[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20197-20209]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HAGEL:
  S. 2867. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to increase 
the amount of the military death gratuity from $12,000 to $50,000; to 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Military 
Death Gratuity Improvement Act of 2004.'' This legislation would raise 
the military death gratuity paid to the families of military personnel 
killed while on active duty from $12,000 to $50,000. This increase 
would also be applied retroactively to all service members on active 
duty who have died since September 11, 2001.
  The military death gratuity is money provided within 72 hours to 
families of service members who are killed while on active duty. These 
funds assist next-of-kin with their immediate financial needs.
  As we face the challenges of the 21st Century, servicemen and women 
sacrificing for their country in a time of war should be assured that 
their families will be taken care of. The loss of a loved one is a 
tremendous emotional hardship for families. Congress must do what it 
can to ensure that it does not cause devastating financial hardship as 
well.
  This bill will help alleviate some of the financial hardships faced 
by the families of our brave servicemen and women who give their lives 
in service to our country. It will send a message to our brave young 
men and women and their families that their Nation appreciates their 
service and sacrifice. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in 
cosponsoring this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2867

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. INCREASE IN DEATH GRATUITY PAYABLE WITH RESPECT TO 
                   MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Amount of Death Gratuity.--Section 1478(a) of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``$12,000'' and 
     inserting ``$50,000''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to deaths occurring on or after 
     September 11, 2001.
       (c) Offset.--The Secretary of Defense shall derive funds 
     for amounts payable during fiscal year 2005 by reason of the 
     amendment made by subsection (a) from amounts available for 
     that fiscal year for travel for personnel assigned to, or 
     employed in, the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Amounts 
     for such purpose shall be transferred to the appropriate 
     accounts of the Department of Defense available for such 
     payments, and amounts so transferred shall not be counted for 
     purposes of any limitation on the amount of transfers of 
     Department of Defense funds during that fiscal year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Akaka, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Boxer, and Ms. 
        Mikulski):
  S. 2868. A bill to amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to extend 
certain consumer protections to international remittance transfers of 
funds originating in the United States, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
International Remittance Consumer Protection Act of 2004. This 
legislation extends basic consumer protection rights to those who send 
remittances, and it creates new avenues and incentives for federally 
insured financial institutions to provide remittance and basic banking 
services to those who currently do not use such institutions to send 
remittances.
  The practice of sending remittances is not new. Immigrants to the 
United States traditionally have used remittances to provide financial 
assistance to family members who remained in their country of origin, 
but the practice has been largely overlooked; it has not been 
systematically studied and its implications have not been fully 
understood. The 2000 census shows that 30 million people in this 
country are foreign-born--the largest number in our Nation's history 
and the vast majority of them--22 million--are citizens or legal 
residents. More than 40 percent of our Nation's foreign-born population 
immigrated to the United States in the 1990s, and some 15.4 million, or 
more than half the immigrant community, have come from Latin American 
countries. Immigrants make a vital contribution to the economic and 
social life of our Nation.
  In a recent study, Sending Money Home: Remittances to Latin America 
from the US, 2004, the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) found 
that nationwide over 60 percent of Latin American immigrants send 
remittances. On average, each immigrant sends $240 at a time, 12 times 
per year. Although these individual transactions are not large, they 
have constituted an aggregate amount of over $30 billion from America 
to our Latin American neighbors in this year alone.
  In my State of Maryland, we have 175,000 immigrants from Latin 
America and the vast majority send remittances back home. According to 
the IADB's study 80 percent of Maryland's immigrants from Latin America 
send remittances. The typical sender remits an average of $245, 14 
times per year--in other words, remittances are a monthly matter, with 
special gifts for Christmas and Mother's Day.
  The subject of remittances has been a major interest of mine for some 
time. As chairman of the Banking Committee, in February, 2002, during 
the 107th Congress, I chaired what I understand was the first 
congressional hearing devoted exclusively to the subject. Dr. Manuel 
Orozco, a leading researcher on remittances at the Inter-American 
Dialogue, told the committee that remittances from the U.S. to Latin 
America had grown substantially--at that point to an estimated $20 
billion in 2001--and that between 15 to 20 percent--$3-$4 billion--was 
being lost in fees and other transaction costs. Since Dr. Orozco 
testified, remittances to Latin America have grown by $10 billion, 50 
percent, in just 3 years, and continued growth is expected.
  That an estimated 15 percent to 20 percent of the money sent in 
remittances is diverted to fees and other transaction costs, often 
hidden from the remittance sender, is evidence of the abusive practices 
that exist in the remittance market. There are two primary factors that 
account for this abuse. First, studies have shown that people who send 
remittances tend to be relatively low-wage earners, with modest formal 
education and relatively little experience in dealing with this 
country's complex system of financial institutions. As a result they 
are susceptible to unscrupulous actors who can take advantage of them 
by charging all sorts of exorbitant fees, which are often hidden or 
misrepresented. The exchange rate conversion is often the mechanism for 
this abusive practice.
  Second, remittances are currently not subject to the requirements set 
by Federal consumer protection law, including the disclosure of fees. 
There is no requirement that a remittance transfer provider disclose to 
the consumer the exchange rate fee that will be applied in the 
transaction. Without knowing the exchange rate fee that the company is 
charging, a consumer has little ability to gauge accurately the full 
cost of sending a remittance. As Sergio Bendixen, a leading researcher 
of public opinion and behavior, with a specialty among Hispanic 
consumers, testified before the Banking Committee: ``an overwhelming 
majority of Hispanic immigrants are unaware that their families in 
Latin America receive less money than what they send from the United 
States.'' Further, a remittance sender cannot effectively shop between 
remittance transfer providers. The lack of basic information limits the 
amount of competition in this market.

[[Page 20198]]

  The legislation I am introducing today extends basic consumer rights 
to those who send remittances. Further, by requiring clear and 
understandable disclosures to the remittance sender of the cost of the 
remittance, thus presenting to the consumer the full cost of sending 
money, the legislation will enhance competition, which in turn should 
lead to an overall decrease in the cost of sending remittances. As 
Sergio Bendixen testified to the Banking Committee, ``Full disclosure 
should unleash market forces that, hopefully, will result in a 
significant reduction in the cost of sending cash remittances.''
  This legislation amends the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), 
which is the primary vehicle for providing basic protections to most 
persons who engage in electronic transactions, to cover remittances, 
and to provide the basic rights associated with EFTA to remittance 
transactions. The two most important components of EFTA are the 
requirement of full disclosure of fees and the establishment of a 
process for the resolution of transactional errors. These rights have 
been an integral part of the regulations that govern our banking 
infrastructure since EFTA's enactment in 1978. The new legislation will 
build upon the success of EFTA by extending these basic rights to 
remittance senders.
  The cornerstone of this legislation is the requirement that 
remittance transfer providers make three key disclosures to their 
consumers: (1) The total cost of the remittance, represented in a 
single dollar amount; (2) the total amount of currency that will be 
sent to the designated recipient, and (3) the promised date of delivery 
for the remittance. These disclosures follow the core recommendations 
of the InterAmerican Development Bank, which in its publication, 
Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean: Goals and 
Recommendations, states: ``Remittance institutions should disclose in a 
fully transparent manner, complete information on total costs and 
transfer conditions, including all commissions and fees, foreign 
exchange rates applied and execution time.''
  The total cost disclosure will include the cost of the exchange rate 
conversion as well as all up-front fees. This single item will both 
give consumers a more accurate representation of the cost of the 
remittance transaction and allow consumers to more effectively compare 
costs between remittance transfer providers.
  In order to calculate the cost of the exchange rate conversion, which 
is part of the total cost, the legislation requires that the Treasury 
Department post on its website, on a daily basis, the exchange rate for 
all currencies. At present the Treasury receives this information on a 
daily basis, but posts it only on a quarterly basis on the Treasury 
website. By posting the information daily, the Treasury could create a 
uniform and credible source for exchange rate information.
  To calculate the cost to the consumer of the exchange rate 
differential, remittance transfer providers will use the difference 
between the previous business day's exchange rate, as posted on the 
Treasury website, and the exchange rate that the remittance transfer 
provider offers. Using the exchange rate posted by the Treasury will 
ensure that the exchange rate cost is calculated on a uniform basis. 
When the exchange rate cost is disclosed to the consumer as part of the 
total cost of the remittance transfer, the consumer will be better able 
to understand the full cost of the transaction and to shop between 
different remittance transfer providers.
  In addition to fee disclosure requirements, this legislation 
establishes an error resolution mechanism so that consumers whose 
remittance transactions experience an error have a fair, open, and 
expedient process through which they may resolve those errors with the 
institution that conducted the flawed transaction. This basic right is 
already afforded to consumers who are protected by EFTA, and now this 
right will be extended to cover consumers who send remittances as well. 
Further, the legislation establishes an error resolution mechanism for 
remittance transfer errors that is responsive to the different types of 
errors that can occur in a remittance transaction and is reflective of 
the unique characteristics of the remittance market and its 
participants.
  Under this legislation, a consumer has 1 year from the date that the 
remittance transfer company promised to deliver the money to notify the 
company that an error has occurred. The company is then required to 
resolve the error within 90 days. To resolve the error, the company 
must either (1) refund the full amount of the remittance that was not 
properly transferred, (2) resend that amount at no additional cost to 
the consumer or the designated recipient, or (3) demonstrate to the 
consumer that there was no error. The Federal Reserve Board is also 
granted the authority to establish additional remedies for specific 
situations that cannot be addressed by the three specific remedies that 
are described in the legislation.
  It is urgent that we continue to encourage efforts to bring those who 
send remittances into the financial mainstream. In his testimony to the 
Banking Committee, Dr. Orozco pointed out that, ``About two-thirds of 
immigrants cash their salary checks in check cashing stores that charge 
exorbitant fees. Many of these same immigrants then use what remains of 
their income to send remittances back home. In this common scenario, 
immigrants are penalized in both receiving and sending their 
earnings.'' In order to further bank those who are currently unbanked, 
the legislation that I am introducing today requires that the Federal 
banking agencies and the National Credit Union Administration provide 
guidelines to financial institutions regarding the offering of low-cost 
remittance transfers and no-cost or low-cost basic consumer amounts. 
This legislation also amends the Federal Credit Union Act to allow 
credit unions to offer remittances and to cash checks for persons who 
are in their field of membership but are not credit union members. The 
guidelines set out in the legislation will help educate the financial 
services industry about the importance and potential profitability of 
providing these services.
  The sending of remittances in a fair and scrupulous manner is likely 
to be profitable for the institution that provides the remittance 
service, and indeed we have begun to see aggressive moves into the 
remittance market by many of the largest banking institutions. 
Individuals who send remittances but are currently unbanked represent 
an expanded and profitable customer base for financial institutions.
  By its very nature, remittances is an issue that involves both the 
United States and other nations. As Professor Susan Martin of 
Georgetown University, who also testified at our hearing, told the 
Banking Committee: ``Until relatively recently, researchers and policy 
makers tended to dismiss the importance of remittances or emphasize 
only their negative aspects . . . but recent work on remittances show a 
far more complex and promising picture. . . Experts now recognize that 
remittances have far greater positive impact on communities in 
developing countries than previously acknowledged.'' In fact, the size 
of the remittance market is such that for six Central American and 
Caribbean nations--Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Guyana and 
Jamaica--remittances constitute more than 10 percent of GDP; Haiti and 
Jamaica receive more in remittances than in revenues from trade. The 
World Bank estimates that Mexico receives more in remittances than it 
does in foreign direct investment. Reducing the costs of remittances is 
in the interest of both the United States and the countries that 
receive them.
  Given the growing importance of annual remittance flows, we must work 
to increase their efficiency. One mechanism for accomplishing this 
objective, and for increasing the ability of financial institutions to 
offer remittances is linking our banking infrastructure with the 
banking infrastructures of other nations. The Federal Reserve operates 
an international automated clearing house system (ACHi) that is 
currently linked to seven countries, of which the vast majority are 
highly developed trading partners that receive

