[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 102 (Wednesday, July 24, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7310-S7316]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 2777. A bill to repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to the treatment of
qualified public educational facility bonds as exempt facility bonds;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce. The Permanent
Tax Relief for School Construction Act to make permanent the tax
benefits we enacted last year relating to private activity bonds for
school construction.
Last year, we approved a tax bill which had many important
provisions. Unfortunately, these provisions only last until the end of
2010. That's a pretty poor way to engineer the tax code. American
families and businesses only have nine years to reap the benefits of
lower taxes, and right when they are getting used to the current tax
code, it will revert to its pre-2001 level. That is simply unfair. In
order to plan for the long term, families and businesses need to know
that the lower taxes we enacted last year will be permanent.
An important part of the tax package that we approved last year was
the inclusion of elementary and secondary public education under the
private activities for which tax exempt bonds are issued. This
provision will make it easier for States and school districts to raise
money to build schools. In a State like mine, where there is a pressing
need for school construction and not much revenue to fund it, this tax
provision is very important. To see it end in 2010 would prevent many
necessary facilities from being built.
The harm caused by the sunsetting of this tax provision is clearly
illustrated by the plight of many of my State's school districts.
During may travels throughout Idaho, I visited quite a few schools,
many of which were the products of New Deal work projects in the
1930's. These schools are falling part now, though, and school
districts have a very difficult time raising the necessary revenue to
construct new buildings. Idaho, like many States, is suffering from
reduced tax revenue, so aid from the State is just not available to
supplement school districts' revenue. Another problem is that it takes
a super-majority to pass a levy to raise property taxes to finance
school districts, and in quite a few of Idaho's districts, taxpayers
are already paying high taxes. In many instances, the revenue isn't
there for school districts.
We recognized that problem last year and helped out school districts
by providing tax incentives for school construction bonds. This type of
tax relief is the best way we in Washington can help school districts.
Even though we've been increasing the Federal role in education over
the past few years, education matters such as school construction are
still primarily a local function, as they should be. Every step we take
to insert a Federal role into this local authority is a step that must
be carefully considered. By providing tax incentives for these local
school districts, though, we are not undermining their authority. We
are giving them tools to help themselves, and help the children they
are serving. Let's make sure that the tax code lets them continue to
help these children after 2010, so that no child is ever left behind.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 2780. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
clarify the jurisdiction of the United States over waters of the United
Sates; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important
legislation to affirm Federal jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. I am
please to be joined by Representatives Oberstar and Dingell, who are
today introducing companion legislation in the House of
Representatives.
In the U.S. Supreme Court's January 2001 decision, Solid Waste Agency
of Northern Cook County versus the Army Corps of Engineers, a 5 to 4
majority limited the authority of Federal agencies to use the so-called
migratory bird rule as the basis for asserting Clean Water Act
jurisdiction over non-navigable, intrastate, isolated wetlands,
streams, ponds, and other waterbodies.
This decision, known as the SWANCC decision, means that the
Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers can no
longer enforce Federal Clean Water Act protection mechanisms to protect
a waterway solely on the basis that it is used as habitat for migratory
birds.
In its discussion of the case, the Court went beyond the issue of the
migratory bird rule and questioned whether Congress intended the Clean
Water Act to provide protection for isolated ponds, streams, wetlands
and other waters, as it had been interpreted to provide for most of the
last 30 years. While not the legal holding of the case, the Court's
discussion has resulted in a wide variety of interpretations by EPA and
Corps officials that jeopardize protection for wetlands, and other
waters. The wetlands at risk include prairie potholes and bogs,
familiar to many in Wisconsin, and many other types of wetlands.
In effect, the Court's decision removed much of the Clean Water Act
protection for between 30 percent to 60 percent of the Nation's
wetlands. An estimate from my home state of Wisconsin suggested that
more than 60 percent of the wetlands lost Federal protection in my
State. My State is not alone. The National Association of State Wetland
Managers have been collecting data from states across the country. For
example, Nebraska estimates they will lose more than 40 percent of
their wetlands. Indiana estimates they will lose 31 percent of total
wetland acreage and 74 percent of the total number of wetlands.
Delaware estimates the loss of 33 percent or more of their freshwater
wetlands. These wetlands absorb floodwaters, prevent pollution from
reaching our rivers and streams, and provide crucial habitat for most
of the nations ducks and other waterfowl, as well as hundreds of other
bird, fish, shellfish and amphibian species. Loss of these waters would
have a devastating effect on our environment.
In addition, by narrowing the water and wetland areas subject to
Federal regulation, the decision also shifts more of the economic
burden for regulating wetlands to State and local governments. My home
State of Wisconsin has passed State legislation to assume the
regulation of isolated waters, but many other States have not. This
patchwork of regulation means that the standards for protection of
wetlands nationwide is unclear, confusing, and jeopardizes the
migratory birds and other wildlife that depend on these wetlands.
Therefore, Congress needs to re-establish the common understanding of
the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction to protect all waters of the U.S.
the understanding that Congress had when the Act was adopted in 1972 as
reflected in the law, legislative history, and longstanding
regulations, practice, and judicial interpretations prior to the SWANCC
decision.
