an initial review and determination made by the
Secretary; and
``(ii) for appeals denied during the initial review and
determination, the option of an external review and
determination by an independent entity selected by the
Secretary.
``(B) Consultation in development of process.--In
developing the appeals process under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall consult with consumer and patient groups, as
well as other key stakeholders to ensure the goals described
in subparagraph (A) are achieved.''.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Udall):
S. 1891. A bill to amend the Mineral Leasing Act to improve coal
royalties, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I am proud to stand up for fairness
by introducing legislation with my Senate colleague, Senator Tom Udall
of New Mexico, to ensure American taxpayers receive the full value of
coal produced on public lands.
The Coal Royalty Fairness Act would require the Interior Department
to collect royalties for coal mined on Federal lands based on the
actual market value of coal. This bill is based on current successful
practices in Montana--the Nation's second largest Federal coal-
producing State. Currently, some private mining companies sell coal to
their own affiliated companies at a lower cost than market value, and
pay Federal royalties based on the cheaper, first point of sale.
American taxpayers are getting ripped off by coal companies under the
current, broken coal royalties system. I raised concerns about this 2
years ago, and today, Senator Udall and I are introducing legislation
to get the public every penny owed by companies that may be taking
advantage of a loose system. Instead of subsidizing private coal
companies, it is time to put this money back where it belongs--into
rural communities and the pockets of taxpayers.
Our bill will require the Interior Department to collect royalties
based on the actual market value of coal, not the below-market price
they charge their own companies.
Our bill will also bring some much-needed transparency to the Federal
coal program by requiring the Interior Department to publish more
information and calling for Government Accountability Office to review
the program every 3 years.
I urge my colleagues to join Senator Udall and me by cosponsoring and
ultimately passing this important bill.
Mr. President, 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. 1891
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 ``Coal Royalty Fairness Act of
2015''.
SEC. 2. VALUATION OF COAL ROYALTIES.
Section 7 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 207) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking the fourth sentence; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Royalties.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Assessment value.--
``(i) In general.--The term `assessment value', with
respect to Federal coal, means--
``(I) the price of Federal coal paid by the purchaser at
final sale; or
``(II) a price imputed by the Secretary based on the coal
price index.
``(ii) Exclusions.--The term `assessment value' does not
include, as determined and to the extent determined to be
appropriate by the Secretary--
``(I) transportation costs, as determined in accordance
with the transportation cost index; or
``(II) the cost of coal washing.
``(B) Broker.--The term `broker' means a person that
resells Federal coal.
``(C) Coal price index.--The term `coal price index' means
the schedule of average market prices of Federal coal (in
United States dollars) paid by the purchaser at final sale,
based on the quality and type of the Federal coal, as
determined by the Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator of the Energy Information Administration.
``(D) Purchaser.--
``(i) In general.--The term `purchaser' means a person
that--
``(I) purchases or contracts to purchase Federal coal--
``(aa) directly from a coal mine operator; or
[[Page S6141]]
``(bb) indirectly from a broker; and
``(II) uses that Federal coal in any industrial or energy
conversion process.
``(ii) Exclusion.--The term `purchaser' does not include--
``(I) a coal broker; or
``(II) any other third-party intermediary.
``(E) Quality.--The term `quality', with respect to Federal
coal, means the quality of Federal coal measured in British
thermal units, sulfur, moisture, and other criteria
determined to be appropriate by the Secretary.
``(F) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
``(G) Transportation cost index.--The term `transportation
cost index' means the transportation cost index established
under paragraph (7).
``(H) Type.--The term `type', with respect to Federal coal,
means a general category of coal, such as metallurgical coal
or steam coal, as determined by the Secretary.
``(2) Payment rate.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
a lease shall require payment of a royalty in such amount as
the Secretary shall determine of not less than 12.5 percent
of the assessment value of Federal coal, as determined under
paragraph (3).
``(B) Exception.--In lieu of the royalty payment rate
described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary may establish
such lower royalty payment rate as the Secretary determines
to be appropriate in the case of Federal coal recovered by an
underground mining operation.
``(3) Valuation for royalties.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall
establish, as the valuation for Federal coal royalties, the
assessment value of Federal coal.
``(4) Administration.--
``(A) Reporting.--The purchaser of Federal coal shall
annually submit to the Secretary a report containing such
information as the Secretary determines to be necessary to
carry out this subsection.
``(B) Audits.--To carry out this subsection, the Secretary
may examine the records of any person engaged in the
purchase, sale, transportation, or marketing of Federal coal.
``(5) Coal price index.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall compile the
assessment values of coal by type and quality of coal in a
coal price index.