[[Page 20199]]

relatively low levels of remittances. The ACHi was recently connected 
to Mexico, however, which will allow financial institutions throughout 
the United States, especially those institutions of smaller size, to 
provide remittance services more easily and cheaply to Mexico. This 
legislation directs the Fed to take into account the importance of 
remittance flows to other countries as it continues to expand the ACHi 
system. Linking the ACHi to countries that receive significant 
remittances has the potential to result in great benefits to consumers 
who send remittances from America as well as to those who receive the 
remittances around the world.
  Finally, I am acutely aware of the need for better and more broadly 
available financial literacy and education for all Americans. I am 
pleased to report that in the last Congress, as part of the 
reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, we established a 
Presidential Financial Literacy and Education Commission, which is 
charged with developing a national strategy to promote financial 
literacy and education. The Act addresses the issue of remittances by 
including in the commission's work a focus on increasing the 
``awareness of the particular financial needs and financial 
transactions, such as the sending of remittances of consumers who are 
targeted in multilingual financial literacy and education programs and 
improve the development and distribution of multilingual financial 
literacy and education materials.'' The legislation that I am 
introducing today builds on that framework by instructing the bank and 
credit union regulators to work with the commission to specifically 
increase the financial education efforts that target those persons who 
send remittances.
  Millions of Americans send remittances to family members around the 
world, for a total far exceeding the $30 billion that goes to Latin 
America alone. Yet almost all of these transactions take place without 
the basic consumer rights and protections that apply to other 
electronic transfers. Consumers who send remittances are often 
immigrants and workers who earn modest wages, who are not aware of the 
full costs of each remittance, as a practical matter have no way of 
finding out and, as a consequence, in the aggregate pay billions of 
dollars in costs and hidden fees. They do not have available to them an 
established procedure for resolving transactional errors. This 
legislation rectifies this situation by extending to remittances the 
basic consumer rights established in EFTA. The bill also contains 
provisions that, when implemented, will allow more insured financial 
institutions to provide remittance services--and potentially at lower 
costs to consumers. The bill contains important provisions to help 
bring the unbanked--men and women without an account at a bank or 
credit union--into the financial mainstream. Taken together, these 
measures will increase transparency, competition and efficiency in the 
remittance market, while helping to bring more Americans into the 
financial mainstream.
  A broad range of community, civil rights, and consumer groups have 
endorsed this legislation including the National Council of La Raza, 
the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the League of 
United Latin American Citizens, the Leadership Conference on Civil 
Rights, United Farm Workers of America, the Farmworker Justice Fund, 
the NAACP, Casa de Maryland, the National Federation of Filipino 
American Associations, the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, 
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, Consumers Union, 
Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumer Law Center, the 
National Community Reinvestment Coalition, the Center for Responsible 
Lending, U.S. PIRG, ACORN, Woodstock Institute, and the National 
Association of Consumer Advocates.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Intemational Remittance 
Consumer Protection Act be printed in the Record, together with letters 
in support of the bill from the National Council of La Raza, the 
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights, Casa de Maryland, and a letter from 
Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law 
Center, and U.S. PIRG.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2868

       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 ``International Remittance 
     Consumer Protection Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF REMITTANCE TRANSFERS.

       (a) In General.--The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1693 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 902(b), by inserting ``and remittance'' 
     after ``electronic fund'';
       (2) by redesignating sections 918, 919, 920, and 921 as 
     sections 919, 920, 921, and 922, respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after section 917 the following:

     ``SEC. 918. REMITTANCE TRANSFERS.

       ``(a) Disclosures Required for Remittance Transfers.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each remittance transfer provider shall 
     make disclosures to consumers, as specified by this section 
     and augmented by regulation of the Board.
       ``(2) Specific disclosures.--In addition to any other 
     disclosures applicable under this title, a remittance 
     transfer provider shall clearly and conspicuously disclose, 
     in writing and in a form that the consumer may keep, to each 
     consumer requesting a remittance transfer--
       ``(A) at the time at which the consumer makes the request, 
     and prior to the consumer making any payment in connection 
     with the transfer--
       ``(i) the total amount of currency that will be required to 
     be tendered by the consumer in connection with the remittance 
     transfer;
       ``(ii) the amount of currency that will be sent to the 
     designated recipient of the remittance transfer, using the 
     values of the currency into which the funds will be 
     exchanged;
       ``(iii) the total remittance transfer cost, identified as 
     the `Total Cost'; and
       ``(iv) an itemization of the charges included in clause 
     (iii), as determined necessary by the Board; and
       ``(B) at the time at which the consumer makes payment in 
     connection with the remittance transfer, if any--
       ``(i) a receipt showing--

       ``(I) the information described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(II) the promised date of delivery;
       ``(III) the name and telephone number or address of the 
     designated recipient; and

       ``(ii) a notice containing--

       ``(I) information about the rights of the consumer under 
     this section to resolve errors; and
       ``(II) appropriate contact information for the remittance 
     transfer provider and its State licensing authority and 
     Federal or State regulator, as applicable.

       ``(3) Exemption authority.--The Board may, by rule, and 
     subject to subsection (d)(3), permit a remittance transfer 
     provider--
       ``(A) to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (2)(A) 
     orally if the transaction is conducted entirely by telephone;
       ``(B) to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (2)(B) by 
     mailing the documents required under such paragraph to the 
     consumer not later than 1 business day after the date on 
     which the transaction is conducted, if the transaction is 
     conducted entirely by telephone; and
       ``(C) to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) of paragraph (2) with 1 written disclosure, but only to 
     the extent that the information provided in accordance with 
     paragraph (2)(A) is accurate at the time at which payment is 
     made in connection with the subject remittance transfer.
       ``(b) Foreign Language Disclosures.--The disclosures 
     required under this section shall be made in English and in 
     the same languages principally used by the remittance 
     transfer provider, or any of its agents, to advertise, 
     solicit, or market, either orally or in writing, at that 
     office, if other than English.
       ``(c) Remittance Transfer Errors.--
       ``(1) Error resolution.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a remittance transfer provider 
     receives oral or written notice from the consumer within 365 
     days of the promised date of delivery that an error occurred 
     with respect to a remittance transfer, including that the 
     full amount of the funds to be remitted was not made 
     available to the designated recipient in the foreign country, 
     the remittance transfer provider shall resolve the error 
     pursuant to this subsection.
       ``(B) Remedies.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     receipt of a notice from the consumer pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A), the remittance transfer provider shall, as 
     applicable to the error and as designated by the consumer--
       ``(i) refund to the consumer the total amount of funds 
     tendered by the consumer in connection with the remittance 
     transfer which was not properly transmitted;

[[Page 20200]]

       ``(ii) make available to the designated recipient, without 
     additional cost to the designated recipient or to the 
     consumer, the amount appropriate to resolve the error;
       ``(iii) provide such other remedy, as determined 
     appropriate by rule of the Board for the protection of 
     consumers; or
       ``(iv) demonstrate to the consumer that there was no error.
       ``(2) Rules.--The Board shall establish, by rule, clear and 
     appropriate standards for remittance transfer providers with 
     respect to error resolution relating to remittance transfers, 
     to protect consumers from such errors.
       ``(d) Applicability of Other Provisions of Law.--
       ``(1) Applicability of title 18 and title 31 provisions.--A 
     remittance transfer provider may only provide remittance 
     transfers if such provider is in compliance with the 
     requirements of section 5330 of title 31, United States Code, 
     and section 1960 of title 18, United States Code, as 
     applicable.
       ``(2) Applicability of this title.--A remittance transfer 
     that is not an electronic fund transfer, as defined in 
     section 903, shall not be subject to any of sections 905 
     through 913. A remittance transfer that is an electronic fund 
     transfer, as defined in section 903, shall be subject to all 
     provisions of this title that are otherwise applicable to 
     electronic fund transfers under this title.
       ``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed--
       ``(A) to affect the application to any transaction, to any 
     remittance provider, or to any other person of any of the 
     provisions of subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United 
     States Code, section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act 
     (12 U.S.C. 1829b), or chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91-
     508 (12 U.S.C. 1951-1959), or any regulations promulgated 
     thereunder; or
       ``(B) to cause any fund transfer that would not otherwise 
     be treated as such under paragraph (2) to be treated as an 
     electronic fund transfer, or as otherwise subject to this 
     title, for the purposes of any of the provisions referred to 
     in subparagraph (A) or any regulations promulgated 
     thereunder.
       ``(e) Publication of Exchange Rates.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall make available to the public in electronic 
     form, not later than noon on each business day, the dollar 
     exchange rate for all foreign currencies, using any 
     methodology that the Secretary determines appropriate, which 
     may include the methodology used pursuant to section 613(b) 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2363(b)).
       ``(f) Agents and Subsidiaries.--A remittance transfer 
     provider shall be liable for any violation of this section by 
     any agent or subsidiary of that remittance transfer provider.
       ``(g) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `exchange rate fee' means the difference 
     between the total dollar amount transferred, valued at the 
     exchange rate offered by the remittance transfer provider, 
     and the total dollar amount transferred, valued at the 
     exchange rate posted by the Secretary of the Treasury in 
     accordance with subsection (e) on the business day prior to 
     the initiation of the subject remittance transfer;
       ``(2) the term `remittance transfer' means the electronic 
     (as defined in section 106(2) of the Electronic Signatures in 
     Global and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. 7006(2))) 
     transfer of funds at the request of a consumer located in any 
     State to a person in another country that is initiated by a 
     remittance transfer provider, whether or not the consumer is 
     an account holder of the remittance transfer provider or 
     whether or not the remittance transfer is also an electronic 
     fund transfer, as defined in section 903;
       ``(3) the term `remittance transfer provider' means any 
     person or financial institution that provides remittance 
     transfers on behalf of consumers in the normal course of its 
     business, whether or not the consumer is an account holder of 
     that person or financial institution;
       ``(4) the term `State' means any of the several States, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and 
     any territory or possession of the United States; and
       ``(5) the term `total remittance transfer cost' means the 
     total cost of a remittance transfer expressed in dollars, 
     including all fees charged by the remittance transfer 
     provider, including the exchange rate fee.''.
       (b) Effect on State Laws.--Section 919 of the Electronic 
     Fund Transfer Act (12 U.S.C. 1693q) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``or remittance 
     transfers (as defined in section 918)'' after ``transfers''; 
     and
       (2) in the fourth sentence, by inserting ``, or remittance 
     transfer providers (as defined in section 918), in the case 
     of remittance transfers,'' after ``financial institutions''.