The proposed legislation does three things. It adopts a statutory
definition of ``waters of the United States'' based on a longstanding
definition of waters in the Corps of Engineers' regulations. Second, it
deletes the term ``navigable'' from the Act to clarify that Congress's
primary concern in 1972 was to protect the nation's waters from
pollution, rather than just sustain the navigability of waterways, and
to reinforce that original intent.
Finally, it includes a set of findings that explain the factual basis
for Congress to assert its constitutional authority over waters and
wetlands, including those that are called isolated, on all relevant
Constitutional grounds, including the Commerce Clause, the Property
Clause, the Treaty Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Additionally, the findings clarify Congress' view that protection of
isolated wetlands and other waters is critical to protect water
quality, public safety, wildlife, and other public interests, including
hunting and fishing.
I also am very pleased to be have the support of so many
environmental and
[[Page S7311]]
conservation groups, and well as organizations that represent those who
regulate and manage our country's wetlands such as Natural Resources
Defense Council, Earthjustice, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra
Club, and the National Association of State Wetland Managers. They
know, as I do, that we need to re-affirm the Federal role in isolated
wetland protection. This legislation is a first step in doing just
that.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Ensign):
S. 2781. A bill to amend the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act to
extend certain protections to franchised refiners or distributors of
lubricating oil; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, during the 103rd Congress in 1994, the
Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, PMPA, was amended to protect
independent petroleum wholesalers and retailers from arbitrary and
unfair termination or non-renewal of their franchise relationships with
major oil companies.
However, this protection was provided only to motor and diesel fuel
franchisees. Franchisees of other petroleum products sold by the major
oil companies lack similar protection.
Today, I rise with Senators Burns and Ensign to introduce a bill that
extends the same protections enjoyed by the motor fuel industry to the
lubricant industry.
I have heard from a constituent in Nevada that his franchise
agreement to sell lubricating oils to car dealers in Las Vegas was
arbitrarily canceled with 30 days notice. In essence, he had thirty
days to convert all of his customers to a new brand.
This seem grossly unfair and, in fact, if the product sold by my
constituent were gasoline or diesel fuel rather than lubricating oil,
it would have been illegal.
I have been made aware of similar terminations or non-renewals in
other states.
Without equal protection under the law, lubricant franchisees are
vulnerable to predatory cancellation by their suppliers. This situation
is exacerbated by recent mergers and acquisitions in the petroleum
industry.
The merger of oil giants Chevron and Texaco and Shell Oil's recent
acquisition of Penzoil-Quaker State will undoubtedly result in the
termination of many independent lubricant franchisees. In New Mexico,
there was a lubricant franchisee who had been promoting and
distributing a branded lubricant to his customers for over 30 years,
only be canceled with 30 days notice following a merger of refiners.
This unfair practice stifles competition in the marketplace and
invariably results in raising the price of the product, which hurts
American consumers and small business. This is especially troublesome
in rural areas.
Given the increasingly anti-competitive nature of the petroleum
industry, the time has come to extend protections under current law for
motor fuel marketers to include lubricant franchisees.
There are approximately 3,500 independent distributors and nearly
25,000 commercial retail lube oil outlets that could be impacted by the
increasing frequency of lubricant franchise cancellations. Refiners
have not suffered by complying with PMPA in motor fuels. Consequently,
it is hard to believe it would be much of an imposition to include the
much small segment of lubricant franchisees.
I introduce this bill today because it protects small businesses,
benefits consumers and ensure fair competition in the marketplace.
In short, this bill is the right thing to do and I hope my colleagues
will support it.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2781
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROTECTION OF FRANCHISED DISTRIBUTORS OF
LUBRICATING OIL.
(a) Definitions.--Section 101 of the Petroleum Marketing
Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 2801) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)--
(A) in clause (ii)(II), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and
(C) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
``(iii) any contract under which a refiner authorizes or
permits a distributor to use, in connection with the sale,
consignment, or distribution of lubricating oil, a trademark
that is owned or controlled by the refiner; and'';
(2) in paragraphs (2), (5), and (6), by inserting ``or
lubricating oil'' after ``motor fuel'' each place it appears;
(3) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4) and inserting the
following:
``(3) Franchisee.--The term `franchisee' means--
``(A) a retailer or distributor that is authorized or
permitted, under a franchise, to use a trademark in
connection with the sale, consignment, or distribution of
motor fuel; or
``(B) a distributor that is authorized or permitted, under
a franchise, to use a trademark in connection with the sale,
consignment, or distribution of lubricating oil.
``(4) Franchisor.--The term `franchisor' means--
``(A) a refiner or distributor that authorizes or permits,
under a franchise, a retailer or distributor to use a
trademark in connection with the sale, consignment, or
distribution of motor fuel; or
``(B) a refiner that authorizes or permits, under a
franchise, a distributor to use a trademark in connection
with the sale, consignment, or distribution of motor fuel.'';
and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(20) Lubricating oil.--The term `lubricating oil' means
any grade of paraffinic or naphthenic lubricating oil stock
that is refined from crude oil or synthetic lubricants.''.
