[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11609-11620]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. 
        Craig):
  S. 3085. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to establish 
a cooperative watershed management program, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Cooperative 
Watershed Act of 2008 with my colleagues Senators Crapo, Baucus and 
Craig.
  This is an important piece of legislation because it deals with being 
good caretakers of our water.
  Water is life. It is as simple as that folks. If we do not manage 
what we have, well then people are going to be in trouble. In Montana, 
we are currently suffering through almost a decade of drought, and with 
growing demand, increased pollution, and a changing climate, our water 
resources will only become more stressed in the coming years.
  Now folks in Montana are not the type to sit back and wait for 
someone else to come along and fix a problem for them. No, folks in 
Montana have long since started coming together to form local groups to 
ensure their water resources are properly managed. These groups consist 
of irrigators, farmers, environmental groups, scientists, and 
governmental officials all working together. Unfortunately, these 
groups often are limited by a lack of funding for projects and a full 
time administrator. These groups hold so much potential, but are being 
held back by the simple lack of funding. That is why I, along with 
Senators Crapo, Baucus, and Craig, have introduced the Cooperative 
Watershed Act of 2008.
  The Cooperative Watershed Act of 2008 sets up a granting program 
under the Department of the Interior to help local stakeholders come 
together and form or expand watershed-wide management groups that can 
cooperatively manage their local water resources. The funds in this 
bill will help these groups build the capacity to act as grassroots, 
nonregulatory entities to address local water availability and quality 
issues within a watershed.
  By getting all the different stakeholders involved in the management 
process, these groups will help reduce the need for Federal regulation 
and litigation, and result in the best overall use of the available, 
and often limited, water supply. Make no mistake, in Montana we 
understand that local stakeholders are in the best position to manage 
their own resources, but Federal support must play a role in helping 
them establish the capacity to do so.
  Now in granting funds, this bill takes into account that different 
strokes are

[[Page 11610]]

needed for different folks. To accommodate the varying stages of 
development of different groups, the grant program is divided into 
three phases: an initial planning phase to help new groups form and 
begin to formulate ideas and project proposals, a pilot project phase 
to help semi-established groups gain the capacity to conduct projects 
and studies, and an implementation phase to help fully formed and 
functioning groups undertake large-scale, multi-year projects.
  Montana has been a leader in implementing water resources planning on 
a watershed scale for years, and the funding provided in this bill will 
allow Montanans and other interested States to increase their capacity 
to effectively manage their vital water resources as we move into the 
future.
  Mr. President, I ask by unanimous consent that the text of the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3085

       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 ``Cooperative Watershed 
     Management Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Affected stakeholder.--The term ``affected 
     stakeholder'' means an entity that significantly affects, or 
     is significantly affected by, the quality or quantity of 
     water in a watershed, as determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Grant recipient.--The term ``grant recipient'' means an 
     eligible management entity that the Secretary has selected to 
     receive a grant under section 3(c)(2).
       (3) Management group.--The term ``management group'' means 
     a self-sustaining, cooperative watershed-wide management 
     group that--
       (A) is comprised of each affected stakeholder of the 
     watershed that is the subject of the management group;
       (B) incorporates the perspectives of a diverse array of 
     stakeholders;
       (C) is designed to be carried out as a grassroots, 
     nonregulatory entity to address local water availability and 
     quality issues within the watershed that is the subject of 
     the management group; and
       (D) is capable of managing in a sustainable manner the 
     water resources of the watershed that is the subject of the 
     management group and improving the functioning condition of 
     rivers and streams through--
       (i) water conservation;
       (ii) improved water quality;
       (iii) ecological resiliency; and
       (iv) the reduction of water conflicts.
       (4) Program.--The term ``program'' means the cooperative 
     watershed management program established by the Secretary 
     under section 3(a).
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 3. PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a 
     program, which shall be known as the ``cooperative watershed 
     management program'', under which the Secretary shall provide 
     grants to eligible management entities--
       (1) to form a management group;
       (2) to enlarge a management group, of which the eligible 
     management entity is a member; or
       (3) to conduct 1 or more projects in accordance with the 
     goals of a management group, of which the eligible management 
     entity is a member.
       (b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, an eligible management entity shall be 
     comprised of each affected stakeholder of the watershed that 
     is the subject of the eligible management entity, including 
     to the maximum extent practicable--
       (1) representatives of private interests, including 
     representatives of--
       (A) hydroelectric production;
       (B) livestock grazing;
       (C) timber production;
       (D) land development;
       (E) recreation or tourism;
       (F) irrigated agricultural production; and
       (G) the environment;
       (2) any Federal agency that has authority with respect to 
     the watershed, including not less than 1 representative of--
       (A) the Department of Agriculture;
       (B) the Department of the Interior; and
       (C) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
       (3) any State or local agency that has authority with 
     respect to the watershed; and
       (4) any member of an Indian tribe that owns land within the 
     watershed or has land in the watershed held in trust.
       (c) Application.--
       (1) Establishment of application process; criteria.--Not 
     later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall establish--
       (A) an application process under which each eligible 
     management entity may apply for a grant under this section; 
     and
       (B) criteria for consideration of the application of each 
     eligible management entity.
       (2) Application process.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this section, an eligible management entity shall 
     submit to the Secretary an application in accordance with the 
     application process and criteria established by the Secretary 
     under paragraph (1).
       (d) Distribution of Grant Funds.--
       (1) In general.--In distributing grant funds under this 
     section, the Secretary shall comply with paragraph (2).
       (2) Funding procedure.--
       (A) First phase.--
       (i) In general.--During the first phase of a grant 
     established under this subparagraph, the Secretary may 
     provide to a grant recipient a grant in an amount of not 
     greater than $100,000 each year for a period of not more than 
     3 years.
       (ii) Mandatory use of funds.--A grant recipient that 
     receives funds through a grant during the first phase shall 
     use the funds--

       (I) to establish or enlarge a management group;
       (II) to develop a mission statement for the management 
     group; and
       (III) to develop project concepts.

       (iii) Annual determination of eligibility.--

       (I) Determination.--For each year of the first phase, not 
     later than 270 days after the date on which a grant recipient 
     first receives grant funds for the year, the Secretary shall 
     determine whether the grant recipient has made sufficient 
     progress during the year to justify additional funding.
       (II) Effect of determination.--If the Secretary determines 
     under subclause (I) that the progress of a grant recipient 
     during the year covered by the determination justifies 
     additional funding, the Secretary shall provide to the grant 
     recipient grant funds for the year following the year during 
     which the determination was made.

       (iv) Advancement conditions.--A grant recipient shall not 
     be eligible to receive grant funds during the second phase 
     described in subparagraph (B) until the date on which the 
     Secretary determines that the management group established by 
     the grant recipient is--

       (I) fully formed, including the drafting and approval of 
     articles of incorporation and bylaws governing the 
     organization; and
       (II) fully functional, including holding regular meetings, 
     having reached a consensus on the mission of the group, and 
     having developed project concepts.

       (B) Second phase.--
       (i) In general.--During the second phase of a grant 
     established under this subparagraph, the Secretary may 
     provide to a grant recipient a grant in an amount of not 
     greater than $1,000,000 each year for a period of not more 
     than 4 years.
       (ii) Mandatory use of funds.--A grant recipient that 
     receives funds through a grant under the second phase shall 
     use the funds to carry out watershed management projects.
       (iii) Annual determination of eligibility.--

       (I) Determination.--For each year of the second phase, not 
     later than 270 days after the date on which a grant recipient 
     first receives grant funds for the year, the Secretary shall 
     determine whether the grant recipient has made sufficient 
     progress during the year to justify additional funding.
       (II) Effect of determination.--If the Secretary determines 
     under subclause (I) that the progress of a grant recipient 
     during the year covered by the determination justifies 
     additional funding, the Secretary shall provide to the grant 
     recipient grant funds for the year following the year during 
     which the determination was made.

       (iv) Advancement condition.--A grant recipient shall not be 
     eligible to receive grant funds during the third phase 
     described in subparagraph (C) until the date on which the 
     Secretary determines that the grant recipient has--

       (I) completed each requirement with respect to each year of 
     the second phase; and
       (II) demonstrated that 1 or more pilot projects of the 
     grant recipient have resulted in demonstrable improvements in 
     the functioning condition of at least 1 river or stream in 
     the watershed.

       (C) Third phase.--
       (i) Funding limitation.--

       (I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II), 
     during the third phase of a grant established under this 
     subparagraph, the Secretary may provide to a grant recipient 
     a grant in an amount of not greater than $5,000,000 for a 
     period of not more than 5 years.
       (II) Exception.--The Secretary may provide to a grant 
     recipient a grant in an amount that is greater than the 
     amount described in subclause (I) if the Secretary determines 
     that the grant recipient is capable of using the additional 
     amount to achieve an appropriate increase in an economic, 
     social, or environmental benefit that could not otherwise be 
     achieved by the grant recipient through the amount described 
     in subclause (I).

       (ii) Mandatory use of funds.--A grant recipient that 
     receives funds through a grant under the third phase shall 
     use the funds to carry out not less than 1 watershed 
     management project of the grant recipient.