``(B) Publication.--Not less frequently than quarterly, the
Secretary shall publish the coal price index, along with a
methodological description, including--
``(i) the method of calculation;
``(ii) the data used to calculate the coal price index in
an aggregate manner that does not reveal proprietary
information; and
``(iii) any other information the Secretary considers
appropriate to ensure transparency.
``(C) Other information.--If a person believes that the
coal price index significantly deviates from the assessment
value of the coal produced by the person, the person may
petition the Secretary to use information supplied by the
person in lieu of the coal price index, including all
information the Secretary requires to accurately determine
the assessment value and audit the records of the person.
``(6) Exports.--
``(A) In general.--In assessing royalties for the export of
Federal coal under this subsection, the Secretary may obtain
from the exporter of the Federal coal such information as the
Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out this
subsection.
``(B) Assessment value of exported coal.--Subject to
subparagraph (C), in determining the assessment value of
Federal coal that is exported, the Secretary shall--
``(i) use the price of coal free on board the marine vessel
used to transport the coal overseas at the port of origin;
and
``(ii) limit any deductions that apply to the assessment
value of the Federal coal to costs incurred prior to being
free onboard the vessel.
``(C) Uncertain export price.--If the Secretary cannot
determine the value of exported coal in accordance with
subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall--
``(i) assess royalties under this subsection based on the
coal price index for coal of a similar quantity and type; and
``(ii) limit any deductions that apply to the assessment
value of the Federal coal to costs incurred within the
contiguous United States.
``(7) Transportation cost index.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to the other provisions of this
paragraph, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary
of Energy and the Secretary of Transportation (in
consultation with the Surface Transportation Board and
others), shall--
``(i) compile in a transportation cost index the average
costs of transporting coal; and
``(ii) determine the amount of any transportation cost
deduction under this subsection, on the basis of the
transportation cost index.
``(B) Unit of measurement.--The transportation cost index
shall be based on the average transportation costs per ton of
coal or another unit of measurement determined by the
Secretary.
``(C) Differences in transportation costs.--The
transportation cost index shall take into consideration
differences in the costs of transportation, as determined by
the Secretary, based on--
``(i) the mode of transportation;
``(ii) the geographic region, and
``(iii) other characteristics of the transportation
industry that the Secretary considers to be necessary to
calculate a fair, transparent, and accurate transportation
cost index.
``(D) Exclusions.--The transportation cost index shall not
include costs associated with, as determined by the
Secretary--
``(i) take-or-pay contract penalties;
``(ii) liquidated damages;
``(iii) the speculative aspects of transportation
transactions; or
``(iv) any other costs that are not directly associated
with moving Federal coal from 1 location to another location.
``(E) Publication.--Not less than twice annually, the
Secretary shall publish the transportation cost index, along
with a methodological description, including--
``(i) the method of calculation;
``(ii) the data used to calculate the transportation cost
index, in an aggregate manner that does not reveal
proprietary information; and
``(iii) any other information the Secretary considers to be
appropriate to ensure transparency.
``(F) Other information.--If a person believes that the
transportation cost index significantly deviates from the
transportation costs of the person, the person may petition
the Secretary to use information supplied by the person
(other than costs descried in subparagraph (D)) in lieu of
the transportation cost index, including all information the
Secretary requires to accurately determine cost and audit the
records of the person.
``(8) Reviews.--
``(A) In general.--To ensure a transparent, fair, and
efficient administration of the Federal coal program, and to
ensure that citizens of the United States receive a fair
return on Federal coal, not later than 3 years after the date
of enactment of this subsection and every 3 years thereafter
during the 15-year period beginning on that date of
enactment, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to Congress a report that describes a review of the
Federal coal program, including the administration of this
subsection.
``(B) Consultation.--In conducting a review under this
paragraph, the Comptroller General shall consult with--
``(i) the Secretary;
``(ii) the Director of the Bureau of Land Management;
``(iii) the Secretary of Transportation; and
``(iv) the Secretary of Energy.
``(C) Inclusions.--A review under this paragraph shall
include a review of--
``(i) the total volume of coal production from Federal
land;
``(ii) the total volume of remaining coal reserves on
Federal land;
``(iii) the total revenues generated from the Federal coal
program, itemized by type of revenue, including lease bonus
payments and royalties;
``(iv) market prices for coal;
``(v) market prices for transportation costs and any other
deductible costs; and
``(vi) the appropriateness of royalty rates.
``(D) Format.--The Comptroller General shall report
information in a review under this paragraph--
``(i) in the aggregate for the United States; and
``(ii) categorized by State for at least the top 10 Federal
coal-producing States, as determined by the Comptroller
General.