(b) Protection of Franchised Distributors of Lubricating
Oil.--Section 102(b)(2) of the Petroleum Marketing Practices
Act (15 U.S.C. 2802(b)(2)) is amended by inserting after
subparagraph (E) the following:
``(F) Franchised distributors of lubricating oil.--In the
case of a franchise between a refiner or a distributor for
the sale, distribution, or consignment of trademarked
lubricating oil, a determination made by the franchisor in
good faith and in the normal course of business to withdraw
from the marketing of the lubricating oil in the relevant
geographic market in which the franchised lubricating oil is
distributed, if--
``(i) the determination is made--
``(I) after the date on which the franchise is entered into
or renewed; and
``(II) on the basis of a change in relevant facts or
circumstances relating to the franchise that occurs after the
date specified in subclause (I); and
``(ii) the termination or nonrenewal is not for the purpose
of converting any accounts subject to the franchise to the
account of the franchisor.''.
______
By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Wyden, Mr.
Ensign, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Boxer, and Mrs.
Feinstein):
S. 2782. A bill to amend part C of title XVII of the Social Security
Act to consolidate and restate the Federal laws relating to the social
health maintenance organization projects, to make such projects
permanent, to require the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission to
conduct a study on ways to expand such projects, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill
that will make Medicare's Social Health Maintenance Organization, SHMO,
demonstration a permanent part of the Medicare+Choice, M+C, program. I
am joined by my colleagues from Oregon, New York, Arizona, and
California. The Social HMO demonstration was authorized 17 years ago to
test models for improving care for frail seniors, expanding access to
social and supportive services and better integrating these expanded
benefits with medical services. Clearly, a seventeen year test is long
enough--it's time for this successful program to become a permanent
choice for Medicare beneficiaries.
Close to 80 percent of national health care expenditures are for
persons with chronic conditions. Medicare beneficiaries are
disproportionately affected by chronic illness. About 85 percent of
people 65 and older have one chronic condition, and two thirds have two
or more. Fully a third of Medicare beneficiaries have four or more
chronic conditions. This group accounts for almost 80 percent of all
Medicare spending. Yet, despite the predominance of chronic illness
among seniors, Medicare continues to operate as an acute care model. So
many of the services that are central to the health care needs of
seniors are not covered by Medicare, including a number of preventive
services, care coordination and disease management services, and home
and community-based support services.
[[Page S7312]]
Social HMOs provide the care coordination and disease management
services so critically important to frail and at-risk seniors with
multiple chronic conditions and complex care needs. They are required
to provide expanded care benefits such as prescription drugs, ancillary
services such as eyeglasses and hearing aids, and community-based
services such as personal care, homemaker services, adult day care,
meals, and transportation. These services meet the chronic health care
needs of seniors, helping them remain independent, while reducing
Medicaid expenditures by avoiding or delaying nursing home placement.
Several recent studies have shown that Social HMO members are about
40 percent to 50 percent less likely to have long-term nursing home
placements than comparison group members. Further, in a recent survey
of Social HMO beneficiaries, over three-quarter of respondents
indicated that the special services offered by their Social HMO were
important to allowing them to keep living at home. Enhanced Social HMO
services, such as early detection of illness, development of
coordinated care plans to address problems identified during routine
assessments, screening, and ongoing monitoring of care, has paid off in
improved health outcomes for beneficiaries.
I am fortunate to represent one of the four original Social HMOs that
were approved as part of the initial Medicare demonstration project in
1985. Senior Advantage II, offered by Kaiser Permanente's Northwest
Division, currently serves about 4,300 Medicare beneficiaries from
Salem, OR to Longview, WA, with its primary service area in Portland,
OR. Since Kaiser opened its Social HMO program, it has served close to
15,000 beneficiaries with its enhanced benefits and special geriatric
programs, which have led to fewer overall nursing home care days and a
more consumer-oriented approach to care for frail or ill seniors.
The legislation I am introducing with my distinguished colleagues
today would make permanent the existing Social HMO plans, like Kaiser,
and would lay the ground work for evaluating whether to expand and
replicate this model. Our bill requires the Secretary to conduct a
comparative study of beneficiary and family member satisfaction to see
how Social HMOs compare to Medicare+Choice and fee-for-service
Medicare. It also requires MedPAC to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of
Social HMOs with respect to reduced nursing home admissions, reduced
incidence of Medicaid spend-down, and other aspects of the model that
represent potential cost-savings. If MedPAC finds that Social HMOs are
cost-effective, it must make recommendations to Congress on expanding
and replicating this model.
To ensure that beneficiaries continue to receive the value added they
have come to enjoy under this program, the Social HMOs must continue to
provide the expanded benefit package currently offered under this
legislation. Further, this benefit could not be changed by the
Secretary without notification of Congress. Finally, to ensure that
Social HMOs, which have significantly higher risk levels than average
Medicare+Choice plans, can continue to finance a high level of
benefits, any changes in plans' existing payments would need to go
through a formal rulemaking process.
The Social HMO demonstration project has been re-validated by six
acts of Congress since its creation. It is time to make this program
permanent and lend a measure of stability to the plans and
beneficiaries served by this innovative model. This program represents
a fiscally sound approach to helping manage the chronic health care
needs of our Nation's seniors, and I urge all of my colleagues to join
with me and the rest of this bill's cosponsors in support of this
important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2782
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Seniors
Health and Independence Preservation Act of 2002''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Making the social health maintenance organization (SHMO)
projects permanent.
Sec. 3. Expansion of SHMO projects into noncontiguous service areas
within a State.
Sec. 4. Permanence of SHMO planning grant sites.
Sec. 5. Procedures for SHMO benefit and payment mechanism changes.