     SEC. 3. FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ACT AMENDMENT.

       Paragraph (12) of section 107 of the Federal Credit Union 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 1757(12)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(12) in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
     Board--
       ``(A) to provide remittance transfers, as defined in 
     section 918(h) of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, to 
     persons in the field of membership; and
       ``(B) to cash checks and money orders for persons in the 
     field of membership for a fee;''.

     SEC. 4. AUTOMATED CLEARINGHOUSE SYSTEM.

       (a) Expansion of System.--The Board of Governors of the 
     Federal Reserve System shall work with the Federal reserve 
     banks to expand the use of the automated clearinghouse system 
     for remittance transfers to foreign countries, with a focus 
     on countries that receive significant remittance transfers 
     from the United States, based on--
       (1) the number, volume, and sizes of such transfers;
       (2) the significance of the volume of such transfers, 
     relative to the external financial flows of the receiving 
     country; and
       (3) the feasibility of such an expansion.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and on April 30 biannually 
     thereafter, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
     System shall submit a report to the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives on the 
     status of the automated clearinghouse system and its progress 
     in complying with the requirements of this section.

     SEC. 5. EXPANSION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION PROVISION OF 
                   REMITTANCE TRANSFERS.

       (a) Provision of Guidelines to Institutions.--Each of the 
     Federal banking agencies (as defined in section 3 of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act) and the National Credit Union 
     Administration shall provide guidelines to financial 
     institutions under the jurisdiction of the agency regarding 
     the offering of low-cost remittance transfers and no-cost or 
     low-cost basic consumer accounts, as well as agency services 
     to remittance transfer providers.
       (b) Content of Guidelines.--Guidelines provided to 
     financial institutions under this section shall include--
       (1) information as to the methods of providing remittance 
     transfer services;
       (2) the potential economic opportunities in providing low-
     cost remittance transfers; and
       (3) the potential value to financial institutions of 
     broadening their financial bases to include persons that use 
     remittance transfers.
       (c) Assistance to Financial Literacy Commission.--The 
     Secretary of the Treasury and each agency referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall, as part of their duties as members of 
     the Financial Literacy and Education Commission, assist that 
     Commission in improving the financial literacy and education 
     of consumers who send remittances.

     SEC. 6. STUDY AND REPORT ON REMITTANCES.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study and analysis of the remittance transfer 
     system, including an analysis of its impact on consumers.
       (b) Areas of Consideration.--The study conducted under this 
     section shall include, to the extent that information is 
     available--
       (1) an estimate of the total amount, in dollars, 
     transmitted from individuals in the United States to other 
     countries, including per country data, historical data, and 
     any available projections concerning future remittance 
     levels;
       (2) a comparison of the amount of remittance funds, in 
     total and per country, to the amount of foreign trade, 
     bilateral assistance, and multi-development bank programs 
     involving each of the subject countries;
       (3) an analysis of the methods used to remit the funds, 
     with estimates of the amounts remitted through each method 
     and descriptive statistics for each method, such as market 
     share, median transaction size, and cost per transaction, 
     including through--
       (A) depository institutions;
       (B) postal money orders and other money orders;
       (C) automatic teller machines;
       (D) wire transfer services; and
       (E) personal delivery services;
       (4) an analysis of advantages and disadvantages of each 
     remitting method listed in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of 
     paragraph (3);
       (5) an analysis of the types and specificity of disclosures 
     made by various types of remittance transaction providers to 
     consumers who send remittances; and
       (6) if reliable data are unavailable, recommendations 
     concerning options for Congress to consider to improve the 
     state of information on remittances from the United States.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall 
     submit a report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial 
     Services of the House of Representatives on the results of 
     the study conducted under this section.
                                  ____



                                  National Council of La Raza,

                                   Washington, DC, Sept. 30, 2004.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, 
         and Urban Affairs, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the National Council of 
     La Raza (NCLR), the

[[Page 20201]]

     largest national Hispanic constituency-based organization, I 
     write to express our support for your proposed legislation, 
     the International Remittance Consumer Protection Act of 2004.
       As you know very well, the cost of sending remittances to 
     Latin America can be very high--as much as 12 percent per 
     transaction. Lack of competition in the remittance business, 
     which is dominated by a small number of companies that charge 
     higher fees than financial institutions, has kept prices 
     high. In addition to fees, consumers are often subject to 
     poor monetary exchange rates that are not fully disclosed. 
     These exorbitant fees and hidden charges adversely affect 
     many Latinos who send money regularly to Latin America. Many 
     of these remitters are working poor, and nearly half (43 
     percent) do not have basic banking accounts to conduct simple 
     transactions.
       For these reasons, we appreciated the opportunity to meet 
     with your staff and provide input regarding several issues 
     that affect Latino remittance senders. Specifically, we 
     support provisions in your bill that require disclosing 
     upfront all fees and exchange rates to consumers, most of 
     whom are immigrant and/or English language learners (ELL), in 
     languages and formats accessible to them; allow credit unions 
     to offer remittance and check cashing services to nonmembers 
     in the field of membership, which will connect remitters to 
     low-cost financial services facilitating their entry into the 
     financial mainstream; and assist the Federal Financial 
     Literacy Commission in informing remitters of new consumer 
     rights relating to remittance transactions via wire 
     transfers.
       Again, thank you for soliciting our feedback on the 
     International Remittance Consumer Protection Act and for your 
     continued support of Latino and immigrant communities. We 
     look forward to working with you to ensure that immigrants 
     have access to information and make fully-informed choices 
     when wiring money to family members abroad. In the end, we 
     hope such legislative measures will provide remitters greater 
     access to mainstream banking tools and services to improve 
     their long-term financial security. We hope to work with you 
     to achieve these goals. Please do not hesitate to contact me 
     if I can be of assistance to you.
       Sincerely,
                                                   Raul Yzaguirre,
     President/CEO.
                                  ____


                            [Sept. 30, 2004]

   MALDEF Applauds Sarbanes Bill to Regulate Remittances and Protect 
                        Latinos' Consumer Rights

      (By MALDEF President and General Counsel Ann Marie Tallman)

       MALDEF applauds Senator Paul Sarbanes' (D-MD) introduction 
     of the International Remittance Consumer Protection Act of 
     2004. We believe this bill is the first step in the right 
     direction to improve Latino immigrants' access to banks, and 
     to protect their rights as consumers. This bill is long 
     overdue. MALDEF urges Congress to pass it into law and 
     protect Latino consumer rights.
       Senator Sarbanes' International Remittance Consumer 
     Protection Act would bring remittance transfers under the 
     umbrella of protection of U.S. financial services laws. It 
     would make remittance transfers subject to the same set of 
     laws to which any other money transaction in the U.S. is 
     subject. Senator Sarbanes' bill would provide for basic 
     consumer protections for the millions of Latinos and the 
     billions of dollars they send through remittances, by 
     requiring full disclosure of all transfer fees, and a receipt 
     with such full disclosure in the language used by the 
     consumer. It would also provide for error resolutions and 
     reimbursements when family members overseas do not receive 
     the full amount of funds sent. The bill would also: (1) 
     permit credit unions to offer remittance and check cashing 
     services; (2) direct the Federal Reserve Board to provide 
     guidelines to encourage U.S. financial institutions to offer 
     low-cost remittance services and tap into this market; (3) 
     assist the Federal Financial Literacy Commission in improving 
     ``financial literacy'' of consumers who send remittances; and 
     (4) direct the General Accounting Office to study the 
     remittance market and report to Congress with its findings.
       Latino immigrants' remittances represent the most important 
     source of ``development aid'' to most Latin American 
     countries. Hard-working Latino immigrants are making 
     essential contributions to the U.S. economy, and U.S. 
     financial institutions have benefited greatly from Latino 
     immigrants' money transfers or ``remittances.'' In keeping 
     with the tradition of American immigrants, more than 60 
     percent of Latin American born adults generously send money 
     to their extended families in Latin America on a regular 
     basis. The volume is staggering--the International Monetary 
     Fund reported that over $30 billion in remittances are 
     expected to be sent from the United States to Latin America 
     in 2004. The Hispanic Association of Corporate Responsibility 
     reported that Mexico is the second-largest recipient, just 
     behind India, and that nearly 12 percent of remittances 
     worldwide go to Mexico. This market is unregulated, leaving 
     Latinos vulnerable to excessive processing fees imposed by 
     some remittance transfer agencies. As the PEW Hispanic Center 
     has reported, the fees have been inappropriately high, 
     reaching up to 20 percent. Even worse, some Latinos have had 
     their hard-earned money never reach their intended 
     recipients, or portions of their transfers have been skimmed 
     by unscrupulous agents.
       For all these reasons, MALDEF thanks Senator Sarbanes for 
     the introduction of the International Remittance Consumer 
     Protection Act, and urges the Congress to enact this 
     essential piece of legislation as soon as possible, in order 
     to protect Latino consumer rights.
                                  ____

