A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the amount of the military death gratuity from $12,000 to $50,000.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the International Remittance Consumer Protection Act of 2004. This legislation extends basic consumer protection rights to those who send remittances, and it creates new avenues and incentives for federally insured financial institutions to provide remittance and basic banking services to those who currently do not use such institutions to send remittances.

The practice of sending remittances is not new. Immigrants to the United States traditionally have used remittances to provide financial assistance to family members who remained in their country of origin, but the practice has been largely overlooked; it has not been systematically studied and its implications have not been fully understood. The 2000 census shows that 30 million people in this country are foreign-born--the largest number in our Nation's history and the vast majority of them--22 million--are citizens or legal residents. More than 40 percent of our Nation's foreign-born population immigrated to the United States in the 1990s, and some 15.4 million, or more than half the immigrant community, have come from Latin American countries. Immigrants make a vital contribution to the economic and social life of our Nation.

In a recent study, Sending Money Home: Remittances to Latin America from the US, 2004, the Inter-American

Development Bank (IADB) found that nationwide over 60 percent of Latin American immigrants send remittances. On average, each immigrant sends $240 at a time, 12 times per year. Although these individual transactions are not large, they have constituted an aggregate amount of over $30 billion from America to our Latin American neighbors in this year alone.

In my State of Maryland, we have 175,000 immigrants from Latin America and the vast majority send remittances back home. According to the IADB's study 80 percent of Maryland's immigrants from Latin America send remittances. The typical sender remits an average of $245, 14 times per year--in other words, remittances are a monthly matter, with special gifts for Christmas and Mother's Day.

The subject of remittances has been a major interest of mine for some time. As chairman of the Banking Committee, in February, 2002, during the 107th Congress, I chaired what I understand was the first congressional hearing devoted exclusively to the subject. Dr. Manuel Orozco, a leading researcher on remittances at the Inter-American Dialogue, told the committee that remittances from the U.S. to Latin America had grown substantially--at that point to an estimated $20 billion in 2001--and that between 15 to 20 percent--$3-$4 billion--was being lost in fees and other transaction costs. Since Dr. Orozco testified, remittances to Latin America have grown by $10 billion, 50 percent, in just 3 years, and continued growth is expected.

That an estimated 15 percent to 20 percent of the money sent in remittances is diverted to fees and other transaction costs, often hidden from the remittance sender, is evidence of the abusive practices that exist in the remittance market. There are two primary factors that account for this abuse. First, studies have shown that people who send remittances tend to be relatively low-wage earners, with modest formal education and relatively little experience in dealing with this country's complex system of financial institutions. As a result they are susceptible to unscrupulous actors who can take advantage of them by charging all sorts of exorbitant fees, which are often hidden or misrepresented. The exchange rate conversion is often the mechanism for this abusive practice.

Second, remittances are currently not subject to the requirements set by Federal consumer protection law, including the disclosure of fees. There is no requirement that a remittance transfer provider disclose to the consumer the exchange rate fee that will be applied in the transaction. Without knowing the exchange rate fee that the company is charging, a consumer has little ability to gauge accurately the full cost of sending a remittance. As Sergio Bendixen, a leading researcher of public opinion and behavior, with a specialty among Hispanic consumers, testified before the Banking Committee: ``an overwhelming majority of Hispanic immigrants are unaware that their families in Latin America receive less money than what they send from the United States.'' Further, a remittance sender cannot effectively shop between remittance transfer providers. The lack of basic information limits the amount of competition in this market.

The legislation I am introducing today extends basic consumer rights to those who send remittances. Further, by requiring clear and understandable disclosures to the remittance sender of the cost of the remittance, thus presenting to the consumer the full cost of sending money, the legislation will enhance competition, which in turn should lead to an overall decrease in the cost of sending remittances. As Sergio Bendixen testified to the Banking Committee, ``Full disclosure should unleash market forces that, hopefully, will result in a significant reduction in the cost of sending cash remittances.''

This legislation amends the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), which is the primary vehicle for providing basic protections to most persons who engage in electronic transactions, to cover remittances, and to provide the basic rights associated with EFTA to remittance transactions. The two most important components of EFTA are the requirement of full disclosure of fees and the establishment of a process for the resolution of transactional errors. These rights have been an integral part of the regulations that govern our banking infrastructure since EFTA's enactment in 1978. The new legislation will build upon the success of EFTA by extending these basic rights to remittance senders.

The cornerstone of this legislation is the requirement that remittance transfer providers make three key disclosures to their consumers: (1) The total cost of the remittance, represented in a single dollar amount; (2) the total amount of currency that will be sent to the designated recipient, and (3) the promised date of delivery for the remittance. These disclosures follow the core recommendations of the InterAmerican Development Bank, which in its publication, Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean: Goals and Recommendations, states: ``Remittance institutions should disclose in a fully transparent manner, complete information on total costs and transfer conditions, including all commissions and fees, foreign exchange rates applied and execution time.''