Sec. 6. Comprehensive MedPAC study on SHMO I and SHMO II cost-
effectiveness and potential expansion.
Sec. 7. SHMO Beneficiary satisfaction survey.
Sec. 8. Conforming cross-references.
Sec. 9. Legislative purpose and construction.
Sec. 10. Repeals.
SEC. 2. MAKING THE SOCIAL HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION
(SHMO) PROJECTS PERMANENT.
Part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395w-21 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 1857
the following new section:
``waivers for social health maintenance organizations
``Sec. 1858. (a) Establishment of SHMO Projects.--In the
case of a project described in subsection (b), the Secretary
shall approve, with appropriate terms and conditions as
defined by the Secretary, applications or protocols submitted
for waivers described in subsection (c), and the evaluation
of such protocols, in order to carry out such project. Such
approval shall be effected not later than 30 days after the
date on which the application or protocol for a waiver is
submitted or not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (Public Law
98-369; 98 Stat. 494) in the case of an application or
protocol submitted before the date of enactment of such Act.
Not later than 36 months after the date of enactment of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-
508; 104 Stat. 1388), the Secretary shall approve
applications or protocols described in paragraph (1) for not
more than 4 additional projects described in subsection (b).
``(b) Projects Described.--A project referred to in
subsection (a) is a project--
``(1) to demonstrate--
``(A) the concept of a social health maintenance
organization with the organizations as described in Project
No. 18-P-9 7604/1-04 of the University Health Policy
Consortium of Brandeis University; or
``(B) in the case of a project conducted as a result of the
amendments made by section 4207(b)(4)(B)(i) of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508; 104
Stat. 1388-118), the effectiveness and feasibility of
innovative approaches to refining targeting and financing
methodologies and benefit design, including the effectiveness
of feasibility of--
``(i) the benefits of expanded post-acute and community
care case management through links between chronic care case
management services and acute care providers;
``(ii) refining targeting or reimbursement methodologies;
``(iii) the establishment and operation of a rural services
delivery system;
``(iv) integrating acute and chronic care management for
patients with end-stage renal disease through expanded
community care case management services (and for purposes of
a project conducted under this clause, any requirement under
a waiver granted under this section that a project disenroll
individuals who develop end-stage renal disease shall not
apply); or
``(v) the effectiveness of second-generation sites in
reducing the costs of the commencement and management of
health care service delivery;
``(2) which provides for the integration of health and
social services under the direct financial management of a
provider of services;
``(3) under which all services under this title will be
provided by or under arrangements made by the organization at
a fixed annual prepaid capitation rate for medicare of 100
percent of the adjusted average per capita cost; and
``(4) under which services under title XIX will be provided
at a rate approved by the Secretary.
``(c) Waivers.--The waivers referred to in subsection (a)
are appropriate waivers of--
``(1) certain requirements of this title, pursuant to
section 402(a) of the Social Security Amendments of 1967
(Public Law 90-248; 81 Stat. 930), as amended by section 222
of the Social Security Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-603;
86 Stat. 1390);
``(2) certain requirements of title XIX, pursuant to
section 1115; and
``(3) in the case of a project conducted as a result of the
amendments made by section 4207(b)(4)(B)(i) of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508; 104
Stat. 1388-118), any requirements of title XVIII or XIX that,
if imposed, would prohibit such project from being conducted.
``(d) Aggregate Limit on Number of Members.--The Secretary
may not impose a limit on the number of individuals that may
participate in a project conducted under this section, other
than an aggregate limit of not less than 324,000 for all
sites.
``(e) Reports.--
[[Page S7313]]
``(1) Preliminary report.--The Secretary shall submit a
preliminary report to Congress on the status of the projects
and waivers referred to in subsection (a) 45 days after the
date of enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984
(Public Law 98-369; 98 Stat. 494).
``(2) Interim report.--The Secretary shall submit an
interim report to Congress on the projects referred to in
subsection (a) not later than 42 months after the date of
enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (Public Law
98-369; 98 Stat. 494).
``(3) Second interim report.--The Secretary shall submit a
second interim report to Congress on the project referred to
in paragraph (1) not later than March 31, 1993.
``(4) Report on integration and transition.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress,
by not later than January 1, 1999, a plan for the integration
of health plans offered by social health maintenance
organizations (including SHMO I and SHMO II sites developed
under this section and similar plans) as an option under the
Medicare+Choice program under this title.
``(B) Provision for transition.--The plan submitted under
subparagraph (A) shall include a transition for social health
maintenance organizations operating under the project
authority under this section.
``(C) Payment policy.--The report shall also include
recommendations on appropriate payment levels for plans
offered by such organizations, including an analysis of the
application of risk adjustment factors appropriate to the
population served by such organizations.
``(5) HHS report.--The Secretary shall submit a report on
the projects conducted under this section not later than the
date that is 21 months after the date on which the Secretary
submits to Congress the report described in paragraph (4).
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated $3,500,000 for the costs of
technical assistance and evaluation related to projects
conducted as a result of the amendments made by section
4207(b)(4)(B) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1990 (Public Law 101-508; 104 Stat. 1388-118).''.
SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF SHMO PROJECTS INTO NONCONTIGUOUS SERVICE
AREAS WITHIN A STATE.