[[Page 11611]]

       (3) Permissive use of funds.--A grant recipient that 
     receives funds through a grant under this section may use the 
     funds--
       (A) to pay for--
       (i) the administrative costs of the management group of the 
     grant recipient;
       (ii) the salary of not more than 1 full-time employee of 
     the management group of the grant recipient; and
       (iii) any legal fees of the grant recipient arising from 
     the establishment of the management group of the grant 
     recipient;
       (B) to fund--
       (i) studies of the watershed that is managed by the 
     management group of the grant recipient; and
       (ii) any project--

       (I) described in the mission statement of the management 
     group of the grant recipient; and
       (II) to be carried out by the management group of the grant 
     recipient to achieve any goal of the management group;

       (C) to carry out demonstration projects relating to water 
     conservation or alternative water uses; and
       (D) to expand a management group that is established by the 
     grant recipient.
       (4) Requirement of consensus of members of management 
     group.--A management group of a grant recipient may not use 
     grant funds for any initiative of the management group unless 
     the group reaches a consensus decision.
       (e) Cost Share.--
       (1) Planning.--The Federal share of the cost of any 
     activity of a management group of a grant recipient relating 
     to any use required under subsection (d)(2)(A)(ii) shall be 
     100 percent.
       (2) Projects carried out under second phase.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Federal 
     share of the costs of any activity of a management group of a 
     grant recipient relating to a watershed management project 
     described in subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii) shall not exceed 60 
     percent of the total costs of the watershed management 
     project.
       (B) Limitation.--To pay for any costs relating to 
     administrative expenses incurred for a watershed management 
     project described in subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii), a management 
     group of a grant recipient may use grant funds in an amount 
     not greater than the lesser of--
       (i) $100,000; or
       (ii) 20 percent of the total amount of the Federal share 
     provided to the management group to carry out the watershed 
     management project.
       (C) Form of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share under 
     subparagraph (A) may be in the form of any in-kind 
     contributions.
       (3) Projects carried out under third phase.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Federal 
     share of the costs of any activity of a management group of a 
     grant recipient relating to a watershed management project 
     described in subsection (d)(2)(C)(ii) shall not exceed 50 
     percent of the total costs of the watershed management 
     project.
       (B) Limitation.--To pay for any costs relating to 
     administrative expenses with respect to a watershed 
     management project described in subsection (d)(2)(C)(ii), a 
     management group of a grant recipient may use grant funds in 
     an amount not greater than the lesser of--
       (i) $100,000; or
       (ii) 20 percent of the total amount of the Federal share 
     provided to the management group to carry out the watershed 
     management project.
       (C) Form of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share under 
     subparagraph (A) may be in the form of any in-kind 
     contributions.
       (f) Annual Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date on 
     which a management group of a grant recipient first receives 
     funds through a grant under this section, and annually 
     thereafter, in accordance with paragraph (2), the management 
     group shall submit to the Secretary a report that describes, 
     for the period covered by the report, the progress of the 
     management group with respect to the duties of the management 
     group.
       (2) Required degree of detail.--The contents of an annual 
     report required under paragraph (1) shall contain a degree of 
     detail that is sufficient to enable the Secretary to complete 
     each report required under subsection (g), as determined by 
     the Secretary.
       (g) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress a report that describes--
       (1) the manner by which the program enables the Secretary--
       (A) to address water conflicts;
       (B) to conserve water; and
       (C) to improve water quality; and
       (2) each benefit that is achieved through the 
     administration of the program, including, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, a quantitative analysis of each economic, 
     social, and environmental benefit.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       (1) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009;
       (2) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
       (3) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
       (4) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2020.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 3086. A bill to amend the antitrust laws to ensure competitive 
market-based fees and terms for merchants' access to electronic payment 
systems; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Credit Card 
Fair Fee Act of 2008. This legislation will provide fairness and 
transparency in the setting of credit card interchange fees. This bill 
is companion legislation to a bipartisan bill introduced in the House 
of Representatives by Chairman John Conyers of the House Judiciary 
Committee and Representative Chris Cannon. The Conyers-Cannon bill 
currently has an additional 19 Democratic and 16 Republican cosponsors.
  This legislation is supported by the Merchants Payments Coalition, a 
coalition of retailers, supermarkets, convenience stores, drug stores, 
fuel stations, on-line merchants and other businesses. The coalition's 
member associations collectively represent about 2.7 million stores 
with approximately 50 million employees.
  Interchange fees may not be well known to most Americans, but they 
should be. Last year, U.S. retailers, and by extension their customers, 
paid approximately $42 billion in interchange fees to the banks that 
issue credit cards. The billions that are paid in interchange fees each 
year significantly cut into the profit margins of retailers and pinch 
the pocketbooks of consumers. And neither retailers nor consumers have 
a say in how these interchange fees are set within the Visa and 
MasterCard systems, which together account for over 70 percent of the 
credit and debit card market. The current lack of meaningful 
competition, negotiation and transparency in the setting of interchange 
fees represents a market failure, one that affects every American 
retailer and every American consumer.
  My legislation takes a measured approach to address this market 
failure. My bill would identify credit and debit card payment systems 
that have significant market power, and would permit the retailers who 
use those systems to collectively negotiate with the providers of the 
systems over the fees for system access and use. If the retailers and 
providers are unable to agree voluntarily on a consensus set of fees, 
the bill would direct an impartial panel of judges to consider the two 
parties' fee proposals, and to select the proposal that most closely 
reflects what a hypothetical perfectly competitive market would 
produce. As I will discuss further below, this approach will protect 
retailers and consumers by preventing credit card companies from using 
their market power to charge unreasonable fees through an unfair 
process.
  So what are interchange fees, and why do they pose a problem? 
Whenever a consumer uses a credit or debit card to make a purchase from 
a retailer, the banks and credit card companies involved in the 
transaction charge a number of fees that are passed on to the retailer 
and ultimately to the consumer. The interchange fee is one such fee. It 
is a fee charged by the card-issuing bank to the retailer's bank.
  Here is an example of how an interchange fee is charged. When a 
consumer buys $100 in goods from a retailer using a Visa or MasterCard, 
the retailer first submits the transaction information to the 
retailer's bank (the ``acquiring bank''). The acquiring bank submits 
this information, via the Visa or MasterCard network, to the bank that 
issued the card to the consumer, the issuing bank. The issuing bank 
either authorizes or denies the transaction. If the transaction is 
authorized, the issuing bank sends to the acquiring bank, via the Visa 
or MasterCard network, the purchase amount minus an interchange fee 
that is retained by the issuing bank.
  As a result of the interchange fee and other processing fees imposed 
upon the retailer by the acquiring bank, collectively, these fees are 
known as the ``merchant discount fee,'' the retailer typically only 
receives approximately

[[Page 11612]]

