[Pages S10063-S10074]
From the Congressional Record Online through the 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

[[Page S10064]]

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.
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.

[[Page S10065]]

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 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--

[[Page S10066]]

``(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;
``(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.

[[Page S10067]]

(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 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-

[[Page S10068]]

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.
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

[[Page S10069]]

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. 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

[[Page S10070]]

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 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 fist 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

[[Page S10071]]

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
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

[[Page S10072]]

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.
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

[[Page S10073]]

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 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.

[[Page S10074]]

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:
(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.)).

____________________