Not later than the date that is 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate a
regulation that permits each social health maintenance
organization participating in a project conducted under
section 1858 of the Social Security Act (as added by section
2) to expand the service area of such organization to include
areas within the State served by the organization that are
not contiguous to any other service area of the organization.
SEC. 4. PERMANENCE OF SHMO PLANNING GRANT SITES.
(a) Original SHMO II Demonstrations.--The 5 organizations
authorized by section 4207(b)(4)(B) of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508; 104 Stat.
1388-118) to demonstrate the concept of social health
maintenance organizations that were approved by the Secretary
of Health and Human Services in 1995 shall be permitted to
participate in the program under section 1858 of the Social
Security Act (as added by section 2).
(b) SHMO II Dual-eligible Planning Grants.--Each entity
that received a planning grant in 1998 under the 1997 Grants
Program for Reforming Service Delivery for Dual Eligible
Beneficiaries to develop a Second Generation Social HMO
Demonstration Program shall be permitted to participate in
the program under section 1858 of the Social Security Act (as
added by section 2).
SEC. 5. PROCEDURES FOR SHMO BENEFIT AND PAYMENT MECHANISM
CHANGES.
(a) Congressional Notification of Benefit Changes.--The
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall notify the
appropriate committees of Congress prior to making any change
to the benefits available under a project under section 1858
of the Social Security Act (as added by section 2).
(a) Rulemaking Requirement for Payment Mechanism Changes.--
The Secretary may not change the payment mechanism applicable
with respect to any social health maintenance organization
project under section 1858 of the Social Security Act (as
added by section 2), except by regulation.
SEC. 6. COMPREHENSIVE MEDPAC STUDY ON SHMO I AND SHMO II
COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND POTENTIAL EXPANSION.
(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
established under section 1805 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395b-6) (in this section referred to as the
``Commission'') shall conduct a study on the cost-
effectiveness of the projects and the potential expansion of
such projects.
(2) Cost-effectiveness.--
(A) In general.--In determining the cost-effectiveness of
the projects under the study conducted under paragraph (1),
the Commission shall take into account--
(i) the extent to which the per beneficiary costs to the
medicare program for enrollees in a social health maintenance
organization do not exceed the average per beneficiary costs
to the medicare program for a comparable case mix of
beneficiaries who are enrolled in the original medicare fee-
for-service program;
(ii) the actuarial value of items and services available to
beneficiaries enrolled in a social health maintenance
organization but not available to beneficiaries enrolled in
the original medicare fee-for-service program; and
(iii) the extent to which social health maintenance
organizations reduced expenditures under the medicaid program
under title XIX of the Social Security Act by--
(I) preventing individuals from being eligible for medical
assistance under such program as medically needy individuals
through the application of spend-down requirements for income
and resources; or
(II) reducing the number of nursing home bed days
associated with stays of 60 days or longer for medicaid
beneficiaries.
(B) Comparable case mix.--In evaluating a comparable case
mix of beneficiaries for purposes of clause (i)(I), the
Commission shall take into account the following factors:
(i) Age.
(ii) Gender.
(iii) Diagnoses.
(iv) Functional status.
(v) Any other available demographic or illness factor
deemed appropriate by the Commission.
(C) Data.--In determining the cost-effectiveness of social
health maintenance organizations under this subsection, the
Commission shall evaluate data from social health maintenance
organizations for the period beginning on January 1, 1997,
and ending on the first December 31 occurring after the date
of enactment of this Act.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than the date that is 24 months
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall
submit to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and to
the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the study
conducted under subsection (a)(1).
(2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall contain--
(A) a statement regarding whether the Commission finds
social health maintenance organizations to be cost-effective;
(B) recommendations regarding whether the projects should
be expanded to include additional sites and whether
additional social health maintenance organizations should be
permitted to participate in the projects;
(C) recommendations on whether to modify or eliminate the
aggregate limit on number of members under section 1858(d) of
the Social Security Act (as added by section 2); and
(D) if the Commission recommends expansion or replication
of the projects, recommendations on the appropriate
implementation of such expansion.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Project.--The term ``project'' means a project
conducted under section 1858 of the Social Security Act (as
added by section 2) other than a project described in
subsection (b)(1)(B)(iv) of such section.
(2) Medicare program.--The term ``medicare program'' means
the health benefits program under title XVIII of the Social
Security Act.
(3) Original medicare fee-for-service program.--The term
``original medicare fee-for-service program'' means the
program under parts A and B of the medicare program.
(4) Social health maintenance organization.--The term
``social health maintenance organization'' means an
organization participating in a SHMO I project described in
subparagraph (A) of section 1858(b)(1) of the Social Security
Act (as added by section 2) or a SHMO II project described in
subparagraph (B) of such section (other than a project
described in clause (iv) of such subparagraph).
SEC. 7. SHMO BENEFICIARY SATISFACTION SURVEY.
(a) Survey.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall conduct a comparative qualitative survey of the
satisfaction of medicare beneficiaries enrolled in--
(A) the original medicare fee-for-service program under
parts A and B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act;
(B) a Medicare+Choice plan under part C of title XVIII of
such Act; and
(C) a social health maintenance organization under section
1858 of such Act (as added by section 2).