The total cost disclosure will include the cost of the exchange rate conversion as well as all up-front fees. This single item will both give consumers a more accurate representation of the cost of the remittance transaction and allow consumers to more effectively compare costs between remittance transfer providers.

In order to calculate the cost of the exchange rate conversion, which is part of the total cost, the legislation requires that the Treasury Department post on its website, on a daily basis, the exchange rate for all currencies. At present the Treasury receives this information on a daily basis, but posts it only on a quarterly basis on the Treasury website. By posting the information daily, the Treasury could create a uniform and credible source for exchange rate information.

To calculate the cost to the consumer of the exchange rate differential, remittance transfer providers will use the difference between the previous business day's exchange rate, as posted on the Treasury website, and the exchange rate that the remittance transfer provider offers. Using the exchange rate posted by the Treasury will ensure that the exchange rate cost is calculated on a uniform basis. When the exchange rate cost is disclosed to the consumer as part of the total cost of the remittance transfer, the consumer will be better able to understand the full cost of the transaction and to shop between different remittance transfer providers.

In addition to fee disclosure requirements, this legislation establishes an error resolution mechanism so that consumers whose remittance transactions experience an error have a fair, open, and expedient process through which they may resolve those errors with the institution that conducted the flawed transaction. This basic right is already afforded to consumers who are protected by EFTA, and now this right will be extended to cover consumers who send remittances as well. Further, the legislation establishes an error resolution mechanism for remittance transfer errors that is responsive to the different types of errors that can occur in a remittance transaction and is reflective of the unique characteristics of the remittance market and its participants.

Under this legislation, a consumer has 1 year from the date that the remittance transfer company promised to deliver the money to notify the company that an error has occurred. The company is then required to resolve the error within 90 days. To resolve the error, the company must either (1) refund the full amount of the remittance that was not properly transferred, (2) resend that amount at no additional cost to the consumer or the designated recipient, or (3) demonstrate to the consumer that there was no error. The Federal Reserve Board is also granted the authority to establish additional remedies for specific situations that cannot be addressed by the three specific remedies that are described in the legislation.

It is urgent that we continue to encourage efforts to bring those who send remittances into the financial mainstream. In his testimony to the Banking Committee, Dr. Orozco pointed out that, ``About two-thirds of immigrants cash their salary checks in check cashing stores that charge exorbitant fees.

Many of these same immigrants then use what remains of their income to send remittances back home. In this common scenario, immigrants are penalized in both receiving and sending their earnings.'' In order to further bank those who are currently unbanked, the legislation that I am introducing today requires that the Federal banking agencies and the National Credit Union Administration provide guidelines to financial institutions regarding the offering of low-cost remittance transfers and no-cost or low-cost basic consumer amounts. This legislation also amends the Federal Credit Union Act to allow credit unions to offer remittances and to cash checks for persons who are in their field of membership but are not credit union members. The guidelines set out in the legislation will help educate the financial services industry about the importance and potential profitability of providing these services.

The sending of remittances in a fair and scrupulous manner is likely to be profitable for the institution that provides the remittance service, and indeed we have begun to see aggressive moves into the remittance market by many of the largest banking institutions. Individuals who send remittances but are currently unbanked represent an expanded and profitable customer base for financial institutions.

By its very nature, remittances is an issue that involves both the United States and other nations. As Professor Susan Martin of Georgetown University, who also testified at our hearing, told the Banking Committee: ``Until relatively recently, researchers and policy makers tended to dismiss the importance of remittances or emphasize only their negative aspects . . . but recent work on remittances show a far more complex and promising picture. . . Experts now recognize that remittances have far greater positive impact on communities in developing countries than previously acknowledged.'' In fact, the size of the remittance market is such that for six Central American and Caribbean nations--Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Guyana and Jamaica--remittances constitute more than 10 percent of GDP; Haiti and Jamaica receive more in remittances than in revenues from trade. The World Bank estimates that Mexico receives more in remittances than it does in foreign direct investment. Reducing the costs of remittances is in the interest of both the United States and the countries that receive them.

Given the growing importance of annual remittance flows, we must work to increase their efficiency. One mechanism for accomplishing this objective, and for increasing the ability of financial institutions to offer remittances is linking our banking infrastructure with the banking infrastructures of other nations. The Federal Reserve operates an international automated clearing house system (ACHi) that is currently linked to seven countries, of which the vast majority are highly developed trading partners that receive 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.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to significantly expand our international broadcasting to the Muslim world.