                                          Leadership Conference on


                                                 Civil Rights,

                                   Washington, DC, Sept. 30, 2004.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the Leadership 
     Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation's oldest, 
     largest and most diverse civil and human rights coalition, we 
     write to express our strong support for the ``International 
     Remittance Consumer Protection Act of 2004.'' LCCR greatly 
     appreciates your efforts to strengthen the rights of 
     consumers who send money overseas.
       This important legislation will, for the first time, bring 
     remittances under the framework of federal consumer 
     protection law, and will encourage transparency and 
     competition in the remittance market. There are three key 
     components to the bill:
       First, it establishes clear disclosure requirements for 
     remittance transfer companies, including the requirement that 
     the cost of the exchange rate conversion be included in the 
     total cost of the transfer. This cost is, at present, a 
     hidden fee through which consumers are unwittingly charged 
     excessive and abusive additional costs. The bill also takes 
     an innovate approach to calculating the exchange rate fee, so 
     consumers will be able to shop among different remittance 
     companies with the full knowledge of each company's prices.
       Second, it creates an open and fair error resolution 
     process for remittance transfer errors. Currently, consumers 
     who send remittances do not have any guaranteed recourse to 
     recover money if a remittance transfer company fails to 
     deliver on its promises. The bill establishes an error 
     resolution mechanism for remittance transfer errors that is 
     responsive to the different types of errors that can occur in 
     a remittance transaction, and is reflective of the unique 
     characteristics of the remittance market and its 
     participants.
       Finally, it requires Federal bank and credit union 
     regulators to encourage federally-insured financial 
     institutions to offer low-cost remittance services and no-
     cost or low- cost basic consumer bank accounts. It is 
     estimated that half of all remittance senders do not have a 
     bank account, and only one in ten consumers use banks to send 
     remittances. This requirement on the Federal regulators will 
     further encourage competition in the market and will assist 
     in the critical effort to bank the unbanked.
       We greatly appreciate your leadership on this issue, and we 
     look forward to working with you to enact the International 
     Remittance Consumer Protection Act of 2004. If we can be of 
     any help, please feel free to contact Rob Randhava, LCCR 
     Policy Analyst, at (202) 466-6058.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Wade Henderson,
                                               Executive Director.
                                                     Nancy Zirkin,
     Deputy Director.
                                  ____



                                       CASA of Maryland, Inc.,

                                                  Takoma Park, Md.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of CASA of Maryland, Inc., 
     the largest Latino service and advocacy organization in 
     Maryland, I write to offer strong support for the 
     ``International Remittance Consumer Protection Act of 2004.'' 
     CASA greatly appreciates your efforts to strengthen the 
     rights of consumers who send money overseas.
       CASA of Maryland, Inc. provides high quality and affordable 
     remittances services for the Latino community in Maryland. We 
     witness every day the abuses that this legislation will 
     prevent.
       This historic legislation brings remittances under the 
     framework of federal consumer protection law, and will 
     encourage transparency and competition in the remittance 
     market. There are three components to the bill:
       First, it establishes clear disclosure requirements for 
     remittance transfer companies, including the requirement that 
     the cost of the exchange rate conversion be included in the 
     total cost of the transfer. This cost is, at present, a 
     hidden fee through which consumers are unwittingly charged 
     excessive and abusive additional costs. The bill also takes 
     an innovate approach to calculating the exchange rate fee, so 
     consumers will be able to shop among different remittance 
     companies with the full knowledge of each company's prices.

[[Page 20202]]

       Second, it creates an open and fair error resolution 
     process for remittance transfer errors. Currently, consumers 
     who send remittances do not have any guaranteed recourse to 
     recover money if a remittance transfer company fails to 
     deliver on its promises. The bill establishes an error 
     resolution mechanism for remittance transfer errors that is 
     responsive to the different types of errors that can occur in 
     a remittance transaction, and is reflective of the unique 
     characteristics of the remittance market and its 
     participants.
       Finally, it requires Federal bank and credit union 
     regulators to encourage federally-insured financial 
     institutions to offer low-cost remittance services and no-
     cost or low-cost basic consumer bank accounts. It is 
     estimated that half of all remittance senders do not have a 
     bank account, and only one in ten consumers use banks to send 
     remittances. This requirement on the Federal regulators will 
     further encourage competition in the market and will assist 
     in the critical effort to bank the unbanked.
       On behalf of the immigrant community throughout Maryland, I 
     congratulate you on your leadership with this issue, and we 
     look forward to working with you to enact the International 
     Remittance Consumer Protection Act of 2004. If I can be of 
     any assistance, please feel free to contact me at 301-270-
     0419.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gustavo Torres,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                   Consumers Union


                                            West Coast Office,

                            San Francisco, CA, September 30, 2004.
     Senator Paul Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: Consumers Union, the nonprofit 
     publisher of Consumer Reports, the Consumer Federation of 
     America, the National Consumer Law Center on behalf of its 
     low income clients, and U.S. PIRG are pleased to express our 
     strong support the International Remittance Consumer 
     Protection Act of 2004, as introduced today. This bill will 
     provide essential information and consumer protections to 
     hardworking people who send money to family members in other 
     countries, very significantly improving the operation of the 
     money transmission marketplace for consumers.
       Consumers in the U.S. send a significant dollar volume of 
     international remittances using both financial institutions 
     and non-financial institutions. Money sent to family members 
     outside the U.S. represents hard-earned family income. As the 
     Inter-American Development Bank has said: ``The dramatic 
     growth of international remittances is testimony to the hard 
     work and commitment of migrant workers seeking better lives 
     for themselves and their families.'' Money transmission 
     costs, disclosures, and consumer rights are not an issue that 
     extends beyond recent immigrants. Consumers who are U.S. 
     citizens or longstanding residents also send money to family 
     members outside of the U.S.
       U.S consumers sent $13.2 billion to Mexico in 2003, usually 
     in amounts of about $500 per transmission, according to a 
     report by the Pew Hispanic Center. According to the Inter-
     American Development Bank, U.S. consumers send $38 billion a 
     year to Latin America and the Caribbean, often in amounts of 
     $200 to $300 per transmission. U.S. workers also send money 
     to India, the Philippines, and other countries.
       Consumers who transmit funds internationally need the 
     protections that would be provided by the International 
     Remittance Consumer Protection Act of 2004. These protections 
     include plain disclosures before sending the money such as 
     the amount of foreign currency that will actually be sent to 
     the recipient in another country and the total cost of the 
     money transmission. The bill will require that this 
     information to be given before the transaction starts, which 
     is the time that pricing information is most useful to the 
     consumer. Consumers who are informed about the true amount of 
     funds that will be sent, and about the full cost of the money 
     transmission transaction, can shop around much more 
     effectively for the best rates and fees.
       The bill will also require that the consumer be given a 
     receipt with this important pricing information and with the 
     date when the money is to be delivered. In addition, the bill 
     will protect persons in the U.S. who send money out of the 
     country if that money is not received in the other country, 
     or if the wrong amount is received. These error resolution 
     provisions are designed specifically for money transmission, 
     but are based on the same principles as existing protections 
     that consumers enjoy when they make payments domestically 
     using an electronic fund transfer from a bank account. Money 
     that is sent to family members outside the country often is 
     essential to the economic survival of those family members. 
     It is important that the funds arrive as promised. This bill 
     would require money transmitters to tell the sender when the 
     money should arrive and would also create a mechanism for a 
     refund if there is a problem with the sending of the funds.
       Finally, the bill would encourage more federally insured 
     financial institutions to offer low cost remittance services. 
     Since some consumers who send remittances do not have bank 
     accounts, this could be a way for federally insured financial 
     institutions to serve new markets. According to an extensive 
     study by the Pew Hispanic Center, financial institutions 
     current have only about 3% of the international remittance 
     market.
       For these reasons, we are pleased to express our very 
     strong support for the International Remittance Consumer 
     Protection Act of 2004.
           Very truly yours,
                                                  Gail Hillebrand,
                                     Consumers Union of U.S., Inc.
                                                     Jean Ann Fox,
                                   Consumer Federation of America.
                                                  Margot Saunders,
                                     National Consumer Law Center.
                                                   Ed Mierzwinsky,
                                                        U.S. PIRG.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina (for himself and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 2871. A bill to provide for enhanced criminal penalties for crimes 
related to slavery and alien smuggling; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, as we all know, people 
from all over the world want to come to America to pursue a better life 
for themselves and their families.
  Unfortunately, however, some people entrust their lives to some very 
dangerous people in their effort to gain our shores. And, tragically, 
some people are brought here against their will and kept as human 
chattel, enslaved in horrible conditions, in the midst of our freedom.
  After hearing of the horrible deaths of aliens smuggled into the 
country and inhumanely abandoned along a Texas highway last year, I 
wanted to examine whether we are doing all we can to combat these 
horrible crimes.
  In talking with various law enforcement officials and victims, I 
heard of alien smugglers and traffickers who, through unabashed acts of 
profiteering, endanger the lives of countless aliens while compromising 
the integrity of our immigration laws at the same time. Make no 
mistake, the incentives for human smugglers are enormous. According to 
the Department of State, human smuggling around the globe generates an 
estimated $9.5 billion a year.
  The commodities involved in this illicit trade are men, women, and 
children who, for the smuggler, represent substantial profits. The 
State Department estimates that more than a million women and children 
are trafficked around the world each year, generally for the purpose of 
domestic servitude, sweatshop labor, or sexual exploitation. At any 
given time, the Department estimates that thousands of people are in 
the smuggling pipeline, with the United States being the primary 
target. Smugglers deliver some 50,000 aliens here each year. Alien 
smuggling is a global problem which requires a systematic and 
coordinated response. We should do all we can within our criminal laws 
to combat this terrible problem.
  Given the risks associated with these crimes every time they are 
carried out, the punishment should be appropriate to deter future 
smuggling or trafficking, and to sufficiently sanction those who are 
caught. Currently, Title 8 smuggling provisions provide that a person 
found guilty of alien smuggling where death results is subject to the 
full range of punishments, including the death penalty. However, if 
death results from a Title 18 trafficking offense, where the victims 
are arguably more vulnerable, the defendant is not subjected to the 
death penalty.
  In my opinion, an important component of criminal justice 
prosecutions is to serve as a deterrent to others who may be disposed 
to commit a crime. We should ensure that the punishments for smuggling 
and trafficking crimes are such that the risks of apprehension, 
prosecution and punishment far outweigh the payday at their delivery 
point. And, we need to be diligent in making certain that notice of 
these penalties is conveyed to those who are engaged in this 
enterprise, up and down the smuggling and trafficking organizational 
chain. Obviously, in my opinion, the best way to do that is the 
vigorous prosecution and harsh punishment of those we do catch.
  I also want to say a word about the goal of this legislation. 
Clearly, the smuggling and trafficking problem impacts a host of 
immigration issues.