(2) Considerations.--In determining beneficiary
satisfaction, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall take into account--
(A) the differences in the program or plan benefit
structure;
(B) the extent to which the program or plan benefit
structure enables beneficiaries to avoid or delay
institutionalization;
(C) the amount of out-of-pocket costs saved by
beneficiaries under the program or plan for traditional and
expanded care services;
(D) the access to services by beneficiaries under the
program or plan; and
(E) the satisfaction level of family members and caregivers
of beneficiaries enrolled in the program or plan.
(b) Publication of Results and Submission to Congress.--Not
later than the date that is 24 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall post the results of the survey conducted under
subsection (a)(1) on an Internet website and shall submit
such results to the appropriate committees of Congress.
SEC. 8. CONFORMING CROSS-REFERENCES.
(a) Social Security Act.--
(1) The last sentence of section 1853(a)(1)(B) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
[[Page S7314]]
23(a)(1)(B)), as added by section 605(a) of the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2763A-556), is amended by striking
``(established by section 2355 of the Deficit Reduction Act
of 1984, as amended by section 13567(b) of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993)'' and inserting ``(established by
section 1858)''.
(2) Section 1882(g)(1) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395ss(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``section 2355 of
the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984'' and inserting ``section
1858''.
(b) Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000.--Section 542(b)(2)(B)(iv) of the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2763A-551), as enacted into
law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554, is amended by
striking ``section 4018(b) of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-203)'' and
inserting ``section 1858 of the Social Security Act''.
SEC. 9. LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE AND CONSTRUCTION.
(a) Principal Substantive Changes To Make SHMO Projects
Permanent.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), section 2--
(A) restates, without substantive change, laws enacted
before January 24, 2002, that were replaced by that section;
(B) may not be construed as making a substantive change in
the laws replaced; and
(C) is superseded by any law that is enacted after January
24, 2002, that is inconsistent with such section or that
supersedes that section to the extent of the inconsistency.
(2) Permanency.--Section 2 extends the social health
maintenance organization projects for an indefinite time
period (beyond the date that is 30 months after the date that
the Secretary submits to Congress the report described in
section 1858(e)(4) of the Social Security Act, as added by
section 2).
(3) Modification of certain reporting requirements.--
(A) The report required to be submitted by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services under section 1858(e)(5) of the
Social Security Act (as added by section 2) is the same
report as is required under the first sentence of section
4018 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (Public
Law 100-203; 101 Stat. 1330-65), except that such report is
no longer characterized as a final report.
(B) The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission established
under section 1805 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395b-6) shall not be required to submit the report described
in the second sentence of section 4018 of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-203; 101 Stat.
1330-65).
(b) References.--A reference to a law replaced by section
2, including a reference in a regulation, order, or other
law, is deemed to refer to the corresponding provision
enacted by this Act.
(c) Continuing Effect.--An order, rule, or regulation in
effect under a law replaced by section 2 shall continue in
effect under the corresponding provision enacted by this Act
until repealed, amended, or superseded.
(d) Actions Under Prior Law.--An action taken under a law
replaced by section 2 is deemed to have been taken under the
corresponding provision enacted by this Act.
(e) Inferences.--No inference of legislative construction
may be drawn by reason of a heading of a provision.
(f ) Severability.--If a provision enacted by this Act is--
(1) held invalid, each valid provision that is severable
from the invalid provision shall remain in effect; and
(2) held invalid with respect to any application, the
provision shall remain valid with respect to each valid
application that is severable from the invalid application.
SEC. 10. REPEALS.
(a) Inferences of Repeal.--The repeal of a law by this Act
may not be construed as a legislative inference that the
provision was or was not in effect before its repeal.
(b) Laws Repealed.--Except for rights and duties that
matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that
were begun before the date of enactment of this Act, the
following provisions (and amendments made by such provisions)
are repealed:
(1) Section 2355 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984
(Public Law 98-369; 98 Stat. 1103).
(2) Section 4018(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-203; 101 Stat. 1330-65).
(3) Section 4207(b)(4) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508; 104 Stat. 1388-118).
(4) Section 13567 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1993 (Public Law 103-66; 107 Stat. 607).
(5) Paragraphs (6) through (8) of section 160(d) of the
Social Security Act Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-432;
108 Stat. 4443).
(6) Section 4014 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public
Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 336).
(7) Section 531 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (Appendix F of Public
Law 106-113; 113 Stat. 1501A-388).
(8) Section 631 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (Appendix F
of Public Law 106-554; 114 Stat. 2763A-566).
______
By Mrs. CARNAHAN:
S. 2783. A bill to amend the internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore
the tax exempt status of death gratuity payments to members of the
uniformed services; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk and ask that
it be appropriately referred.
Today I am introducing legislation to correct a flaw in our tax
system that penalizes the families of those who die while serving in
our Armed Forces. The Honor Our Heroes Act will restore compassion to
the tax code. It exempts from taxation the money the government
provides following the death of an active duty servicemember. This
payment is known as the death gratuity benefit.
Families are often crushed by the weight of funeral and other
immediate expenses after a spouse, parent, or child is killed while
serving in the military. Congress recognized that, at the very least,
we owe these men and women assistance with this burden. In 1986, when
the benefit was set at $3,000, Congress made this payment tax free.
Over the years, rising costs led Congress to increase the payment to
$6,000, but Congress did not make a corresponding change in the tax
code. As a result, today, half of the payment is subject to the income
tax.