``(9) Application.--This subsection--
``(A) applies to coal mined from Federal land; and
``(B) does not apply to coal mined from tribal land.''.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 1894. A bill to provide short-term water supplies to drought-
stricken California; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the
historic drought that is devastating California and much of the West
and to introduce the California Emergency Drought Relief Act along with
Senator Boxer.
The toll on some of our most vulnerable communities is mounting.
As of July, 2,091 wells are already dry or will soon run out of
water. This puts more than 10,000 people in jeopardy.
Rural and disadvantaged communities are some of the hardest hit.
Just this month, the Washington Post reported that arsenic had been
found in wells serving St. Anthony's mobile home park in the Coachella
Valley at twice the safe concentration.
In Porterville, Californians are bathing themselves with bottled
water.
California is also suffering a massive loss of agriculture
production.
A study from UC Davis estimates that farmers will fallow 563,000
acres in 2015, a 35 percent increase from last year when farmers
fallowed 410,000 acres.
The State's agriculture sector stands to lose $1.8 billion in direct
agricultural costs this year, on top of $1.5 billion last year.
The San Joaquin Valley is at the epicenter of the drought, and the
possible damage to our nation's food supply is dire.
[[Page S6142]]
The Valley is home to 90 percent of the country's tomatoes, 74
percent of our lettuce, and 95 percent of our broccoli. The drought's
effects on the Valley will extend far beyond California's borders.
But the devastating consequences of this drought aren't limited to a
single region.
UC Davis also reports that California's economy will lose an
estimated $2.7 billion in 2015, along with 18,600 jobs.
That is on top of $2.2 billion last year and 17,100 jobs lost.
Effects on the environment are also destructive.
Groundwater reserves in underground aquifers are being depleted,
which is causing the surrounding land to sink.
Delta smelt are at their lowest levels since surveys first began in
1959, while Chinook salmon are imperiled by warmer water in the
Sacramento River.
Saltwater from the San Francisco Bay threatens to contaminate
freshwater in the Delta, imperiling an entire ecosystem, not to mention
the ill effects on drinking water supplies and farmland.
Finally, we can't ignore the increasing threat of wildfires. Since
January 1, the U.S. Forest Service reports more than 5,000 fires have
burned on state and federal lands, a 10 percent increase over last
year.
Despite the high likelihood of a strong El Nino this year, one wet
season won't fix the problems. Experts estimate that California needs
at least three above-average precipitation years to cover the current
37 million acre-foot deficit.
Doing nothing is simply not an option.
In drafting the bill we're introducing today, we started with the
bill that unanimously passed the Senate in 2014.
We then modified that bill, adding significant environmental
protections and removing controversial provisions.
We also included a range of provisions to protect and restore
threatened and endangered species, as well as a number of programs to
support long-term infrastructure projects like desalination, water
recycling and storage.
My staff and I have taken dozens of meetings since January.
We have met with Congressional Republicans and Democrats,
environmental groups, water districts, and State and local officials.
My California staff has visited water projects throughout the State
to collect ideas, and my staff in Washington has consulted closely with
Federal agencies to ensure the bill adheres to environmental law.
By releasing a bill this summer, months before the rainy season,
Congress and the public will have ample time to review, debate and,
where necessary, suggest improvements.
I expect the bill will receive a committee hearing, allowing every
member of Congress and the public to weigh in.
Let me briefly discuss how this bill will help.
Federal policy will be most effective if it is aligned with the
State's goals and the State water bond.
This means expanding Federal efforts to include long-term solutions
such as desalination, recycling and storage. We also must look at ways
to help communities that are running out of water.
To help those communities, the bill includes a new program to assist
areas that have suffered the brunt of the drought, communities like
Porterville and others in Tulare County.
Providing emergency supplies like bottled water is a no-brainer, but
it is a short-term fix.
We need to look beyond this emergency at ways we can shift these
communities from vulnerable water sources like wells to more
sustainable and resilient water systems.
We also need to take a close look at desalination and water
recycling. These are two of the most promising technologies that may
offer long-term solutions.
The bill identifies 26 desalination projects capable of producing
more than 330,000 acre-feet of water.
It also identifies 105 recycling projects with the potential to
produce about 854,000 acre-feet of water.
That is a total of 1.2 million acre-feet of clean water per year,
enough for 2.4 million households.
But these projects aren't cheap. That is why the bill funds a loan-
guarantee program and other financing mechanisms to help make these
projects a reality.
Another area we should focus on is storage. This drought has showed
that our reservoir capacity is insufficient.