$97.50 out of the $100 sale. In order to cover this cost and continue 
to make a profit, retailers typically raise the retail price of their 
goods, meaning that consumers must pay more regardless of whether they 
pay with cash or plastic.
  Visa and MasterCard set the interchange fee rates for all the banks 
and all the retailers that participate in the Visa and MasterCard 
systems. Those interchange rates are frequently charged as a percentage 
of the sale amount plus a flat fee; for example, an interchange fee 
might equal 1.75 percent + 20 cents per transaction. The interchange 
fee rate varies for certain types of Visa and MasterCard cards and 
transaction categories, and is typically higher for cards that involve 
rewards programs for cardholders.
  What is the rationale for assessing interchange fees? According to 
Visa, MasterCard, and the banks that issue them, these fees are used to 
pay for important functions within the credit and debit card systems. 
For example, interchange fees can be used to cover the costs of 
processing and authorizing credit card transactions, including the 
costs of ensuring data security and safeguarding against fraud. 
Interchange fees can also help protect an issuing bank from the risk 
that a consumer may not pay his or her credit card bill, which would 
leave the issuing bank on the hook for the amount that it gave to the 
acquiring bank at the time of a credit card transaction.
  In addition to covering these costs and risks, interchange fees have 
been used to generate income for issuing banks. This income can be 
retained by the issuing banks as profit, or can be devoted to other 
uses such as consumer marketing campaigns or rewards programs for 
certain cardholders.
  In addition to the benefits that interchange fees provide for issuing 
banks, Visa, MasterCard and their participating banks argue that 
interchange fees have also provided benefits to retailers and consumers 
by helping to make credit and debit card transactions more efficient 
and more prevalent. Visa, MasterCard and the banks claim that the 
growing use of credit and debit cards saves retailers from certain 
expenses involved with transacting business with cash or checks. They 
also claim that their cards bring benefits to consumers, including 
extra convenience, the availability of short-term credit, and rewards 
programs that are offered to some cardholders.
  It is clear that interchange fees do play an important part in the 
credit and debit card systems, and that overall these systems have 
created efficiencies and benefits for banks, merchants and consumers. 
However, it is also clear that those who must ultimately pay 
interchange fees--retailers and their consumers--have no say in 
negotiating how much the interchange fees should be. As a result, 
interchange fees are being set at rates that would not be agreed upon 
in a competitive market, and that may favor banks to the detriment of 
merchants and consumers.
  Why are retailers unable to negotiate changes in Visa's and 
MasterCard's interchange fee rates? There are several reasons. First, 
because of Visa's and MasterCard's market power, the overwhelming 
majority of American retailers have no choice but to accept Visa and 
MasterCard as a method of payment. Credit and debit cards are currently 
used for over 40 percent of all transactions in the U.S., and that 
percentage is increasing, in part due to extensive marketing by the 
card companies and the banks. Visa and MasterCard control over 70 
percent of the market for credit and debit cards. Most retailers simply 
cannot survive unless they agree to accept those cards.
  Second, within an electronic payment system the only party with whom 
retailers are able to negotiate effectively is the retailer's acquiring 
bank, and interchange fees are not covered in those negotiations. In 
their efforts to obtain retailers' business, including the business of 
processing the retailers' credit card transactions, acquiring banks 
will negotiate and compete over many of the component fees that make up 
the merchant discount fee. However, the interchange fee is typically by 
far the largest component of the merchant discount fee, and acquiring 
banks do not negotiate with retailers on interchange rates nor do they 
compete to offer retailers lower interchange rates. Instead, 
interchange rates are set by Visa and MasterCard, who claim that their 
rates are set without the involvement of the banks. Accordingly, the 
acquiring banks tell their retailer customers that the interchange rate 
component cannot be negotiated or reduced below the level set by Visa 
and MasterCard.
  The interchange fee thus serves as a de facto price floor for the 
overall merchant discount fee--a floor that is fixed in a 
nontransparent, nonnegotiable fashion by card companies with 
significant market power. Although I have asked the credit card 
companies on several occasions for information that would help me 
understand the cost components that contribute to their interchange 
rates, it is still unclear how much profit margin is built into that 
floor. The margin may be significant, and as long as issuers and 
acquirers are happy with it, there is no incentive for card companies 
to help merchants and consumers by reducing it. Additionally, it should 
be noted that many if not most acquiring banks also serve as issuing 
banks, and therefore have almost no incentive to compete to lower the 
interchange rates that they themselves receive. Because the acquirers 
and issuers are often the same banks, no one negotiates with issuers 
about interchange fees on the retailers' behalf, and the retailers are 
left to negotiate for themselves.
  Third, while some retailers may try to negotiate directly with Visa 
or MasterCard to lower the interchange fee component of their merchant 
discount fees, most retailers have no leverage in these negotiations 
since at the end of the day they will likely have to agree to accept 
Visa and MasterCard in order to stay in business.
  As a result of this vast disparity in negotiating power, Visa and 
MasterCard can essentially impose interchange rates upon retailers and 
those retailers have no choice but to accept them. Furthermore, Visa 
and MasterCard also frequently impose take-it-or-leave-it contractual 
terms and conditions on retailers, such as acceptance rules that 
require retailers to honor all cards issued by that credit card 
company, even if the card is a rewards card with a higher interchange 
rate.
  Because there is no competition and no real retailer negotiation 
involved in the setting of interchange fees, it is not surprising that 
interchange fees are being charged at levels that would not be agreed 
upon in a fair and competitive market. This has been demonstrated in a 
number of ways.
  For example, as economies of scale and advances in technology have 
brought down the cost of credit card transaction processing in recent 
years, normal market pressures would suggest that interchange rates 
would have similarly decreased. But as noted in a March 29, 2008 Wall 
Street Journal editorial, ``The Visa interchange fee has increased over 
the past decade to 1.76 percent from an average of 1.5 percent. 
Economies of scale should be driving fees down, as in most other 
service-fee industries.'' In March 2006, the American Banker reported 
that ``according to the credit card industry newsletter The Nilson 
Report, interchange rates for Visa and MasterCard International have 
risen steadily every year since 1997.''
  Also, interchange fees continue to be charged as a percentage of the 
sale price, so even though the cost of processing a $1 credit card 
transaction is comparable to processing a $1,000 transaction, the 
interchange fee paid on that $1,000 sale is much higher and much more 
lucrative for the issuing bank.
  Additionally, Americans are paying higher interchange fees than are 
consumers in other countries who use the same Visa and MasterCard 
cards. According to a report by the Federal Reserve Bank in 
Minneapolis, U.S. interchange fees average around 1.75 percent, while 
in other industrialized countries such as Britain interchange fees 
typically average around 0.7 percent.

[[Page 11613]]

  In 2001, the total amount of interchange fees collected in the U.S. 
was $16.6 billion. By 2007, that amount grew to approximately $42 
billion, an increase of over 150 percent since 2001. What are banks 
doing with the tens of billions of dollars they are collecting in 
interchange fees each year? There is a serious lack of transparency on 
this issue, but one study indicates that only around 13 percent of 
collected interchange fees are devoted to covering the cost of 
processing credit card transactions. According to this study, the 
majority of the collected fees went toward profits for the issuing 
banks, rewards programs that benefit mostly affluent cardholders, and 
marketing campaigns.
  Visa and MasterCard and the banks that use them argue that their 
interchange fee rates are set at levels that best balance benefits and 
costs to card issuers and to merchants. If the card companies and the 
banks truly believe that interchange fee rates are already set at a 
level that is fair to merchants, it seems they should have no objection 
to formalizing a process for setting interchange rates that is fair and 
transparent and that gives merchants a legitimate voice in the process.
  That is what the Credit Card Fair Fee Act would do. This legislation 
would apply to widely-used credit and debit card systems. Recognizing 
that these electronic payment systems have become nearly as important 
to our consumer economy as cash and that most retailers cannot stay in 
business without accepting them, the bill would ensure that retailers 
have access to these electronic payment systems at fair rates and 
terms.
  Under the bill, if any electronic payment system has significant 
market power, i.e., 20 percent or more of the credit and debit card 
market, retailers would receive limited antitrust immunity to engage in 
collective negotiations with the providers of that electronic payment 
system over the fees and terms for access to the system.
  The bill would establish a mandatory period for negotiations between 
the retailers and providers over fees and terms. If the negotiations 
between the retailers and providers do not result in an agreement, the 
matter would be brought before a panel of expert Electronic Payment 
System Judges, who would be appointed by the Department of Justice 
Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission.
  These Judges would conduct a period of discovery during which 
information about fees, terms, and market conditions for electronic 
payment systems would be disclosed. At the end of the discovery period, 
the Judges would order a mandatory 21-day settlement conference to 
facilitate a settlement between the retailers and electronic payment 
system providers. If the settlement conference failed to result in an 
agreement, the Judges would conduct a hearing where each side would 
present their final offer of fees and terms. The Judges would then 
select the offer of fees and terms that most closely represented the 
fees and terms that would be negotiated in a hypothetical perfectly 
competitive market where neither party had market power.
  After choosing between the two offers put forth by the parties, the 
Judges would enter an order providing that these fees and terms would 
govern access to the electronic payment system by the merchants for a 
period of 3 years, unless the parties supersede this agreement with a 
voluntarily negotiated agreement. Decisions by the Judges would be 
appealable to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
  The Credit Card Fair Fee Act is modeled after the Copyright Royalty 
and Distribution Reform Act of 2004, which created a similar system for 
the use of copyrighted music works.
  Credit card companies and banks may claim that this legislation 
involves government price setting, but this is not the case. This 
legislation does not permit the government to establish on its own 
accord what the fees and terms for retailer usage of credit card 
systems ought to be. Rather, it sets up a process whereby retailers 
would be able to make their case as to what fees and terms are fair, 
and if the retailers and credit card providers fail to agree 
voluntarily on those fees and terms, independent judges would evaluate 
the parties' offers and select the offer that most closely resembles 
what the result would be in a fair and competitive market. In contrast, 
currently Visa and MasterCard can use their overwhelming market power 
to establish non-negotiable interchange fees and terms, and retailers 
are forced to abide by these fees and terms or else be denied access to 
payment systems that account for a huge percentage of all U.S. 
transactions. This type of unaccountable fee-setting runs far more risk 
of harm for retailers and consumers.
  Under my legislation, if the credit card companies and the banks are 
able to persuade the Judges that current interchange rates are 
justifiable, then the rates would remain as they are today. If, on the 
other hand, the retailers are persuasive in arguing that current 
interchange rates cannot be justified by competitive market dynamics, 
then the Judges would likely rule that alternative interchange rates 
would better represent the result of a perfectly competitive market. In 
either case, at a minimum the interests of retailers and consumers 
would be much better represented in this fundamentally important 
market.
  My legislation represents a measured approach to addressing the 
current market failure with interchange fee-setting. Other countries 
have addressed the problem of unfair interchange fees through far more 
drastic solutions. For example, Australia has imposed a system of 
direct regulation of interchange fees through its central bank, and 
Mexico's central bank has negotiated rate reductions with the card 
companies. My legislation represents a middle ground between the 
current flawed system and these aggressive foreign regulatory 
frameworks.
  In short, the Credit Card Fair Fee Act would address the market power 
imbalance between retailers and credit card companies in setting 
interchange fee rates. It would create a forum where these fees can be 
fairly negotiated by parties with equal bargaining power. It would 
ensure that interchange fees and terms are fair to both banks and 
retailers. And if retailers are able to negotiate interchange rates 
that reduce the transaction cost of doing business with plastic, it 
would be beneficial to consumers as well.
  How do we know that retailers will not just pocket any savings they 
get through any reduction in interchange fees that they are able to 
negotiate? We know because unlike the credit card interchange rate-
setting process, the retail industry is highly competitive, and that 
competition is largely based on price.
  Also, sometimes we hear the banks and card companies argue that if 
interchange fees are reduced, they will have to raise fees and 
penalties on cardholders to make up for the revenue shortfall. If these 
companies stand by this argument, I would expect them to stand by its 
converse and reduce their cardholder fees and penalties whenever their 
interchange fee collections increase. However, interchange fee 
collections have increased 150 percent since 2001, and we have seen no 
corresponding decrease in fees and penalties imposed upon all 
cardholders. Unless you are one of the small percentage of cardholders 
with a current balance, no annual fees, and a lavish rewards program, 
your issuing bank is probably taking two bites at your wallet--one with 
interchange fees and one with the fees on your statement.
  The Credit Card Fair Fee Act will protect consumers and retailers by 
preventing credit card companies from using their market power to 
charge unreasonable fees through an unfair process. This is important 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 3087. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to make 
certain improvements in the home loan guaranty programs administered by 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that