Now, bereaved families receive this money with a red flag. Families
are getting get less than the $6,000 Congress meant for them to have.
We end up giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
Missouri has given two of her sons in the War on Terrorism. The
families of these men made the greatest sacrifice possible. We should
not be asking them to pay taxes on the benefit the government gives
them to help pay for funeral expenses and other costs. But since 1991,
thousands of families have had to pay these taxes. During this time,
especially, when so many of members of the military are putting
themselves directly in harm's way, we cannot let this unfair taxation
continue.
Our colleagues in the House have taken an important step toward
repairing this flaw, but they neglect the families for whom a future
increase in the death gratuity would lead to tax liability. My bill
leaves no such doubt. The Honor Our Heroes Act makes the entire amount
of the death gratuity payment exempt from taxes, immediately and
permanently. This bill ensures that payments made to families of
servicemembers are never taxed again.
The legislation I am introducing today will make our Nation's
gratitude tax-free to families coping with the death of a loved one. We
owe this to our men and women in uniform, and pray that their families
never have to face such a loss. I encourage my colleagues to support
this bill.
______
By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
S. 2785. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a tax filing delay for members of the Armed Forces serving in a
contingency operation; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce
the Armed Forces Filing Fairness Act of 2002.
Current law allows for servicemembers serving in a combat zone, like
Afghanistan, to receive a tax filing extension. The Armed Forces Filing
Fairness Act will extend that filing deadline for military
servicemembers serving in contingency operations as well. This bill
would allow the military servicemember to delay filing taxes until they
have returned to the United States, or when the combat zone or
contingency area is no longer designated as such by the Department of
Defense.
As the father of a son who serves in the Army and has recently
returned from Afghanistan, I am pleased to introduce legislation that
will help to lift some of the burdens from our military men and women
serving so bravely in combat zones and contingency operations around
the world. I am committee to improving the quality of life for our
military servicemembers and their families, and I am proud to introduce
the Armed Forces Filing Fairness Act of 2002, which will help make life
just a little easier for our men and women in uniform.
______
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 2786. A bill to provide a cost-sharing requirement for the
construction of
[[Page S7315]]
the Arkansas Valley Conduit in the State of Colorado; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, water is a precious resource that
nourishes our civilization and cultivates our society. Yet finding
clean, inexpensive water in Southeastern Colorado, can be difficult.
That is why today I am introducing legislation that paves the way for
expedited construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a pipeline that
will provide the small, financially strapped towns and water agencies
along the Arkansas River with safe, clean, affordable water. By
providing for the Federal Government to pay for 75 percent of the
construction costs of the Conduit, we can put Southeastern Coloradans
in the position of being able to provide themselves with the water that
they so vitally need.
The Conduit was originally authorized with the enactment of the
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project in 1962. Due to Southeastern Colorado's
depressed economic status and the fact that the authorizing statute
lacked a cost share formula, the Conduit was never built. Until
recently, the region has been fortunate enough to enjoy an economical
and safe alternative to pipeline-transportation of Project Water: the
Arkansas River. Sadly, the water quality in the Arkansas has seriously
declined. At the same time, the federal government has continued to
strengthen its water quality standards while providing no assistance to
water municipalities struggling to meet those standards. In order to
comply with these standards. In order to comply with these standards,
the region's municipalities have begun exploring options for water
treatment, some of which are estimated to cost between $20,000,000 and
$40,000,000. Taken together, the municipalities alone are facing
potential expenditures of $320,000,000 to $640,000,000, simply to
comply with federally mandated water quality standards. As you know,
this is not a financially feasible option for small farming
communities.
The local sponsors of the project have initiated, and are nearing the
completion of, an independently funded feasibility study of the
Conduit. They have developed a coalition of support from water users in
Southeastern Colorado and are exploring options for financing their 25
percent share of the costs.
Because forty years have passed between the enactment of the
authorizing statute and the current efforts to build the Conduit, the
Bureau of Reclamation has stated that a Reevaluation Statement, rather
than a Reconnaissance Study, is the next appropriate action. I would
like to see the Bureau begin the Reevaluation Statement as quickly as
possible. To help make this happen, I have made a request for an
additional $300,000 in the Bureau's General Investigations account to
be used to prepare the Statement and to begin work in earnest on the
Conduit.
I am pleased to learn that the Appropriations Committee is currently
working to include the funding for the Reevaluation Statement, the
Conduit's next step.
With the help of my colleagues, the promise made by Congress forty
years ago to the people of Southeastern Colorado, will finally become a
reality. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2786
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. COST-SHARING REQUIREMENT FOR THE ARKANSAS VALLEY
CONDUIT IN THE STATE OF COLORADO.
(a) In General.--Section 7 of Public Law 87-590 (76 Stat.
393) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Sec. 7.'' and inserting the following:
``SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.'';
(2) in the first sentence, by striking ``There is hereby
authorized'' and inserting the following:
``(a) Construction.--There is authorized'';
(3) in the second sentence, by striking ``There are also''
and inserting the following:
``(b) Operations and Maintenance.--There are''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Arkansas Valley Conduit.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as are necessary to pay the Federal share of the
costs of constructing the Arkansas Valley Conduit in
accordance with subsection (a) of the first section.
``(2) Non-federal share.--
``(A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the total costs
of construction (including design and engineering costs) of
the Arkansas Valley Conduit shall be not more than 25
percent.