[[Page 20203]]

While we are engaged in the nationwide debate surrounding immigration, 
we must also ensure that the crimes related to smuggling and 
trafficking are punished appropriately. We should not wait for the 
conclusion of debate on the overall issue.
  Whatever your feelings are regarding immigration policy, I think 
everyone can agree that we must not allow otherwise innocent men, 
women, and children to be abused and killed by those who seek to profit 
from the desperation of others.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUNNING (for himself and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska):
  S. 2872. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a credit to certain agriculture-related businesses for the cost of 
protecting certain chemicals; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Agricultural Business Security Investment Tax Credit Act of 2004. I am 
pleased to join with my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Nelson, In 
supporting this important legislation.
  Security at our agricultural facilities has regrettably become a 
national concern in the last decade. While we saw agricultural products 
used for destruction in Oklahoma City in 1995, our concerns have only 
been compounded by the tragedies of September 11 and the threat of 
terrorism. The Senate recognized this growing concern when we 
considered agricultural products in the Federal hazardous materials 
lists in the USA Patriot Act of 2001.
  The American agricultural industry has already recognized some of the 
dangers on its own and has made significant strides in improving 
security. Shops throughout the country have started to invest in 
security measures to keep their chemicals and fertilizers from being 
used illegally. In 2003, the Agricultural Retailers Association 
published a web-based, security-vulnerability assessment tool and has 
cooperated with the USDA to secure farmers and ranchers.
  But vulnerability assessments often require as much as $50,000 to 
$100,000 in capital investment. Meeting these pressing security needs 
is not feasible for many of the more than 9,000 retail facilities with 
fertilizer and chemicals stocks in the United States.
  That is why it is important we enact this tax credit. The credit 
would equal 50 percent of the cost of eligible security upgrades at 
agricultural retail businesses and is capped at $50,000 during any 5 
year period. This money can be used for many different security 
programs, such as employee background checks, locking equipment and 
even the latest chemical additives that can render fertilizer unfit for 
illegal purposes.
  In my home State of Kentucky, fertilizer theft has become a serious 
problem and is contributing to a dangerous rise in the illegal drug 
trade. One common fertilizer, anhydrous ammonia, is stolen in large 
quantities and is a fundamental part of the production of some forms of 
methamphetamine. This problem is especially bad in rural areas where 
police officers in Kentucky are try to curb the problem by distributing 
locks to farmers and training them to identify the signs of a 
methamphetamine label.
  But these efforts are not enough. This legislation is an important 
step to ensure that America's agricultural facilities are secure. 
Without our action, many of the facilities throughout our country would 
simply be unable to fund security improvements. We cannot risk 
fertilizers and chemicals falling into the wrong hands and facilitating 
illegal drug manufacturing or terrorist bomb makers. I hope my 
colleagues will join Senator Nelson and me in supporting this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 2873. A bill to extend the authority of the United States District 
Court for the Southern District of Iowa to hold court in Rock Island, 
Illinois; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that text of 
this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2873

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. HOLDING OF COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 
                   IOWA.

       Section 11029 of the 21st Century Department of Justice 
     Appropriations Authorization Act (28 U.S.C. 95 note; Public 
     Law 107-273; 116 Stat. 1836) is amended by striking ``July 1, 
     2005'' and inserting ``July 1, 2006''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 2874. A bill to authorize appropriations for international 
broadcasting operations and capital improvements, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to 
significantly expand our international broadcasting to the Muslim 
world.
  The United States currently broadcasts news and information in over 
60 languages to nations in every region of the world. Through both 
radio and TV, we tell America's story to the world--with news and 
information programming about not only U.S. Government policy, but life 
and culture in the United States. We also bring the world to overseas 
audiences, providing them local, regional and world news that they 
often may not receive, especially in closed societies. Such broadcasts 
have been an important foreign policy tool for six decades, since Voice 
of America broadcasts were initiated during the Second World War. 
During the Cold War, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty broadcasts 
behind the Iron Curtain were a literal information lifeline for 
millions trapped under Soviet misrule.
  Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Broadcasting Board of 
Governors, the Federal agency responsible for these broadcasts, has 
significantly expanded our outreach to the Muslim world. At the 
direction of Congress, it reestablished Radio Free Afghanistan 
broadcasts, which had been curtailed in the 1990s. It initiated a new 
Arabic-language service to the Middle East--Radio Sawa--featuring a new 
format of both music and news and information programming designed to 
reach younger audiences. It started a new Persian service, Radio Farda, 
broadcast to Iran. And it launched a satellite television station, 
Alhurra, which is transmitted across the Arab world in an effort to 
compete with other pan-Arab television outlets like Al Jazeera and Al 
Arabiya.
  We have seen dramatic results. In several cities in the Middle East, 
Radio Sawa is now the leading international broadcaster, and is 
competitive with local stations. A survey conducted in Morocco earlier 
this year shows that, in Casablanca and Rabat, Radio Sawa is the No. 1 
station among all listeners over age 15. Some 88 percent of people in 
those cities under the age of 30 listen weekly, and 64 percent of those 
over age 30 do so. The listener audience is not as high in other 
countries--ranging from a low of 2 percent in Lebanon to 7 percent in 
Egypt to 42 percent in the UAE to 45 percent in Kuwait. But these data 
are phenomenal for international broadcasting, where you are doing well 
if you are attracting five percent of the audience weekly.
  Although Alhurra television programming has only been on the air for 
7 months, it is already attracting an important audience share. Recent 
data indicate that some 33 percent watch it weekly in Kuwait, 20 
percent watch it weekly in Saudi Arabia, and 19 percent watch it weekly 
in Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. That's not as high as Al 
Jazeera and Al Arabiya, other pan-Arab satellite networks that are more 
dominant, but after 7 months, we are in the game.
  We can and should build on these successes, by expanding our 
broadcasting efforts to other nations with large Muslim populations--
from Southeast Asia to Central and South Asia to the African continent. 
The bill that I introduce today authorizes such an expansion, and would 
provide for new or expanded services, in both radio and television, to 
all of these regions. This would not involve a one-sized-fits-all 
approach, but a targeted effort based on analysis of each individual 
market.
  I do not want to imply that this will provide an immediate impact. It 
will

[[Page 20204]]

be a significant challenge. It will require additional resources and 
personnel. It will require diplomatic efforts--to obtain permission for 
construction relay stations and to procure local broadcast licenses. 
But we cannot afford not to try.
  Around the globe, there are some 1.2 billion Muslims. Polling data 
indicate that favorable attitudes toward the United States and U.S. 
policy have declined considerably in the last few years. One report, 
prepared by the Pew organization in June 2003, stated that ``the bottom 
has fallen out of support for America in most of the Muslim world. 
Negative views of the U.S. among Muslims, which had been largely 
limited to countries in the Middle East, have spread to Muslim 
populations in Indonesia and Nigeria.'' The negative image of America 
is perhaps the natural result of our status as a global superpower. It 
also stems from disagreements in foreign nations with U.S. policy. But 
it is also the result of a failure to explain U.S. policy, and a 
failure to engage in a dialogue with foreign audiences.
  The negative opinion in the world about the United States and U.S. 
policy is a national security challenge of the first order. We must 
deal with this simple fact: most foreign governments, even non-
democratic ones, are constrained in their ability to support American 
policy if their own people oppose the United States and its policies. 
We must, therefore, greatly expand our efforts to engage foreign 
audiences, not in a one-way monologue, but in a dialogue. International 
broadcasting is just one means of conducting that dialogue. We have to 
explain who we are, what we stand for, and what our motives are. If we 
don't, we will have ceded the field to people who will misrepresent our 
policies or our motives.
  International broadcasting is one of several public diplomacy 
programs--such as international exchanges and information programs--
that have been underfunded and understaffed for too long. This 
legislation I introduce today only addresses international 
broadcasting. We should make similar investments in our other public 
diplomacy programs, and I will continue to work to ensure that we do 
so.
  The 9/11 Commission recognized the lack of adequate funding for these 
programs, and called on Congress and the administration to invest in 
them. Among other things, the Commission specifically recommended that 
we increase funding for international broadcasting:

       Recognizing that Arab and Muslim audiences rely on 
     satellite television and radio, the government has begun some 
     promising initiatives in television and radio broadcasting to 
     the Arab world, Iran, and Afghanistan. These efforts are 
     beginning to reach large audiences. The Broadcasting Board of 
     Governors has asked for much larger resources. It should get 
     them.

  The 9/11 Commission did not recommend a specific budget amount, or 
provide a detailed plan. This proposal does both. It is based on a 
thoroughly-researched plan. It provides significant resources--$222 
million in one-time costs, and annual costs of $345 million. This 
represents about a 60 percent increase over the current annual budget 
of $570 million for such broadcasting. Relative to other national 
security programs, I believe it is a bargain--and an investment that is 
well worth the price.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2874

       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 ``Initiative 911 Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Open communication of information and ideas among 
     peoples of the world contributes to international peace and 
     stability, and that the promotion of such communication is 
     important to the national security of the United States.
       (2) The United States needs to improve its communication of 
     information and ideas to people in foreign countries, 
     particularly in countries with significant Muslim 
     populations.
       (3) A significant expansion of United States international 
     broadcasting would provide a cost-effective means of 
     improving communication with countries with significant 
     Muslim populations by providing news, information, and 
     analysis, as well as cultural programming, through both radio 
     and television broadcasts.
       (4) The report of the National Commission on Terrorist 
     Attacks Upon the United States stated that, ``Recognizing 
     that Arab and Muslim audiences rely on satellite television 
     and radio, the government has begun some promising 
     initiatives in television and radio broadcasting to the Arab 
     world, Iran, and Afghanistan. These efforts are beginning to 
     reach large audiences. The Broadcasting Board of Governors 
     has asked for much larger resources. It should get them.''.

     SEC. 3. SPECIAL AUTHORITY FOR SURGE CAPACITY.

       The United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 
     (22 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 316. SPECIAL AUTHORITY FOR SURGE CAPACITY.