[[Page 11614]]

would expand and strengthen the guaranteed home loan program 
administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This action is 
particularly timely given the many readjustment challenges faced by our 
veterans and their families in this time of war, challenges that have 
been compounded for veterans by the current subprime mortgage market 
crisis and credit crunch. Mr. President, this legislation is intended 
to be the companion legislation to H.R. 4884, Helping Our Veterans Keep 
Their Homes Act of 2008, introduced in the House by Chairman Filner of 
the House Veterans' Affairs Committee.
  For some time, we have heard from many veterans that the current 
structure of the VA Home Loan guarantee program has not been responsive 
to the needs of veterans in today's market. For example, the current 
home loan limit is $417,000. Unfortunately, in many states with the 
largest population of veterans, reservists, and active duty personnel, 
the average home price is well above the national average and above the 
current loan ceiling. In contrast, the Federal Housing Authority home 
loan program constrains the loan dollar value by State and county. I 
strongly believe that veterans and service members should not be 
penalized for geographic differences in the housing market--
particularly when, for many, where they live is not of their own 
choosing but directed by the military organization in which they are 
serving in the defense of the Nation.
  We have also learned that for veterans and lenders, the VA loan 
process can be costly, both with respect to personal finance and time. 
The fees that are required for participation in the program impose 
costs on the veteran and family that reduce the financial 
attractiveness of the VA loan. In fact, it has been suggested that 
those fees, the bureaucratic red-tape, and the loan dollar value 
constraints that I previously noted, contributed to the conditions that 
resulted in far too many veterans being steered toward subprime loans 
in the first place.
  Equally disturbing are reports that veterans and reservists did not 
have access to prime rate loans because of the tumult created in their 
lives due to repeated deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, or both. 
Unbelievably, despite their wartime service, these patriots were 
assessed to have less than the desired level of personal financial 
stability sought by prime rate lenders and received low credit scores. 
With access to prime loans limited, subprimes became an option of 
necessity for many veterans.
  What has become a point of frustration for veterans now trapped in 
the mortgage debacle is that the guaranteed home loan program is 
limited in its ability to provide relief for veterans who have fallen 
victim to unscrupulous lenders who prey on military families.
  Given the sacrifices of our veterans and their families, and the 
disruption in their lives created when they patriotically answer their 
Nation's call to service, we must do better by our veterans by 
providing a readjustment benefit that reflects the realities of today's 
housing market. The legislation that I am introducing today would 
provide for the following: (1) increase the maximum home loan guarantee 
amount to $729,750; (2) decrease the equity requirement to refinance a 
home loan; (3) require the VA Secretary to review and streamline the 
process of using a guaranteed home loan to purchase a condominium; (4) 
eliminate the home loan funding fees; (5) reduce the home loan 
refinance fees to one percent; (6) extend the adjustable rate mortgage 
demonstration project to 2018; (7) extend the hybrid adjustable rate 
mortgage demonstration project to 2012; (8) raise the maximum loan 
guarantee for refinancing a home to $729,750; and (9) authorize the VA 
to offer a 30 percent guaranty for loans made on homes determined by VA 
and HUD to be affordable housing.
  Clearly, this is the right thing to do. I should note that this 
legislation is supported by the veterans' services organizations, 
including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion. I 
sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me and offer their support 
for this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 3088. A bill to designate certain land in the State of Oregon as 
wilderness, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce two bills 
to protect two unique places in the high desert of Central and Eastern 
Oregon as wilderness. These areas both reflect the wild, rugged beauty 
that makes Oregon's terrain east of the Cascade Mountains so 
incomparable.
  The first bill I am introducing, the Oregon Badlands Wilderness Act 
of 2008, S. 3088, would designate as wilderness almost 30,000 acres of 
the area known as the Badlands. The Badlands consists of high desert 
that is located just 15 miles east of Bend, Oregon, and straddles the 
Deschutes-Crook county border. The Badlands is made up of pockets of 
soft sand, lichen-covered lava flows and 1,000-year-old ancient 
junipers. It is home to pronghorn, deer, and elk.
  The effort to protect the Badlands was led by a Bend schoolteacher, 
Alice Elshoff, in the 1980s. According to an article about Ms. 
Elshoff's efforts, ``Huge chunks of basalt rock jut out of the soft 
desert sand like blisters that burst from within the earth. Twisted 
juniper trees, some hundreds of years old, seem to desperately cling to 
the jagged rock formations. And beneath the trees and nearly hidden in 
narrow hideaways among the rocks are faint red drawings, messages left 
by prehistoric Indians who called this rugged part of the world home. 
This is the Badlands.''
  In addition to its natural attributes, many Bend business leaders 
understand that an Oregon Badlands Wilderness adds to the area's 
national reputation as a hub for diverse outdoor recreation. In the 
Bend area, people can enjoy almost any outdoor activity--boating, 
biking, skiing, horseback riding, hunting, riding off-road vehicles and 
hiking. Within roughly an hour's drive of Bend, there are more than 
400,000 acres of public lands available to motorized recreation--and I 
look forward to continuing to work with the Central Oregon off road and 
snowmobile communities. The region's diverse recreational options are a 
true example of multiple use. Into that mix we now add the peace and 
solitude of a wilderness recreation experience. These kinds of diverse 
recreational opportunities and scenic natural areas are part of what 
has attracted companies and new residents to the Bend area and, with 
them, booming economic development. According to the 2007 article in 
The Economist entitled ``Booming Bend,'' ``Fabulous scenery attracts 
people with fabulous amounts of money.'' To sum it up, people seek 
places to live and work with the kind of high quality of life the Bend 
area can offer. The natural beauty and recreational opportunities of an 
area like Bend propel this growth.
  The Bend community has been talking about protecting the special 
place known as the Badlands for many years. Volunteers have been 
working with long-time Oregon ranchers, notably Bev and Ray Clarno, 
whose family has worked the land for generations, along with 
conservationists, irrigators, and more than 200 local businesses to 
gain protection for the Badlands as wilderness.
  This designation is also a tribute to a remarkable young woman, 
Rachel Scdoris, who grew up driving and training her sled dog team 
through this area--and the bill provides that she may continue doing so 
for as long as she chooses. Ms. Scdoris is legally blind, and she 
recently completed in her third Iditarod sled dog race.
  This wilderness designation has been a long time in coming; it has 
been over two decades since the BLM began reviewing which lands should 
be considered candidates for wilderness. From that time forward, BLM 
has repeatedly concluded that the Badlands should be protected as 
Wilderness. It is time to make it happen. This unique part of the 
Oregon high desert needs to be permanently protected for generations to 
come.
  The second bill I am introducing is the Spring Basin Wilderness Act 
of

[[Page 11615]]

2008, S. 3089. This region is further east and even more remote than 
the Badlands. Spring Basin is one of Central Oregon's premier wild 
areas. Overlooking the John Day Wild and Scenic River, the rolling 
hills of Spring Basin burst with color during the spring wildflower 
bloom. It boasts canyons and diverse geology that offers recreational 
opportunities for hikers, horseback riders, hunters, botanists, and 
other outdoor enthusiasts. The area is important habitat for 
populations of Mule Deer and Rocky Mountain Elk, as well as many bird 
species. To preserve this natural treasure, my bill would designate 
approximately 8,600 acres as the Spring Basin Wilderness.
  During the past several years, many community leaders and adjacent 
landowners have approached me advocating for Wilderness designation for 
this spectacular land that borders the Wild and Scenic John Day River 
and the nearby John Day Fossil Beds. The area is known across Oregon 
for its profusion of spring wildflowers. The Confederated Tribes of 
Warm Springs, local landowners, the County Commission and the Federal 
Bureau of Land Management all support Wilderness designation for Spring 
Basin. In fact, Spring Basin was recommended to Congress as a 
wilderness area by the Bureau of Land Management in 1989. Protecting 
this scenic jewel will add to Oregon's treasured wilderness and the 
unique recreational opportunities it provides.
  I want to express my thanks to all the volunteers and supporters who 
have worked tirelessly to protect this area and reached out to diverse 
community groups to build support. I also want to thank the 
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs for their engagement and 
support. The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs own and manage 
approximately 30,000 acres of adjacent land that they manage to the 
north and east of Spring Basin. The Tribes manage these lands for the 
improvement of fish and wildlife habitat and I look forward to working 
with them to implement this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bills was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3088

       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 ``Oregon Badlands Wilderness 
     Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) certain Bureau of Land Management land in central 
     Oregon qualifies for addition to the National Wilderness 
     Preservation System;
       (2) 1 of the chief economic assets of the central Oregon 
     region is the rich diversity of available recreation, with 
     the region offering a wide variety of multiple-use areas for 
     skiing, biking, hunting, off-highway vehicle use, boating, 
     and other motorized recreation;
       (3) there are over 400,000 acres of public land near Bend, 
     Oregon, available for off-highway vehicles and other 
     motorized recreation uses;
       (4) motorized recreation users in central Oregon should 
     continue to have access to an abundance of land managed, in 
     part, for their use;
       (5) the proposed Oregon Badlands Wilderness would increase 
     the offerings in the region by making an additional 30,000 
     acres in central Oregon available for wilderness recreation 
     and solitude; and
       (6) certain land exchanges that would consolidate Federal 
     land holdings within or near to the proposed wilderness to 
     enhance wilderness values and management are in the public 
     interest.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to designate the Oregon Badlands Wilderness in the 
     State of Oregon; and
       (2) to authorize, direct, and facilitate several land 
     exchanges to consolidate Federal land holdings within or near 
     the Oregon Badlands Wilderness.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) District.--The term ``District'' means the Central 
     Oregon Irrigation District, which has offices in Redmond, 
     Oregon.
       (2) Landowner.--The term ``Landowner'' means Ray Clarno, a 
     resident of Redmond, Oregon.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Oregon.
       (5) Wilderness.--The term ``Wilderness'' means the Oregon 
     Badlands Wilderness designated by section 4(a).
       (6) Wilderness map.--The term ``wilderness map'' means the 
     map entitled ``Badlands Wilderness'' and dated June 4, 2008.