``(B) Form.--Up to 100 percent of the non-Federal share
may--
``(i) be in the form of in-kind contributions; or
``(ii) consist of amounts made available under any other
Federal law.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
apply to any costs of constructing the Arkansas Valley
Conduit incurred during fiscal year 2002 or any subsequent
fiscal year.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE:
S. 2788. A bill to revise the boundary of the Wind Cave National Park
in the State of South Dakota; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Wind Cave
National Park Boundary Revision Act.
Wind Cave National Park, located in southwestern South Dakota, is one
of the Park System's precious natural treasures and one of the Nation's
first national parks. The cave itself, after which the park is named,
is one of the world's oldest, longest and most complex cave systems,
with more than 103 miles of mapped tunnels. The cave is well known for
its exceptional display of boxwork, a rare, honeycomb-shaped formation
that protrudes from the cave's ceilings and walls. While the cave is
the focal point of the park, the land above the cave is equally
impressive, with 28,000 acres of rolling meadows, majestic forests,
creeks, and streams. As one of the few remaining mixed-grass prairie
ecosystems in the country, the park is home to abundant wildlife, such
as bison, deer, elk and birds, and is a National Game Preserve.
The Wind Cave National Park Boundary Revision Act will help expand
the park by approximately 20 percent in the southern ``keyhole''
region. This land currently is owned by a ranching family that wants to
see it protected from development and preserved for future generations.
The land is a natural extension of the park, and boasts the mixed-grass
prairie and ponderosa pine forests found in the rest of the park,
including a dramatic river canyon. The addition of this land will
enhance recreation for hikers who come for the solitude of the park's
back country. It will also protect archaeological sites, such as a
buffalo jump over which early Native Americans once drove the bison
they hunted, and improve fire management.
This plan to expand the park has strong, but not universal, support
in the surrounding community, whose views recently were expressed
during a 60-day public comment period on the proposal. Most South
Dakotans recognize the value in expanding the park, not only to
encourage additional tourism in the Black Hills, but to permanently
protect these extraordinary lands for future generations of Americans
to enjoy. Understandably, however, some are legitimately concerned
about the potential loss of hunting opportunities and local tax
revenue.
Governor Janklow has expressed his conditional support for the park
expansion, stating that there must be no reduction in the amount of
lands with public access that currently can be hunted, that there must
be no loss of tax revenue to the county from the expansion, and that
chronic wasting disease issues must be dealt with effectively. There
are reasonable conditions that should be met as this process moves
forward.
The legislation I am introducing today protects hunting opportunities
for sportsmen by excluding 880 acres of School and Public Lands
property from the expansion. In addition, Wind Cave National Park and
the Trust for Public Lands are working with interested parties to find
a way to offset the loss of local county tax revenues. Finally, I
understand that the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department has
reached an agreement with Wind Cave officials to expand research into
chronic wasting disease, which will benefit wildlife populations
nationwide. I am satisfied that the legitimate concerns about the
potential expansion have been effectively addressed and today am moving
forward to begin the legislative phase of this process.
In conclusion, Wind Cave National Park has been a valued American
[[Page S7316]]
treasure for nearly 100 years. We have an opportunity with this
legislation to expand the park and enhance its value to the public so
that visitors will enjoy it even more during the next 100 years. It is
my hope that my colleagues will support this expansion of the park and
pass the legislation in the near future.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2788
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 ``Wind Cave National Park
Boundary Revision Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Wind
Cave National Park Boundary Revision'', numbered 108/80,030,
and dated June 2002.
(2) Park.--The term ``Park'' means the Wind Cave National
Park in the State.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of South
Dakota.
SEC. 3. LAND ACQUISITION.
(a) Authority.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire the land or
interest in land described in subsection (b)(1) for addition
to the Park.
(2) Means.--An acquisition of land under paragraph (1) may
be made by donation, purchase from a willing seller with
donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.
(b) Boundary.--
(1) Map and acreage.--The land referred to in subsection
(a)(1) shall consist of approximately 5,675 acres, as
generally depicted on the map.
(2) Availability of map.--The map shall be on file and
available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of
the National Park Service.
(3) Revision.--The boundary of the Park shall be adjusted
to reflect the acquisition of land under subsection (a)(1).
SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer any land
acquired under section 3(a)(1) as part of the Park in
accordance with laws (including regulations) applicable to
the Park.
(b) Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall transfer from the
Director of the Bureau of Land Management to the Director of
the National Park Service administrative jurisdiction over
the land described in paragraph (2).
(2) Map and acreage.--The land referred to in paragraph (1)
consists of the approximately 80 acres of land identified on
the map as ``Bureau of Land Management land''.
SEC. 5. GRAZING.
(a) Grazing Permitted.--Subject to any permits or leases in
existence as of the date of acquisition, the Secretary may
permit the continuation of livestock grazing on land acquired
under section 3(a)(1).
(b) Limitation.--Grazing under subsection (a) shall be at
not more than the level existing on the date on which the
land is acquired under section 3(a)(1).
(c) Purchase of Permit or Lease.--The Secretary may
purchase the outstanding portion of a grazing permit or lease
on any land acquired under section 3(a)(1).
(d) Termination of Leases or Permits.--The Secretary may
accept the voluntary termination of a permit or lease for
grazing on any acquired land.
____________________