Given the consensus that droughts will grow more severe, we have to
increase how much water we can hold from wet to dry years.
The bill positions the Federal Government as a partner with
California to build new reservoirs and expand existing reservoirs.
Conservation and groundwater recharge are two more promising areas.
While cities and towns are doing their part, the bill also identifies
areas where the Federal, state and local governments and the ag sector
can do more.
Finally, the Federal Government can play a significant role in
supporting research on promising technologies, from recapturing energy
and improving membranes used in desalination to developing strategies
to minimize environmental effects of smart-water strategies.
The bill also includes a number of short-term, low-cost proposals to
protect and assist in the recovery of fish populations, including
salmon and smelt.
This includes authorizations to implement the Endangered Species Act
recovery plan for salmon; trap-and-barge fish and address predator
species, two ways to reduce mortality rates; create additional spawning
habitat for endangered and threatened species; and improving how water
systems are managed using the latest science and technology.
The bill's short-term provisions build on legislation that
unanimously passed the Senate in 2014, with added protections for
environmental and water rights and the removal of several provisions to
address environmental concerns.
The bill's short-term provisions will help move water efficiently to
those areas where it is most needed.
Let me be clear--this language was carefully drafted to remain
consistent with environmental laws, including the Endangered Species
Act and the Clean Water Act, as well as all biological opinions.
Here are some examples of how the short-term section works.
First, by operating the water systems with more precision, we will be
able to monitor for endangered species like the Delta Smelt and adjust
pumping levels to avoid harming fish. By doing this, more water can be
moved to the communities that need it while protecting endangered and
threatened species.
The bill also directs agencies to open the Cross-Channel Gates on the
Sacramento River during times when salmon are not migrating. This would
allow thousands of acre feet of water to be moved without harming fish
or water quality.
For water transfers in the Delta--where water sellers and buyers can
help get water where it's needed--we included many additional
protections. Every transfer will be reviewed to ensure it is consistent
with environmental laws. The transfers, which can only occur in April
and May, must include only additional water pumped into the Delta on
top of the regular river flow.
Moving water more efficiently will help supply water to millions of
Californians in urban areas, from Silicon Valley to Southern
California.
It will also increase water allocations for family farms in the San
Joaquin Valley. More than 15,000 small farms served by the Friant Water
Authority--with an average size of just 83 acres--would benefit.
I have introduced many bills during my years in the Senate, and this
may be the most difficult.
Nevertheless, the goal has remained constant: a bill that can get
signed into law that benefits all regions of the State.
Congress worked together after Hurricanes Katrina ravaged the Gulf
Coast and Hurricane Sandy devastated the East Coast.
I think we now have a bill that will help the West survive this
historic drought.
I look forward to a committee hearing on this bill and to public
input to make it even better.
[[Page S6143]]
______
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 1895. A bill to amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act for
purposes of making claims under such Act based on exposure to
atmospheric nuclear testing; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that
would amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, RECA, by adding
Mohave County, AZ, to the list of counties eligible for downwinder
compensation. A similar proposal was introduced today by Congress Paul
Gosar. I am hopeful this bill will help close a painful chapter for
those Arizonans who were arguably the most affected by nuclear weapons
testing during the Cold War.
In 1990, Congress enacted the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to
compensate victims or their survivors who suffered certain illnesses
caused by fallout exposure ``down wind'' of atmospheric nuclear weapons
testing during the 1950's and 1960's. Among other requirements,
eligibility is limited to individuals who can prove their physical
presence in one of several affected counties. Astonishingly, despite
its close proximity to the Nevada Test Site, the original RECA law and
its subsequent amendments never listed Mohave County proper as an
affected area. I believe the people of Mohave County deserve to see
righted this unjust policy which has obstructed their ability to
qualify for compensation.
I understand that several of my colleagues have proposed similar RECA
amendments in previous years. I would hope that these various RECA
proposals give additional consideration to an April 2005 report by the
National Academy of Sciences, NAS, that assessed, among other things,
whether additional geographic areas should be added to the RECA
program. The NAS study revealed a much wider area of radioactive
fallout then originally identified when the RECA law was first written.
The report also recommended replacing the geographic area criteria with
a new science-based process for determining compensation eligibility, a
method similar to what's used in the Radiation Exposed-Veterans
Compensation Act and the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act. I believe it is worthwhile for policy makers
to consider the recommendations of the NAS report.
This bill is an expansion of the RECA program and thus I will be
working with my colleagues to find funding offsets to ensure there is
no net increase in government spending if this legislation were
enacted. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
____________________