     SEC. 4. OREGON BADLANDS WILDERNESS.

       (a) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), approximately 29,837 acres of Bureau of 
     Land Management land in the State, as depicted on the 
     wilderness map, is designated as Wilderness and as a 
     component of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to 
     be known as the ``Oregon Badlands Wilderness''.
       (b) Map and Legal Description.--
       (1) Submission of map and legal description.--As soon as 
     practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall file a map and legal description of the 
     Wilderness with--
       (A) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) Force of law.--The map and legal description filed 
     under paragraph (1) shall have the same force and effect as 
     if included in this Act, except that the Secretary may 
     correct any errors in the map or legal description.
       (3) Public availability.--The map and legal description 
     filed under paragraph (1) shall be on file and available for 
     public inspection in the appropriate offices of the 
     Secretary.
       (c) Administration of Wilderness.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
     Wilderness shall be administered by the Secretary in 
     accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), 
     except that--
       (A) any reference in the Wilderness Act to the effective 
     date of the Wilderness Act shall be considered to be a 
     reference to the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (B) any reference in that Act to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall be considered to be a reference to the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (2) Incorporation of acquired land and interests.--Any land 
     or interest in land within the boundary of the Wilderness 
     that is acquired by the United States shall--
       (A) become part of the Wilderness; and
       (B) be managed in accordance with this Act, the Wilderness 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), and any other applicable law.
       (3) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
     Federal land designated as wilderness by this Act is 
     withdrawn from all forms of--
       (A) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land 
     laws;
       (B) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
       (C) disposition under the mineral leasing, mineral 
     materials, and geothermal leasing laws.
       (4) Grazing.--The grazing of livestock in the Wilderness, 
     if established before the date of enactment of this Act, and 
     the maintenance of facilities in existence on the date of 
     enactment of this Act relating to grazing, shall be permitted 
     to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are 
     considered necessary by the Secretary in accordance with--
       (A) section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1133(d)(4)); and
       (B) the guidelines set forth in Appendix A of the report of 
     the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives accompanying H.R. 2570 of the 101st Congress 
     (H. Rept. 101-405).
       (5) Access to private property.--The Secretary shall 
     provide any owner of private property within the boundary of 
     the Wilderness adequate access to the property to ensure the 
     reasonable use and enjoyment of the property by the owner.
       (6) Tribal rights.--Nothing in this Act--
       (A) affects, alters, amends, repeals, interprets, 
     extinguishes, modifies, or is in conflict with--
       (i) the treaty rights of an Indian tribe, including the 
     rights secured by the Treaty of June 25, 1855, between the 
     United States and the Tribes and Bands of Middle Oregon (12 
     Stat. 963); or
       (ii) any other rights of an Indian tribe; or
       (B) prevents, prohibits, terminates, or abridges the 
     exercise of treaty-reserved rights, including the rights 
     secured by the Treaty of June 25, 1855, between the United 
     States and the Tribes and Bands of Middle Oregon (12 Stat. 
     963)--
       (i) within the boundaries of the Wilderness; or
       (ii) on land acquired by the United States under this Act.

     SEC. 5. SCDORIS CORRIDOR.

       (a) Existing Use.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to subsection (b), the route 
     depicted on the wilderness map shall be included in a 
     corridor with a width of 25 feet to be excluded from the 
     Wilderness to accommodate the existing use of the route for 
     purposes relating to the training of sled dogs by Rachael 
     Scdoris.
       (2) Inclusion in wilderness.--On final and total 
     termination of the use of the route for the purposes 
     described in paragraph (1), the corridor described in that 
     paragraph shall--
       (A) become part of the Wilderness; and

[[Page 11616]]

       (B) be managed in accordance with this Act, the Wilderness 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), and any other applicable law.
       (b) Interim Management.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (a), the corridor shall otherwise be managed as wilderness.
       (c) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
     corridor described in subsection (a)(1) is withdrawn from all 
     forms of--
       (1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land 
     laws;
       (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
       (3) disposition under the mineral leasing, mineral 
     materials, and geothermal leasing laws.

     SEC. 6. RELEASE OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS.

       (a) Finding.--Congress finds that, for the purposes of 
     section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
     1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782), the Bureau of Land Management land 
     identified as the Badlands wilderness study area has been 
     adequately studied for wilderness designation.
       (b) Release.--Any public land described in subsection (a) 
     that is not designated as wilderness by this Act--
       (1) is no longer subject to section 603(c) of the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c)); 
     and
       (2) shall be managed in accordance with the applicable land 
     management plans adopted under section 202 of that Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1712).

     SEC. 7. LAND EXCHANGES.

       (a) Clarno Land Exchange.--
       (1) Conveyance of land.--If the Landowner offers to convey 
     to the United States all right, title, and interest of the 
     Landowner in and to the non-Federal land described in 
     paragraph (2)(A), the Secretary shall--
       (A) accept the offer; and
       (B) on receipt of acceptable title to the non-Federal land 
     and subject to valid existing rights, convey to the Landowner 
     all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
     the Federal land described in paragraph (2)(B).
       (2) Description of land.--
       (A) Non-federal land.--The non-Federal land referred to in 
     paragraph (1) is the approximately 240 acres of non-Federal 
     land identified on the wilderness map as ``Clarno to Federal 
     Government''.
       (B) Federal land.--The Federal land referred to in 
     paragraph (1)(B) is the approximately 245 acres of Federal 
     land identified on the wilderness map as ``Federal Government 
     to Clarno''.
       (3) Surveys.--The exact acreage and legal description of 
     the Federal land and non-Federal land described in paragraph 
     (2) shall be determined by surveys approved by the Secretary.
       (b) District Exchange.--
       (1) Conveyance of land.--If the District offers to convey 
     to the United States all right, title, and interest of the 
     District in and to the non-Federal land described in 
     paragraph (2)(A), the Secretary shall--
       (A) accept the offer; and
       (B) on receipt of acceptable title to the non-Federal land 
     and subject to valid existing rights, convey to the District 
     all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
     the Federal land described in paragraph (2)(B).
       (2) Description of land.--
       (A) Non-federal land.--The non-Federal land referred to in 
     paragraph (1) is the approximately 564 acres of non-Federal 
     land identified on the wilderness map as ``COID to Federal 
     Government''.
       (B) Federal land.--The Federal land referred to in 
     paragraph (1)(B) is the approximately 686 acres of Federal 
     land identified on the wilderness map as ``Federal Government 
     to COID''.
       (3) Surveys.--The exact acreage and legal description of 
     the Federal land and non-Federal land described in paragraph 
     (2) shall be determined by surveys approved by the Secretary.
       (c) Applicable Law.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, the Secretary shall carry out the land exchanges 
     under this section in accordance with section 206 of the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1716).
       (d) Valuation, Appraisals, and Equalization.--
       (1) In general.--The value of the Federal land and the non-
     Federal land to be conveyed in a land exchange under this 
     section--
       (A) shall be equal, as determined by appraisals conducted 
     in accordance with paragraph (2); or
       (B) if not equal, shall be equalized in accordance with 
     paragraph (3).
       (2) Appraisals.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal land and the non-Federal land 
     to be exchanged under this section shall be appraised by an 
     independent, qualified appraiser that is agreed to by the 
     Secretary and the owner of the non-Federal land to be 
     exchanged.
       (B) Requirements.--An appraisal under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be conducted in accordance with--
       (i) the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land 
     Acquisition; and
       (ii) the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal 
     Practice.
       (3) Equalization.--
       (A) In general.--If the value of the Federal land and the 
     non-Federal land to be conveyed in a land exchange under this 
     section is not equal, the value may be equalized by--
       (i) the Secretary making a cash equalization payment to the 
     owner of the non-Federal land;
       (ii) the owner of the non-Federal land making a cash 
     equalization payment to the Secretary; or
       (iii) reducing the acreage of the Federal land or the non-
     Federal land to be exchanged, as appropriate.
       (B) Cash equalization payments.--Any cash equalization 
     payments received by the Secretary under subparagraph (A)(ii) 
     shall be--
       (i) deposited in the Federal Land Disposal Account 
     established by section 206(a) of the Federal Land Transaction 
     Facilitation Act (43 U.S.C. 2305(a)); and
       (ii) used in accordance with that Act.
       (e) Conditions of Exchange.--
       (1) In general.--As a condition of a conveyance of Federal 
     land and non-Federal land under this section, the Federal 
     Government and the owner of the non-Federal land shall 
     equally share all costs relating to the land exchange, 
     including the costs of appraisals, surveys, and any necessary 
     environmental clearances.
       (2) Valid existing rights.--The exchange of Federal land 
     and non-Federal land under this section shall be subject to 
     any easements, rights-of-way, or other valid encumbrances in 
     existence on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (f) Deadline for Completion of Land Exchange.--It is the 
     intent of Congress that the land exchanges under this section 
     shall be completed not later than 16 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                  ____