       ``(a) Emergency Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whenever the President determines it to 
     be important to the national interests of the United States 
     and so certifies to the appropriate congressional committees, 
     the President, on such terms and conditions as the President 
     may determine, is authorized to direct any department, 
     agency, or other entity of the United States to furnish the 
     Broadcasting Board of Governors with such assistance as may 
     be necessary to provide international broadcasting activities 
     of the United States with a surge capacity to support United 
     States foreign policy objectives during a crisis abroad.
       ``(2) Supersedes existing law.--The authority of paragraph 
     (1) supersedes any other provision of law.
       ``(3) Surge capacity defined.--In this subsection, the term 
     `surge capacity' means the financial and technical resources 
     necessary to carry out broadcasting activities in a 
     geographical area during a crisis.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Effective October 1, 2004, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the President such amounts 
     as may be necessary for the President to carry out this 
     section, except that no such amount may be appropriated 
     which, when added to amounts previously appropriated for such 
     purpose but not yet obligated, would cause such amounts to 
     exceed $25,000,000.
       ``(2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to the authorization of appropriations in this subsection are 
     authorized to remain available until expended.
       ``(3) Designation of appropriations.--Amounts appropriated 
     pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in this 
     subsection may be referred to as the `United States 
     International Broadcasting Surge Capacity Fund'.''.

     SEC. 4. REPORT.

       In each annual report submitted under section 305(a)(9) of 
     the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 
     U.S.C. 6204(a)(9)) after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall give special 
     attention to reporting on the activities carried out under 
     this Act.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In addition to amounts otherwise available 
     for such purposes, the following amounts are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out United States Government 
     broadcasting activities under the United States Information 
     and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1431 et 
     seq.), the United States International Broadcasting Act of 
     1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
     Restructuring Act of 1998 (as enacted in division of G of the 
     Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999; Public Law 107-277), and this Act, 
     and to carry out other authorities in law consistent with 
     such purposes:
       (1) International broadcasting operations.--For 
     ``International Broadcasting Operations'', $497,000,000 for 
     the fiscal year 2005.
       (2) Broadcasting capital improvements.--For ``Broadcasting 
     Capital Improvements'', $70,000,000 for the fiscal year 2005.
       (b) Availability of Funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to the authorization of appropriations in this section are 
     authorized to remain available until expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Bayh, and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 2876. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
eliminate reductions in payments to hospitals for the indirect costs of 
medical education; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation 
today to restore Medicare reimbursement to hospitals. I introduce the 
American Hospital Preservation Act with my colleague, Senator Bayh, to

[[Page 20205]]

restore reimbursement for indirect medical education (IME) payments to 
teaching hospitals. IME payments give teaching hospitals an additional 
Medicare reimbursement due to their higher costs of inpatient care. The 
Medicare Modernization Act restored the reimbursement rate to 6 percent 
for fiscal year 2004. However this payment update expires today. Over 
the next 3 years, reimbursements to teaching hospitals will decrease, 
making it more difficult to care for our sick and to train our future 
health care providers. The American Hospital Preservation Act would fix 
the reimbursement rate at 6.0 and will ensure our hospitals are 
compensated for the invaluable care they provide to our patients.
  Hospital admissions have risen from 31 million patients in 1990 to 33 
million in 2000, and the number of days in the hospital is rising as 
well. Increased admissions, rising liability premiums, and the cost of 
advanced technology have forced hospitals to cut back on services. The 
cost of a pint of blood increased 31 percent in 2001, an additional 
$920 million burden to hospitals. Such costs are continuing to rise, 
yet Medicare reimbursements to hospitals are not keeping pace with 
inflation and their margins are slowly shrinking. Fifty-eight percent 
of hospitals are losing money on the Medicare patients they treat.
  Teaching hospitals have higher costs due to their critical role in 
educating tomorrow's physicians. They run more tests, utilize newer 
technology and require more staff because they are training our future 
health professionals. Preserving this reimbursement rate is vital to 
continuing this training. Although only 23 percent of all hospitals are 
teaching hospitals, they deliver over two-thirds of charity care. Many 
patients rely on these hospitals for their health, which make-up 78 
percent of all trauma centers and 80 percent of all burn beds. Further, 
a disproportionate percentage of the most seriously ill and injured 
patients are treated and convalesce in teaching hospitals. Emergency 
rooms are increasingly used as a primary care clinic because patients 
cannot find a physician who accepts Medicare, and they treat more 
individuals who are uninsured. In 2000, hospitals provided $21.6 
billion in uncompensated care.
  Lower reimbursement rates coupled with bioterrorism risks and a 
workforce shortage make our hospitals a time bomb waiting to go off. It 
is our responsibility to ensure they have adequate resources.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the American 
Hospital Preservation Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Graham of South 
        Carolina):
  S. 2877. A bill to reduce the special allowance for loans from the 
proceeds of tax exempt issues, and to provide additional loan 
forgiveness for teachers who teach mathematics, science, or special 
education; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in recent days, much ink has been spilled 
and much rhetoric bandied about on the subject of the 8.5 percent 
interest rate on student loans the Federal Government guarantees to a 
handful of lenders. We all agree that this loophole, which results in 
windfall profits to some lenders and banks, should be ended.
  Only recently have my colleagues on the other side of the aisle even 
acknowledged that this was a problem. It should be noted, that 
Democrats not only created and protected this flawed policy during the 
Clinton administration they failed to correct the problem when they 
were in the majority.
  Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated a commitment to ending the 
exploitation of the 9.5 percent interest rate guarantee. The President 
submitted a budget in February that closed the loophole. House 
Republicans introduced a higher education bill in May that also would 
close the loophole. But Democrats showed no interest in moving either 
of those pieces of legislation. Instead, they have recently offered a 
series of misguided, ineffectual attempts to close the loophole. The 
Kildee amendment that passed the House did not close the loophole--a 
fact even Senate Democrats acknowledge. That amendment prohibited 
discretionary funds from being used to administer the 9.5 percent 
payments or for the payments themselves. The fact that such payments 
are made with mandatory funds under the Higher Education Act renders 
the amendment powerless.
  Similarly, Senator Murray's amendment that was rejected at the Labor-
HHS-Education markup failed to close the loophole for several reasons. 
Her amendment would have allowed lenders to transfer loans within their 
portfolio to continue to receive the 9.5 percent guarantee, a practice 
explicitly criticized in the GAO report on this issue. Worse, her 
amendment would have spent more money than it generated by converting 
savings that accrue over 10 years into discretionary expenditures to be 
spent in a single year, 2005.
  Senator Murray's amendment would also have jeopardized student 
benefits nationwide by preventing nonprofit lenders, which are required 
to pour any extra Federal funds they receive back into the student loan 
program, from legitimately receiving the guarantee. In other words, her 
amendment would have led to increased interest rates and origination 
fees for student borrowers, and the elimination of loan forgiveness 
programs for nurses, teachers, and public safety officers.
  The potential damage did not end there. Because Senator Murray's 
amendment would have disrupted contractual obligations between the 
Federal Government and lenders and note holders, it could have exposed 
the Department of Education to costly litigation and risk a court order 
requiring the payments to be restored.
  Clearly, efforts to end the loophole have been unproductive or worse 
thus far. Today, I hope to transform the debate by introducing the 
Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004, along with my colleagues, 
Senators Bond and Graham, and Representative Boehner in the House. This 
legislation will close the loophole for one year and direct the 
resulting savings toward the expansion of teacher loan forgiveness 
programs for math, science and special education teachers in schools 
with large numbers of disadvantaged students, without cutting student 
benefits enjoyed by borrowers who receive loans from nonprofit lenders.
  Specifically, the bill would protect taxpayers by shutting down the 
loophole in 2005 in a way that immediately halts the high subsidies for 
refunding, transfers of loans from tax-exempt to taxable bonds and 
other related transactions. It puts lenders and note holders on notice 
that Congress will permanently and quickly phase out all other aspects 
of the 9.5 percent guarantee without putting the federal government in 
jeopardy of costly litigation. The bill protects student benefits 
provided by non-profit lenders, including 0 percent interest rate 
student loans for on-time completion, lower interest rates for certain 
students and loan forgiveness for teachers, nurses and public safety 
personnel.
  The bill invests the related savings to more than triple teacher loan 
forgiveness to $17,500 for teachers of math, science, and special 
education--disciplines where there are widespread shortages, 
particularly in the inner city and rural communities--who teach in 
high-need schools districts for five years, and who meet the No Child 
Left Behind definition of a highly qualified teacher. Such loan 
forgiveness provides an important recruiting tool for local districts 
to fill teacher shortages, and rewards teachers who teach disadvantaged 
children and children with disabilities, while preparing the students 
in the areas of math and science that are so critical to our security 
and prosperity as a nation.
  The President recently sent us a letter reiterating his desire that 
Congress act quickly to enact legislation to close the loophole. I urge 
my colleagues who are serious about ending this loophole to join me in 
supporting the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004, so that we can 
send it to the President's desk without delay, and send our dollars 
where they belong--benefiting students.

[[Page 20206]]

  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2877

       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 ``Taxpayer-Teacher Protection 
     Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF THE SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR LOANS FROM THE 
                   PROCEEDS OF TAX EXEMPT ISSUES.

       Section 438(b)(2)(B) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1087-1(b)(2)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``this division'' and 
     inserting ``this clause'';
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking ``division (i) of this 
     subparagraph'' and inserting ``clause (i) of this 
     subparagraph'';
       (3) in clause (iv), by inserting ``or refunded on or after 
     October 1, 2004 and before October 1, 2005,'' after ``October 
     1, 1993,''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(v) Notwithstanding clauses (i) and (ii), the quarterly 
     rate of the special allowance shall be the rate determined 
     under subparagraph (A), (E), (F), (G), (H), or (I) of this 
     paragraph, or paragraph (4), as the case may be, for a holder 
     of loans that--

       ``(I) were made or purchased with funds--

       ``(aa) obtained from the issuance of obligations the income 
     from which is excluded from gross income under the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and which obligations were originally 
     issued before October 1, 1993; or
       ``(bb) obtained from collections or default reimbursements 
     on, or interests or other income pertaining to, eligible 
     loans made or purchased with funds described in division 
     (aa), or from income on the investment of such funds; and

       ``(II) were--

       ``(aa) financed by such an obligation that has matured, or 
     been retired or defeased;
       ``(bb) refinanced on or after October 1, 2004 and before 
     October 1, 2005, with funds obtained from a source other than 
     funds described in subclause (I) of this clause; or
       ``(cc) sold or transferred to any other holder on or after 
     October 1, 2004 and before October 1, 2005.''.

     SEC. 3. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR TEACHERS.

