[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.

                          ____________________