                                S. 3089

       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 ``Spring Basin Wilderness Act 
     of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Family trust.--The term ``family trust'' means the 
     Bowerman Family Trust, which is the owner of the land 
     described in section 4(d)(2)(A).
       (2) Keys.--The term ``Keys'' means Bob Keys, a resident of 
     Portland, Oregon.
       (3) Mcgreer.--The term ``McGreer'' means H. Kelly McGreer, 
     a resident of Antelope, Oregon.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Oregon.
       (6) Tribes.--The term ``Tribes'' means the Confederated 
     Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, with offices 
     in Warm Springs, Oregon.
       (7) Wilderness map.--The term ``wilderness map'' means the 
     map entitled ``Spring Basin Study Area with Exchange 
     Proposals'' and dated May 22, 2008.

     SEC. 3. SPRING BASIN WILDERNESS.

       (a) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the approximately 8,661 acres of Bureau 
     of Land Management land in the State, as depicted on the 
     wilderness map, is designated as wilderness and as a 
     component of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to 
     be known as the ``Spring Basin Wilderness''.
       (b) Administration of Wilderness.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
     Wilderness shall be administered by the Secretary in 
     accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), 
     except that--
       (A) any reference in the Wilderness Act to the effective 
     date of the Wilderness Act shall be considered to be a 
     reference to the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (B) any reference in that Act to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall be considered to be a reference to the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (2) Incorporation of acquired land and interests.--Any land 
     or interest in land within the boundary of the Wilderness 
     that is acquired by the United States shall--
       (A) become part of the Wilderness; and
       (B) be managed in accordance with this Act, the Wilderness 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), and any other applicable law.
       (3) Grazing.--The grazing of domestic livestock in the 
     Wilderness shall be administered in accordance with--
       (A) section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1133(d)(4));
       (B) the guidelines set forth in the report of the Committee 
     on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives accompanying H.R. 5487 of the 96th Congress 
     (H. Rept. 96-617); and
       (C) the guidelines set forth in Appendix A of the report of 
     the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives accompanying H.R. 2570 of the 101st Congress 
     (H. Rept. 101-405).
       (4) Access to non-federal land.--In accordance with the 
     Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the Secretary shall 
     provide reasonable access to non-Federal land within the 
     boundaries of the Wilderness.
       (5) State water laws.--Nothing in this section constitutes 
     an exemption from State water laws (including regulations).

[[Page 11617]]

       (6) Tribal rights.--Nothing in this section--
       (A) affects, alters, amends, repeals, interprets, 
     extinguishes, modifies, or is in conflict with--
       (i) the treaty rights of an Indian tribe, including the 
     rights secured by the Treaty of June 25, 1855, between the 
     United States and the Tribes and Bands of Middle Oregon (12 
     Stat. 963); or
       (ii) any other rights of an Indian tribe; or
       (B) prevents, prohibits, terminates, or abridges the 
     exercise of treaty-reserved rights, including the rights 
     secured by the Treaty of June 25, 1855, between the United 
     States and the Tribes and Bands of Middle Oregon (12 Stat. 
     963)--
       (i) within the boundaries of the Wilderness; or
       (ii) on land acquired by the United States under this Act.

     SEC. 4. LAND EXCHANGES.

       (a) Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian 
     Reservation Land Exchange.--
       (1) Conveyance of land.--If the Tribes offer to convey to 
     the United States all right, title, and interest of the 
     Tribes in and to the non-Federal land described in paragraph 
     (2)(A), the Secretary shall--
       (A) accept the offer; and
       (B) on receipt of acceptable title to the non-Federal land 
     and subject to valid existing rights, convey to the Tribes 
     all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
     the Federal land described in paragraph (2)(B).
       (2) Description of land.--
       (A) Non-federal land.--The non-Federal land referred to in 
     paragraph (1) is the approximately 3,635 acres of non-Federal 
     land identified on the wilderness map as ``Lands proposed for 
     transfer from the CTWSIR to the Federal Government''.
       (B) Federal land.--The Federal land referred to in 
     paragraph (1)(B) is the approximately 3,653 acres of Federal 
     land identified on the wilderness map as ``Lands proposed for 
     transfer from the Federal Government to CTWSIR''.
       (3) Surveys.--The exact acreage and legal description of 
     the Federal land and non-Federal land described in paragraph 
     (2) shall be determined by surveys approved by the Secretary.
       (b) McGreer Land Exchange.--
       (1) Conveyance of land.--If McGreer offers to convey to the 
     United States all right, title, and interest of McGreer in 
     and to the non-Federal land described in paragraph (2)(A), 
     the Secretary shall--
       (A) accept the offer; and
       (B) on receipt of acceptable title to the non-Federal land 
     and subject to valid existing rights, convey to McGreer all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
     Federal land described in paragraph (2)(B).
       (2) Description of land.--
       (A) Non-federal land.--The non-Federal land referred to in 
     paragraph (1) is the approximately 18 acres of non-Federal 
     land identified on the wilderness map as ``Lands proposed for 
     transfer from McGreer to the Federal Government''.
       (B) Federal land.--The Federal land referred to in 
     paragraph (1)(B) is the approximately 325 acres of Federal 
     land identified on the wilderness map as ``Lands proposed for 
     transfer from the Federal Government to McGreer''.
       (3) Surveys.--The exact acreage and legal description of 
     the Federal land and non-Federal land described in paragraph 
     (2) shall be determined by surveys approved by the Secretary.
       (c) Keys Land Exchange.--
       (1) Conveyance of land.--If Keys offers to convey to the 
     United States all right, title, and interest of Keys in and 
     to the non-Federal land described in paragraph (2)(A), the 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) accept the offer; and
       (B) on receipt of acceptable title to the non-Federal land 
     and subject to valid existing rights, convey to Keys all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
     Federal land described in paragraph (2)(B).
       (2) Description of land.--
       (A) Non-federal land.--The non-Federal land referred to in 
     paragraph (1) is the approximately 181 acres of non-Federal 
     land identified on the wilderness map as ``Lands proposed for 
     transfer from Keys to the Federal Government''.
       (B) Federal land.--The Federal land referred to in 
     paragraph (1)(B) is the approximately 183 acres of Federal 
     land identified on the wilderness map as ``Lands proposed for 
     transfer from the Federal Government to Keys''.
       (3) Surveys.--The exact acreage and legal description of 
     the Federal land and non-Federal land described in paragraph 
     (2) shall be determined by surveys approved by the Secretary.
       (d) Bowerman Land Exchange.--
       (1) Conveyance of land.--If the family trust offers to 
     convey to the United States all right, title, and interest of 
     the family trust in and to the non-Federal land described in 
     paragraph (2)(A), the Secretary shall--
       (A) accept the offer; and
       (B) on receipt of acceptable title to the non-Federal land 
     and subject to valid existing rights, convey to the family 
     trust all right, title, and interest of the United States in 
     and to the Federal land described in paragraph (2)(B).
       (2) Description of land.--
       (A) Non-federal land.--The non-Federal land referred to in 
     paragraph (1) is the approximately 34 acres of non-Federal 
     land identified on the wilderness map as ``Lands proposed for 
     transfer from Bowerman to the Federal Government''.
       (B) Federal land.--The Federal land referred to in 
     paragraph (1)(B) is the approximately 24 acres of Federal 
     land identified on the wilderness map as ``Lands proposed for 
     transfer from the Federal Government to Bowerman''.
       (3) Surveys.--The exact acreage and legal description of 
     the Federal land and non-Federal land described in paragraph 
     (2) shall be determined by surveys approved by the Secretary.
       (e) Applicable Law.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, the Secretary shall carry out the land exchanges 
     under this section in accordance with section 206 of the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1716).
       (f) Valuation, Appraisals, and Equalization.--
       (1) In general.--The value of the Federal land and the non-
     Federal land to be conveyed in a land exchange under this 
     section--
       (A) shall be equal, as determined by appraisals conducted 
     in accordance with paragraph (2); or
       (B) if not equal, shall be equalized in accordance with 
     paragraph (3).
       (2) Appraisals.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal land and the non-Federal land 
     to be exchanged under this section shall be appraised by an 
     independent, qualified appraiser that is agreed to by the 
     Secretary and the owner of the non-Federal land to be 
     exchanged.
       (B) Requirements.--An appraisal under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be conducted in accordance with--
       (i) the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land 
     Acquisition; and
       (ii) the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal 
     Practice.
       (3) Equalization.--
       (A) In general.--If the value of the Federal land and the 
     non-Federal land to be conveyed in a land exchange under this 
     section is not equal, the value may be equalized by--
       (i) the Secretary making a cash equalization payment to the 
     owner of the non-Federal land;
       (ii) the owner of the non-Federal land making a cash 
     equalization payment to the Secretary; or
       (iii) reducing the acreage of the Federal land or the non-
     Federal land to be exchanged, as appropriate.
       (B) Cash equalization payments.--Any cash equalization 
     payments received by the Secretary under subparagraph (A)(ii) 
     shall be--
       (i) deposited in the Federal Land Disposal Account 
     established by section 206(a) of the Federal Land Transaction 
     Facilitation Act (43 U.S.C. 2305(a)); and
       (ii) used in accordance with that Act.
       (g) Conditions of Exchange.--
       (1) In general.--As a condition of the conveyance of 
     Federal land and non-Federal land under this section, the 
     Federal Government and the owner of the non-Federal land 
     shall equally share all costs relating to the land exchange, 
     including the costs of appraisals, surveys, and any necessary 
     environmental clearances.
       (2) Valid existing rights.--The exchange of Federal land 
     and non-Federal land under this section shall be subject to 
     any easements, rights-of-way, or other valid encumbrances in 
     existence on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (h) Deadline for Completion of Land Exchange.--It is the 
     intent of Congress that the land exchanges under this section 
     shall be completed not later than 16 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 3093. A bill to extend and improve the effectiveness of the 
employment eligibility confirmation program; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to 
reauthorize and expand the E-verify program, a web based tool run by 
the Department of Homeland Security for employers across the country. 
Known as the Basic Pilot Program since its inception in 1996, E-verify 
provides employers with a process to verify the work eligibility of new 
hires. This program is set to expire in November of this year.
  The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it unlawful for 
employers to knowingly hire or employ aliens not eligible to work in 
the United States and required employers to examine the identity and 
work eligibility documents of all new employees.
  Employers are required to participate in a paper-based employment 
eligibility verification system, commonly