       (a) Implementing Highly Qualified Teacher Requirements.--
       (1) Amendments.--
       (A) FFEL loans.--Section 428J(b)(1) of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-10(b)(1)) is amended--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (ii) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(B) if employed as an elementary school or secondary 
     school teacher, is highly qualified as defined in section 
     9101 of the Elementary Secondary Education Act of 1965; 
     and''.
       (B) Direct loans.--Section 460(b)(1)(A) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087j(b)(1)(A)) is amended--
       (i) in clause (i), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (ii) by striking clauses (ii) and (iii) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(ii) if employed as an elementary school or secondary 
     school teacher, is highly qualified as defined in section 
     9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; 
     and''.
       (2) Transition rule.--
       (A) Rule.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection to sections 428J(b)(1) and 460(b)(1)(A) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 shall not be applied to 
     disqualify any individual who, before the date of enactment 
     of this Act, commenced service that met and continues to meet 
     the requirements of such sections as such sections were in 
     effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (B) Rule not applicable to increased qualified loan 
     amounts.--Subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall not apply 
     for purposes of obtaining increased qualified loan amounts 
     under sections 428J(c)(3) and 460(c)(3) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 as added by subsection (b) of this 
     section.
       (b) Additional Amounts Eligible to Be Repaid.--
       (1) FFEL loans.--Section 428J(c) of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-10(c)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(3) Additional amounts for teachers in mathematics, 
     science, or special education.--Notwithstanding the amount 
     specified in paragraph (1), the aggregate amount that the 
     Secretary shall repay under this section shall be not more 
     than $17,500 in the case of--
       ``(A) a secondary school teacher--
       ``(i) who meets the requirements of subsection (b); and
       ``(ii) whose qualifying employment for purposes of such 
     subsection is teaching mathematics or science on a full-time 
     basis; and
       ``(B) an elementary school or secondary school teacher--
       ``(i) who meets the requirements of subsection (b);
       ``(ii) whose qualifying employment for purposes of such 
     subsection is as a special education teacher whose primary 
     responsibility is to provide special education to children 
     with disabilities (as those terms are defined in section 602 
     of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act); and
       ``(iii) who, as certified by the chief administrative 
     officer of the public or non-profit private elementary school 
     or secondary school in which the borrower is employed, is 
     teaching children with disabilities that corresponds with the 
     borrower's special education training and has demonstrated 
     knowledge and teaching skills in the content areas of the 
     elementary school or secondary school curriculum that the 
     borrower is teaching.''.
       (2) Direct loans.--Section 460(c) of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087j(c)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(3) Additional amounts for teachers in mathematics, 
     science, or special education.--Notwithstanding the amount 
     specified in paragraph (1), the aggregate amount that the 
     Secretary shall cancel under this section shall be not more 
     than $17,500 in the case of--
       ``(A) a secondary school teacher--
       ``(i) who meets the requirements of subsection (b)(1); and
       ``(ii) whose qualifying employment for purposes of such 
     subsection is teaching mathematics or science on a full-time 
     basis; and
       ``(B) an elementary school or secondary school teacher--
       ``(i) who meets the requirements of subsection (b)(1);
       ``(ii) whose qualifying employment for purposes of such 
     subsection is as a special education teacher whose primary 
     responsibility is to provide special education to children 
     with disabilities (as those terms are defined in section 602 
     of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act); and
       ``(iii) who, as certified by the chief administrative 
     officer of the public or non-profit private elementary school 
     or secondary school in which the borrower is employed, is 
     teaching children with disabilities that corresponds with the 
     borrower's special education training and has demonstrated 
     knowledge and teaching skills in the content areas of the 
     elementary school or secondary school curriculum that the 
     borrower is teaching.''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply only with respect to eligible individuals who are 
     new borrowers on or after October 1, 1998, and before October 
     1, 2005.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2878. A bill to amend the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act to provide 
for the acquisition of land for the Yurok Reservation and an increase 
in economic development beneficial to the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the 
Yurok Tribe, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian 
Affairs.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce The 
Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Amendment Act of 2004, a bill that would provide 
for the acquisition of land for the Yurok Reservation and an increase 
in economic development beneficial to the Hoopa Valley Tribe and Yurok 
Tribe in the State of California. This bill is introduced at the 
request of the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Yurok Tribe, and is for 
discussion purposes only.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2878

       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 ``Hoopa-Yurok Settlement 
     Amendment Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR THE YUROK RESERVATION.

       Section 2(c) of the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act (25 U.S.C. 
     1300i-1(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Land acquisition.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary and the Secretary 
     of Agriculture shall--
       ``(i) in consultation with the Yurok Tribe, identify 
     Federal and private land available from willing sellers 
     within and adjacent to or in close proximity to the Yurok 
     Reservation in the aboriginal territory of the Yurok Tribe 
     (excluding any land within the Hoopa Valley Reservation) as 
     land that may be considered for inclusion in the Yurok 
     Reservation;
       ``(ii) negotiate with the Yurok Tribe to determine, from 
     the land identified under clause (i), a land base for an 
     expanded Yurok Reservation that will be adequate for economic 
     self-sufficiency and the maintenance of religious and 
     cultural practices;
       ``(iii) jointly with the Yurok Tribe, provide for 
     consultation with local governments, and

[[Page 20207]]

     other parties whose interests are directly affected, 
     concerning the potential sale or other transfer of land to 
     the Yurok Tribe under this Act;
       ``(iv) submit to Congress a report identifying any parcels 
     of land within their respective jurisdictions that are 
     determined to be within the land base negotiated under clause 
     (ii); and
       ``(v) not less than 60 days after the date of submission of 
     the report under clause (iv), convey to the Secretary in 
     trust for the Yurok Tribe the parcels of land within their 
     respective jurisdictions that are within that land base.
       ``(B) Acceptance in trust.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(i) accept in trust for the Yurok Tribe the conveyance of 
     such private land as the Yurok Tribe, or the United States on 
     behalf of the Yurok Tribe, may acquire from willing sellers, 
     by exchange or purchase; and
       ``(ii) provide for the expansion of the Yurok Reservation 
     boundaries to reflect the conveyances.
       ``(C) Funding.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     from funds made available to carry out this Act, the 
     Secretary may use $2,500,000 to pay the costs of appraisals, 
     surveys, title reports, and other requirements relating to 
     the acquisition by the Yurok Tribe of private land under this 
     Act (excluding land within the boundaries of the Hoopa Valley 
     Reservation).
       ``(D) Report.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     submission of the report under subparagraph (A)(iv), the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture 
     relative to the establishment of an adequate land base for 
     the Yurok Tribe, shall submit to Congress a report that 
     describes--

       ``(I) the establishment of an adequate land base for the 
     Yurok Tribe and implementation of subparagraph (A);
       ``(II) the sources of funds remaining in the Settlement 
     Fund, including the statutory authority for such deposits and 
     the activities, including environmental consequences, if any, 
     that gave rise to those deposits; and
       ``(III) disbursements made from the Settlement Fund;
       ``(IV) the provision of resources, reservation land, trust 
     land, and income-producing assets including, to the extent 
     data are available (including data available from the Hoopa 
     Valley Tribe and the Yurok Tribe), the environmental 
     condition of the land and income-producing assets, 
     infrastructure, and other valuable assets; and
       ``(V) to the extent data are available (including data 
     available from the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Yurok Tribe), 
     the unmet economic, infrastructure, and land needs of each of 
     the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Yurok Tribe.

       ``(ii) Limitation.--No expenditures for any purpose shall 
     be made from the Settlement Fund before the date on which, 
     after receiving the report under clause (i), Congress enacts 
     a law authorizing such expenditures, except as the Hoopa 
     Valley Tribe and Yurok Tribes may agree pursuant to their 
     respective constitutional requirements.
       ``(6) Claims.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Court of Federal Claims shall hear 
     and determine all claims of the Yurok Tribe or a member of 
     the Yurok Tribe against the United States asserting that the 
     alienation, transfer, lease, use, or management of land or 
     natural resources located within the Yurok Reservation 
     violates the Constitution, laws, treaties, Executive orders, 
     regulations, or express or implied contracts of the United 
     States.
       ``(B) Conditions.--A claim under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     heard and determined--
       ``(i) notwithstanding any statute of limitations (subject 
     to subparagraph (C)) or any claim of laches; and
       ``(ii) without application of any setoff or other claim 
     reduction based on a judgment or settlement under the Act of 
     May 18, 1928 (25 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) or other laws of the 
     United States.
       ``(C) Limitation.--A claim under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     brought not later than 10 years after the date of enactment 
     of this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 3. JURISDICTION.

       (a) Law Enforcement and Tribal Court Funds and Programs.--
     Section 2(f) of the Hoopla-Yurok Settlement Act (25 U.S.C. 
     1300i-1(f)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Hoopa'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Hoopa'';
       (2) by striking the semicolon after ``Code'' the first 
     place it appears and inserting a comma; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Law enforcement and tribal court funds and 
     programs.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), Federal 
     law enforcement and tribal court funds and programs shall be 
     made available to the Hoopa Valley Tribe and Yurok Tribe on 
     the same basis as the funds and programs are available to 
     Indian tribes that are not subject to the provisions of law 
     referred to in paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for Yurok law enforcement and tribal court 
     programs $1,000,000 for each fiscal year.''.
       (b) Recognition of the Yurok Tribe.--Section 9 of the 
     Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act (25 U.S.C. 1300i-8) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Recognition of the Yurok Tribe.--The authority of the 
     Yurok Tribe over its territories as provided in the 
     constitution of the Yurok Tribe as of the date of enactment 
     of this subsection are ratified and confirmed insofar as that 
     authority relates to the jurisdiction of the Yurok Tribe over 
     persons and land within the boundaries of the Yurok 
     Reservation.''.
       (c) Yurok Reservation Resources.--Section 12 of the Hoopa 
     Yurok Settlement Act (102 Stat. 2935) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(c) Klamath River Basin Fisheries.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall enter into stewardship agreements with the 
     Yurok Tribe with respect to management of Klamath River Basin 
     fisheries and water resources.
       ``(2) Effect of paragraph.--Nothing in paragraph (1) 
     provides the Yurok Tribe with any jurisdiction within the 
     Hoopa Valley Reservation.
       ``(d) Management Authority.--
       ``(1) Definition of comanangement authority.--In this 
     subsection, the term `management authority' means the right 
     to make decisions jointly with the Secretary or the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, as the case may be, with respect to the 
     natural resources and sacred and cultural sites described in 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Grant of management authority.--There is granted to 
     the Yurok Tribe management authority over all natural 
     resources, and over all sacred and cultural sites of the 
     Yurok Tribe within their usual and accustomed places, that 
     are on land remaining under the jurisdiction of the National 
     Park Service, Forest Service, or Bureau of Land Management 
     within the aboriginal territory of the Yurok Tribe.
       ``(e) Subsistence.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is granted access for subsistence 
     hunting, fishing, and gathering rights for members of the 
     Yurok Tribe over all land and water within the aboriginal 
     territory of the Yurok Tribe that remain under the 
     jurisdiction of the Yurok Tribe or the United States, 
     excluding any land within the Hoopa Valley Reservation.
       ``(2) Condition.--All subsistence-related activities under 
     paragraph (1) shall be conducted in accordance with 
     management plans developed by the Yurok Tribe.''.