[[Page 11618]]

referred to as the I-9 system, in which they examine documents 
presented by new hires to verify identity and work eligibility, and 
complete and retain I-9 verification forms. Under current law, if the 
documents provided by an employee reasonably appear on their face to be 
genuine, the employer has met its document review obligation. However, 
the easy availability of counterfeit documents and fake identifications 
has made a mockery of the law.
  In 1996, Congress authorized the Basic Pilot Program to help 
employers verify the eligibility of their workers. Participants in this 
program electronically verify new hires' employment authorization 
through the Social Security Administration and, if necessary, the 
Department of Homeland Security databases.
  The Basic Pilot was authorized in 5 States until an expansion of the 
program was agreed to by Congress in 2003. Now, all States and all 
employers can take advantage of this voluntary and free program.
  The bill I am introducing today isn't broad expansion of the current 
program, which I would like to see done. I attempted to revamp E-verify 
in 2006 and 2007 when the Senate debated a comprehensive immigration 
bill. During those debates, I offered amendments to require all 
businesses to use E-verify rather than maintaining it as a voluntary 
system. Over time, I would like to see this tool as a staple in the 
workforce. My legislation today doesn't go that far.
  My amendment in 2006 and 2007 also would have changed the 
verification and appeal procedures, and would have improved the ability 
of the Federal Government to go after employers who knowingly hire 
illegal aliens.
  While I hope that the Congress can one day address these issues, my 
priority this year is the reauthorization of the E-verify program. We 
must not let it expire. Employers rely on it, and we must not pull the 
rug from under them in their attempt to abide by the law.
  My legislation would extend the program indefinitely. There's no 
reason that we should allow this to expire in 1, 5 or 10 years. It 
should only expire when Congress feels the need to terminate it. Right 
now, over 61,000 employers use the program. That number is likely to 
grow, and they need to be able to know that Congress isn't going to let 
this program die.
  Another provision in my bill would require all contractors of the 
U.S. Government to use E-verify, even though they have the authority to 
do so today. Under the original statute in 1996, the Federal 
Government--including the Executive and Legislative Branches--must 
comply with the terms and conditions of E-verify. I added this 
provision because I don't like the progress I am seeing from the 
administration to require contractors to use the program.
  In August of this year, Secretary Chertoff announced a series of 
reforms to address border security and immigration challenges that our 
country faces. One of the 26 proposed reforms was to require Federal 
contractors to use the basic pilot program.
  Specifically, Secretary Chertoff said that ``the Administration will 
commence a rulemaking process to require all federal contractors and 
vendors to use E-Verify, the federal electronic employment verification 
system, to ensure that their employees are authorized to work in the 
United States.'' I firmly believe that the Federal Government ought to 
lead by example, and they shouldn't wait for my bill to become law.
  My bill would also allow employers to check the status of all 
employees, not just new hires. Since the system is voluntary, 
businesses should be able to use E-verify to check the work eligibility 
of all their employees. They would alert the Department of Homeland 
Security of their desire to check all employees and be required to do 
the checks not later than 10 days after. If an employer wants to make 
sure his or her labor force is lawful, or legally allowed to work in 
the United States, he or she should be afforded that right. Also, the 
Department of Homeland Security should be able to require repeat 
offenders of immigration law to check the status of all employees, not 
just new hires. My legislation would require certain employers to use 
E-verify if the Security has reasonable cause to believe that the 
employer has engaged in the hiring of undocumented workers. This 
provision will help us hold employers accountable.
  My bill would require more information sharing between the agencies 
at the Department of Homeland Security. Citizenship and Immigration 
Service, the agency in charge of service and benefits for immigrants, 
runs the program. However, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has the 
duty to enforce immigration laws and conduct worksite enforcement. I 
fear that the two agencies don't communicate enough, especially when it 
comes to this program. While CIS will provide ICE information about 
employers who use E-verify upon request, this should be an automatic 
process. The enforcement agency is better equipped to go after those 
who hire illegal aliens, and they should have access to such 
information, including those businesses that receive final non-
confirmations through the system. My bill would require CIS to report 
monthly to ICE.
  Finally, as a Senator from a State with many rural communities, I 
have heard small businesses say they want a system that works and is 
easy to use. Many towns in Iowa and across the country want to be able 
to use E-verify but may not have access to computers or the Internet. 
The Citizenship and Immigration Service has made strides to help 
businesses learn the system and accommodate their lack of access. As we 
continue to ramp up the program and potentially make it a requirement 
for all employers, I would like to see the Federal Government reach out 
to rural areas and figure out a way to make this work. My bill would 
authorize the Director of U.S. CIS to establish a demonstration program 
that assists small businesses in verifying the employment eligibility 
of their newly hired employees.
  In conclusion, I cannot stress enough the importance of making sure 
E-verify remains intact and operating for employers across the country. 
We need to reauthorize the program this year so that businesses can 
continue to abide by our immigration laws. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 3095. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
expand the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program to increase the 
delivery of mental health services and other health services to 
veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom and 
to other residents of rural areas, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, an Iraq veteran named Travis Williams told 
his story at a field hearing in Great Falls, Montana last summer. After 
graduating from Capitol High School in Helena in 2002, Travis quickly 
joined the Marine Corps. Travis was deployed to Iraq in 2005. He served 
in Al Anbar province.
  Like thousands of other American men and women in uniform, Travis 
served nobly and with honor under the most difficult of circumstances. 
He experienced the horrors of combat. He lost numerous friends. And he 
saw unspeakable violence.
  Travis testified that after months of combat, his emotions seemed to 
dull or shutdown. As he later learned, he was experiencing a normal 
reaction to a highly abnormal situation. His reaction was a defense 
mechanism that allowed him to continue to operate in a combat zone. His 
mind was finding a way to keep going. Thousands of marines, soldiers, 
airmen and seamen have experienced this phenomenon.
  Travis testified that when he arrived home it seemed ``surreal.'' He 
felt more out of place in his own home than he did in Iraq. Travis 
isolated himself from his friends. He was frequently drunk and angry. 
Looking back, he understands that he was on what he called the ``path 
to destruction.''
  One day, Travis received a phone call from Deb McBee. Deb is a 
veteran's service officer from the Military Order of the Purple Heart. 
Deb had heard about Travis' experiences in combat. She recommended that 
he visit the VA

[[Page 11619]]