     SEC. 4. BASE FUNDING.

       From amounts made available to the Secretary for new tribes 
     funding, the Secretary shall make an adjustment in the base 
     funding for the Yurok Tribe based on the enrollment of the 
     Yurok Tribe as of the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. YUROK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated--
       (1) $20,000,000 for the upgrade and construction of Bureau 
     of Indian Affairs and tribal roads on the Yurok Reservation;
       (2) for each fiscal year, $500,000 for the operation of a 
     road maintenance program for the Yurok Tribe;
       (3) $3,500,000 for purchase of equipment and supplies for 
     the Yurok Tribe road maintenance program;
       (4) $7,600,000 for the electrification of the Yurok 
     Reservation;
       (5) $2,500,000 for telecommunication needs on the Yurok 
     Reservation;
       (6) $18,000,000 for the improvement and development of 
     water and wastewater treatment systems on the Yurok 
     Reservation;
       (7) $6,000,000 for the development and construction of a 
     residential care, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and 
     recreational complex near Weitchpec;
       (8) $7,000,000 for the construction of a cultural center 
     for the Yurok Tribe;
       (9) $4,000,000 for the construction of a tribal court, law 
     enforcement, and detention facility in Klamath;
       (10) $10,000,000 for the acquisition or construction of at 
     least 50 homes for Yurok Tribe elders;
       (11) $3,200,000 for the development and initial startup 
     cost for a Yurok School District; and
       (12) $800,000 to supplement Yurok Tribe higher education 
     need.
       (b) Priority.--Congress--
       (1) recognizes the unsafe and inadequate condition of roads 
     and major transportation routes on and to the Yurok 
     Reservation; and
       (2) identifies as a priority that those roads and major 
     transportation routes be upgraded and brought up to the same 
     standards as transportation systems throughout the State of 
     California.

     SEC. 6. YUROK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

       There are authorized to be appropriated--
       (1) $20,000,000 for the construction of an ecolodge and 
     associated costs;
       (2) $1,500,000 for the purchase of equipment to establish a 
     gravel operation; and
       (3) $6,000,000 for the purchase and improvement of 
     recreational and fishing resorts on the Yurok Reservation.

     SEC. 7. BLM LAND.

       (a) Conveyance to the Yurok Tribe.--The following parcels 
     of Bureau of Land Management land within the aboriginal 
     territory of the Yurok Tribe are conveyed in trust status to 
     the Yurok Tribe:

[[Page 20208]]

       (1) T. 9N., R. 4E, HUM, sec. 1.
       (2) T. 9N., R. 4E, sec. 7.
       (3) T. 9N., R. 4E., sec. 8, lot 3.
       (4) T. 9N., R. 4E., sec. 9, lots 19 and 20.
       (5) T. 9N., R. 4E., sec. 17, lots 3 through 6.
       (6) T. 9N., R. 4E., sec. 18, lots 7 and 10.
       (7) T. 9N., R. 3E., sec. 13, lots 8 and 12.
       (8) T. 9N., R. 3E, sec. 14, lot 6.
       (b) Conveyance to the Hoopa Valley Tribe.--The following 
     parcels of Bureau of Land Management land along the western 
     boundaries of the Hoopa Valley Reservation are conveyed in 
     trust status to the Hoopa Valley Tribe:
       (1) T. 9N, R. 3E., sec. 23, lots 7 and 8.
       (2) T. 9N., R. 3E., sec. 26, lots 1 through 3.
       (3) T. 7N., R. 3E., sec. 7, lots 1 and 6.
       (4) T. 7N., R. 3E., sec. 1.

     SEC. 8. REPEAL OF OBSOLETE PROVISIONS.

       Section 2(c)(4) of the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act (25 
     U.S.C. 1300i-1(c)(4)) is amended by striking ``The--'' and 
     all that follows through ``shall not be'' and inserting ``The 
     apportionment of funds to the Yurok Tribe under sections 4 
     and 7 shall not be''.

     SEC. 9. VOTING MEMBER.

       Section 3(c) of the Klamath River Basin Fisheries 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 460ss-2(c)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
     (5) and (6); and
       (2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) A representative of the Yurok Tribe who shall be 
     appointed by the Yurok Tribal Council.
       ``(4) A representative of the Department of the Interior 
     who shall be appointed by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 10. ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY.

       Section 10 of the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act (25 U.S.C. 
     1300i-9) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(a) Plan for Economic Self-Sufficiency.--
       ``(1) Negotiations.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Amendment Act of 
     2004, the Secretary shall enter into negotiations with the 
     Yurok Tribe to establish a plan for the economic self-
     sufficiency of the Yurok Tribe, which shall be completed not 
     later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the 
     Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Amendment Act of 2004.
       ``(2) Submission to congress.--On the approval of the plan 
     by the Yurok Tribe, the Secretary shall submit the plan to 
     Congress.
       ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $3,000,000 to establish the Yurok Tribe 
     Self-Sufficiency Plan.''.

     SEC. 11. EFFECT OF ACT.

       Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act 
     limits the existing rights of the Hoopa Valley Tribe or the 
     Yurok Tribe Tribe.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2879. A bill to restore recognition to the Winnemem Wintu Indian 
Tribe of California; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce ``The 
Winnemem Wintu Tribe Clarification and Restoration Act,'' a bill that 
would clarify the status of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe of northern 
California. I am introducing this bill, at the request of the tribe, 
primarily to initiate a discussion of the tribe's status among all the 
interested parties, including the tribe, local communities, and the 
tribe's congressional delegation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2879

       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 ``Winnemem Wintu Tribe 
     Clarification and Restoration Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Winnemem Wintu Indian Tribe was entitled to have 
     been included in the 1979 acknowledgement process that 
     created a list of federally recognized California tribes;
       (2) in addition to its continuous historic relationship 
     with the Federal Government, the trust status of the Tribe 
     was reaffirmed by the provisions of the Act of July 30, 1941 
     (55 Stat. 612, chapter 334), which granted to the United 
     States all tribal and allotted Indian land within the area 
     embraced by the Central Valley Project;
       (3) under that Act, the Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner of Reclamation, on January 5, 1942, created the 
     Shasta Reservoir Indian Cemetery, which contains Winnemem 
     Wintu remains, markers, and other appurtenances held in trust 
     by the United States;
       (4) Winnemem Wintu remains were removed to that cemetery 
     from the traditional cemetery of the Tribe in the McCloud 
     River valley that was flooded by the Shasta Reservoir;
       (5) the Bureau of Reclamation informed the Area Director of 
     the Indian Service in writing on December 22, 1942, of the 
     new cemetery and its status as Federal trust land;
       (6) the Secretary, through an administrative oversight or 
     inaction of the Indian Service, overlooked the trust status 
     of the Tribe, which was reaffirmed by the making of partial 
     restitution by the Secretary for the taking of tribal land 
     and the 1941 relocation of the remains of tribal members, 
     which remain interred in the Shasta Reservoir Indian 
     Cemetery;
       (7) the ongoing trust relationship of the Tribe with the 
     Federal Government should have been recognized by the 
     Secretary, and the Tribe should have been included in the 
     1979 listing of federally recognized California tribes; and
       (8) the Tribe, as a matter of sovereign choice, has 
     determined that the conduct of gaming by the Tribe would be 
     detrimental to the maintenance of its traditional tribal 
     culture.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (2) Service area.--The term ``service area'' means the 
     counties of Shasta and Siskiyou, California.
       (3) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Indians of the 
     Winnemem Wintu Tribe of northern California.

     SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF FEDERAL STATUS AND RESTORATION OF 
                   FEDERAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES.

       (a) Federal Status.--Federal status is restored to the 
     Tribe.
       (b) Applicable Law.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     Act, all laws (including regulations) of general 
     applicability to Indians and nations, tribes, or bands of 
     Indians that are not inconsistent with any provision of this 
     Act shall be applicable to the Tribe and members of the 
     Tribe.
       (c) Restorations of Rights and Privileges.--Except as 
     provided in subsection (d), all rights and privileges of the 
     Tribe and members of the Tribe under any Federal treaty, 
     Executive order, agreement, or statute, or under any other 
     authority that were diminished or lost under Public Law 85-
     671 (72 Stat. 619) are restored, and that Act shall be 
     inapplicable to the Tribe or members of the Tribe after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Federal Services and Benefits.--
       (1) Eligibility.--
       (A) In general.--Without regard to the existence of a 
     reservation, the Tribe and its members shall be eligible, on 
     and after the date of enactment of this Act, for all Federal 
     services and benefits furnished to federally recognized 
     Indian tribes or their members.
       (B) Residing on a reservation.--For the purposes of Federal 
     services and benefits available to members of federally 
     recognized Indian tribes residing on a reservation, members 
     of the Tribe residing in the service area shall be deemed to 
     be residing on a reservation.
       (2) Relation to other laws.--The eligibility for or receipt 
     of services and benefits under paragraph (1) by the Tribe or 
     a member of the Tribe shall not be considered as income, 
     resources, or otherwise when determining the eligibility for 
     or computation of any payment or other benefit to the Tribe 
     or member under--
       (A) any financial aid program of the United States, 
     (including grants and contracts under the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et 
     seq.); or
       (B) any other benefit to which the Tribe or member would 
     otherwise be entitled under any Federal or federally assisted 
     program.
       (e) Hunting, Fishing, Trapping, Gathering, and Water 
     Rights.--Nothing in this Act expands, reduces, or otherwise 
     affects in any manner any hunting, fishing, trapping, 
     gathering, or water rights of the Tribe and members of the 
     Tribe.
       (f) Certain Rights Not Altered.--Except as specifically 
     provided in this Act, nothing in this Act alters any property 
     right or obligation, any contractual right or obligation, or 
     any obligation for taxes levied.

     SEC. 5. RESERVATION OF THE TRIBE.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall take the 42.5-acre site presently 
     occupied by the Tribe into trust for the benefit of the 
     Tribe, and that land shall be the reservation of the Tribe.

     SEC. 6. GAMING.

       The Tribe shall not have the right to conduct gaming 
     (within the meaning of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 
     U.S.C. 2701 et seq.)).

[[Page 20209]]



                          ____________________