clinic to seek help. Travis took her advice. The VA referred Travis to 
a veteran's liaison for the Western Montana Mental Health Clinic.
  Travis connected immediately with his mental health counselor. The 
counselor was also a veteran who understood the nightmare of combat and 
the loneliness of coming home. Over time, the counselor helped Travis 
to get back on track. Before long, Travis was enrolled in a pre-med 
program and had overcome many of the feelings of anger and loss he had 
felt before.
  I begin with Travis' story because it offers hope. But it offers hope 
amid a very dark picture facing our veterans. A recent study by the 
RAND Corporation revealed that American veterans are facing a crisis of 
epic proportions. RAND estimates that around 300,000 service members 
suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder--also known as PTSD--or 
major depression. And 320,000 individuals reported experiencing 
probable traumatic brain injury during deployment.
  The RAND study found that only 53 percent of service members with 
post-traumatic stress disorder or depression have seen a doctor or 
mental health provider in the past year. Of those who had a mental 
disorder and sought care, about half received only ``minimally 
adequate'' treatment.
  Tragically, on any single day, on average, 18 veterans commit 
suicide. More than one out of five of those vets were patients 
undergoing treatment by the VA. Think of it: Today, 18 veterans are 
liable to commit suicide.
  The VA has responded to this crisis with numerous initiatives that 
offer hope to thousands of veterans. This year, the VA will spend more 
than $3.5 billion for mental health services. Some of these funds will 
be invested in a new mental health inpatient ward in Helena, Montana. 
Over the last several years, the VA has opened up hundreds of new rural 
health clinics. Today, there are more than 700 of these clinics 
providing health care to our Nation's veterans. Montana has recently 
received two new rural health clinics in Lewistown and Cut Bank. The VA 
is making great strides.
  But we need to do more. Thousands of veterans still remain out of 
reach.
  The VA has undertaken an aggressive campaign to make mental health 
care services available to veterans living in rural areas. But 
thousands of Americans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan live 
hundreds of miles away from the health care that they need.
  The Veteran's Affairs Office of Policy Analysis and Forecasting 
counts 118,685 registered highly-rural veterans in America. Of these, 
only 39,158 live within 2 hours of a VA medical center. Thousands of 
veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan often have to choose 
between a day-long trip to the VA or no care at all. In my home state 
of Montana 32,404 rural veterans are enrolled in the VA healthcare 
system. Over 10,000 of those veterans must drive more than an hour and 
a half to reach a VA hospital. And thousands of those veterans must 
drive over two hours both ways. In times of crisis, two hours is much 
too far to drive.
  Research conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs shows that 
veterans residing in rural areas are in poorer health than their urban 
counterparts. Nationwide, one out of every five veterans enrolled in VA 
health care lives in a rural area. Providing quality health care in a 
rural setting has proved to be a daunting challenge. Limited numbers of 
doctors and long highways make inadequate access to care all too 
common.
  But let me return to Travis Williams' story. The key lesson of 
Travis' story is that getting the right care to veterans is all about 
teamwork. It wasn't just the VA that saved Travis. It wasn't just 
professional mental health counselors alone. It wasn't just veterans' 
service organizations. Travis' willpower alone was not sufficient to 
get him through the hard times. It was all of those things. All of 
those factors working together helped Travis to get away from a life of 
anger and despair, and back to a life full of meaning and purpose.
  Teamwork is what the Relief for Rural Veterans Act is all about. The 
bill would enable small rural hospitals, mental health service 
providers, and other rural providers to work together to respond to the 
needs of veterans in crisis. States could apply for funding to increase 
their capacity to deliver mental health services by using state-of-the-
art technology such as tele-health and tele-psychiatry.
  More specifically, my bill will give the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services authority to award grants under the Medicare Rural 
Hospital Flexibility Program. The Medicare Flex Program has a 
successful 10-year history of strengthening the rural healthcare 
infrastructure. Under this new authority, States can apply for grants 
to increase the capacity of rural providers to provide mental health 
services to veterans and other rural residents. The bill would 
authorize an additional $100 million for this new authority for 2 
years.
  The Medicare Flex Program is a good way to improve health care 
services in rural America. It has provided grants to States to develop 
State rural health care plans. It supports conversion of eligible small 
rural hospital facilities to critical access status. It supports rural 
emergency medical services. And it fosters rural health care network 
development. It makes sense to expand this program to include mental 
health services needed by veterans in crisis.
  Research conducted by the University of Maine found that small rural 
hospitals are playing a major role in providing emergency health care 
services to veterans. They are filling a critical gap in caring for 
veterans in crisis.
  But the Federal Government has not thus far provided funds to help 
rural hospitals to perform this task. The grants authorized in my bill 
could support crisis intervention services and other health care 
services needed by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. My bill will focus 
upon those veterans who live far from VA facilities. It could provide 
relief for veterans who have to drive hours to receive emergency mental 
health care.
  An additional benefit of these grants is that all rural residents, 
regardless of whether they are veterans or not, would be able to take 
advantage of the increased capacity of their small rural hospitals to 
deliver improved healthcare services.
  Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and the National Alliance on 
Mental Health Care have endorsed this bill.
  The RAND study I mentioned earlier concluded that we need a major 
national effort to improve the capacity of the mental health system to 
care for veterans. The report stated that the effort must include the 
military, veterans, and civilian healthcare systems.
  This bill is one answer to that call. This bill is a way to approach 
the problems facing our veterans from a new perspective. The philosophy 
behind the bill is that all agencies that can lend a hand to our 
veterans should do so. The challenges facing our Nation's veterans are 
too large for the VA to handle on its own.
  Researchers estimate that PTSD and depression among returning service 
members will cost the Nation as much as $6.2 billion in the 2 years 
following deployment. That's an amount that includes both direct 
medical care and costs for lost productivity and suicide. Investing in 
more high-quality treatment could save close to $2 billion within 2 
years by substantially reducing those indirect costs.
  Last month, Chairman Bob Filner said this about the crisis facing our 
veterans: This is not a crisis that only concerns numbers. This is a 
matter of life and death for the veterans for whom we are responsible.
  I urge the VA to continue its efforts to extend its reach into rural 
areas. I applaud the nation's thousands of volunteers who serve our 
Nations' veterans. And I offer this legislation as one way to begin a 
new approach to help those who have sacrificed so much in the name of 
duty, honor, and country.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

[[Page 11620]]



                                S. 3095

       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 ``Relief for Rural Veterans in 
     Crisis Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. EXPANSION AND EXTENSION OF THE MEDICARE RURAL 
                   HOSPITAL FLEXIBILITY PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 1820(g) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395i-4(g)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Providing mental health services and other health 
     services to veterans and other residents of rural areas.--
       ``(A) Grants to states.--The Secretary may award grants to 
     States that have submitted applications in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B) for increasing the delivery of mental health 
     services or other health care services deemed necessary to 
     meet the needs of veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and 
     Operation Enduring Freedom living in rural areas (as defined 
     for purposes of section 1886(d) and including areas that are 
     rural census tracks, as defined by the Administrator of the 
     Health Resources and Services Administration), including for 
     the provision of crisis intervention services and the 
     detection of post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain 
     injury, and other signature injuries of veterans of Operation 
     Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, and for 
     referral of such veterans to medical facilities operated by 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for the delivery of 
     such services to other residents of such rural areas.
       ``(B) Application.--
       ``(i) In general.--An application is in accordance with 
     this subparagraph if the State submits to the Secretary at 
     such time and in such form as the Secretary may require an 
     application containing the assurances described in 
     subparagraphs (A)(ii) and (A)(iii) of subsection (b)(1).
       ``(ii) Consideration of regional approaches, networks, or 
     technology.--The Secretary may, as appropriate in awarding 
     grants to States under subparagraph (A), consider whether the 
     application submitted by a State under this subparagraph 
     includes 1 or more proposals that utilize regional 
     approaches, networks, health information technology, 
     telehealth, or telemedicine to deliver services described in 
     subparagraph (A) to individuals described in that 
     subparagraph. For purposes of this clause, a network may, as 
     the Secretary determines appropriate, include Federally 
     qualified health centers, rural health clinics, home health 
     agencies, community mental health clinics and other providers 
     of mental health services, pharmacists, local government, and 
     other providers deemed necessary to meet the needs of 
     veterans.
       ``(iii) Coordination at local level.--The Secretary shall 
     require, as appropriate, a State to demonstrate consultation 
     with the hospital association of such State, rural hospitals 
     located in such State, providers of mental health services, 
     or other appropriate stakeholders for the provision of 
     services under a grant awarded under this paragraph.
       ``(iv) Special consideration of certain applications.--In 
     awarding grants to States under subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary shall give special consideration to applications 
     submitted by States in which veterans make up a high 
     percentage (as determined by the Secretary) of the total 
     population of the State. Such consideration shall be given 
     without regard to the number of veterans of Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom living in the areas in 
     which mental health services and other health care services 
     would be delivered under the application.
       ``(C) Coordination with va.--The Secretary shall, as 
     appropriate, consult with the Director of the Office of Rural 
     Health of the Department of Veterans Affairs in awarding 
     grants to States under subparagraph (A).
       ``(D) Use of funds.--A State awarded a grant under this 
     paragraph may, as appropriate, use the funds to reimburse 
     providers of services described in subparagraph (A) to 
     individuals described in that subparagraph.
       ``(E) Limitation on use of grant funds for administrative 
     expenses.--A State awarded a grant under this paragraph may 
     not expend more than 15 percent of the amount of the grant 
     for administrative expenses.
       ``(F) Final report.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     on which the last grant is awarded to a State under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall submit a report to 
     Congress on the grants awarded under such subparagraph. Such 
     report shall include an assessment of the impact of such 
     grants on increasing the delivery of mental health services 
     and other health services to veterans of the United States 
     Armed Forces living in rural areas (as so defined and 
     including such areas that are rural census tracks), with 
     particular emphasis on the impact of such grants on the 
     delivery of such services to veterans of Operation Enduring 
     Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, and to other individuals 
     living in such rural areas.''.
       (b) Use of Funds for Federal Administrative Expenses.--
     Section 1820(g)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395i-4(g)(5)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``beginning with fiscal year 2005'' and 
     inserting ``for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008''; and
       (2) by inserting ``and, of the total amount appropriated 
     for grants under paragraphs (1), (2), and (6) for a fiscal 
     year (beginning with fiscal year 2009)'' after ``2005)''.
       (c) Extension of Authorization for FLEX Grants.--Section 
     1820(j) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-4(j)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and for'' and inserting ``for''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, for making grants to all States under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (g), $55,000,000 in each 
     of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and for making grants to all 
     States under paragraph (6) of subsection (g), $50,000,000 in 
     each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, to remain available until 
     expended'' before the period at the end.

                          ____________________