The United States currently broadcasts news and information in over 60 languages to nations in every region of the world. Through both radio and TV, we tell America's story to the world--with news and information programming about not only U.S. Government policy, but life and culture in the United States. We also bring the world to overseas audiences, providing them local, regional and world news that they often may not receive, especially in closed societies. Such broadcasts have been an important foreign policy tool for six decades, since Voice of America broadcasts were initiated during the Second World War. During the Cold War, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty broadcasts behind the Iron Curtain were a literal information lifeline for millions trapped under Soviet misrule.

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Federal agency responsible for these broadcasts, has significantly expanded our outreach to the Muslim world. At the direction of Congress, it reestablished Radio Free Afghanistan broadcasts, which had been curtailed in the 1990s. It initiated a new Arabic-language service to the Middle East--Radio Sawa--featuring a new format of both music and news and information programming designed to reach younger audiences. It started a new Persian service, Radio Farda, broadcast to Iran. And it launched a satellite television station, Alhurra, which is transmitted across the Arab world in an effort to compete with other pan-Arab television outlets like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya.

We have seen dramatic results. In several cities in the Middle East, Radio Sawa is now the leading international broadcaster, and is competitive with local stations. A survey conducted in Morocco earlier this year shows that, in Casablanca and Rabat, Radio Sawa is the No. 1 station among all listeners over age 15. Some 88 percent of people in those cities under the age of 30 listen weekly, and 64 percent of those

over age 30 do so. The listener audience is not as high in other countries--ranging from a low of 2 percent in Lebanon to 7 percent in Egypt to 42 percent in the UAE to 45 percent in Kuwait. But these data are phenomenal for international broadcasting, where you are doing well if you are attracting five percent of the audience weekly.

Although Alhurra television programming has only been on the air for 7 months, it is already attracting an important audience share. Recent data indicate that some 33 percent watch it weekly in Kuwait, 20 percent watch it weekly in Saudi Arabia, and 19 percent watch it weekly in Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. That's not as high as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, other pan-Arab satellite networks that are more dominant, but after 7 months, we are in the game.

We can and should build on these successes, by expanding our broadcasting efforts to other nations with large Muslim populations-- from Southeast Asia to Central and South Asia to the African continent. The bill that I introduce today authorizes such an expansion, and would provide for new or expanded services, in both radio and television, to all of these regions. This would not involve a one-sized-fits-all approach, but a targeted effort based on analysis of each individual market.

I do not want to imply that this will provide an immediate impact. It will 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.

Mr. President, in recent days, much ink has been spilled and much rhetoric bandied about on the subject of the 8.5 percent interest rate on student loans the Federal Government guarantees to a handful of lenders. We all agree that this loophole, which results in windfall profits to some lenders and banks, should be ended.

Only recently have my colleagues on the other side of the aisle even acknowledged that this was a problem. It should be noted, that Democrats not only created and protected this flawed policy during the Clinton administration they failed to correct the problem when they were in the majority.

Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated a commitment to ending the exploitation of the 9.5 percent interest rate guarantee. The President submitted a budget in February that closed the loophole. House Republicans introduced a higher education bill in May that also would close the loophole. But Democrats showed no interest in moving either of those pieces of legislation. Instead, they have recently offered a series of misguided, ineffectual attempts to close the loophole. The Kildee amendment that passed the House did not close the loophole--a fact even Senate Democrats acknowledge. That amendment prohibited discretionary funds from being used to administer the 9.5 percent payments or for the payments themselves. The fact that such payments are made with mandatory funds under the Higher Education Act renders the amendment powerless.

Similarly, Senator Murray's amendment that was rejected at the Labor- HHS-Education markup failed to close the loophole for several reasons. Her amendment would have allowed lenders to transfer loans within their portfolio to continue to receive the 9.5 percent guarantee, a practice explicitly criticized in the GAO report on this issue. Worse, her amendment would have spent more money than it generated by converting savings that accrue over 10 years into discretionary expenditures to be spent in a single year, 2005.

Senator Murray's amendment would also have jeopardized student benefits nationwide by preventing nonprofit lenders, which are required to pour any extra Federal funds they receive back into the student loan program, from legitimately receiving the guarantee. In other words, her amendment would have led to increased interest rates and origination fees for student borrowers, and the elimination of loan forgiveness programs for nurses, teachers, and public safety officers.

The potential damage did not end there. Because Senator Murray's amendment would have disrupted contractual obligations between the Federal Government and lenders and note holders, it could have exposed the Department of Education to costly litigation and risk a court order requiring the payments to be restored.

Clearly, efforts to end the loophole have been unproductive or worse thus far. Today, I hope to transform the debate by introducing the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004, along with my colleagues, Senators Bond and Graham, and Representative Boehner in the House. This legislation will close the loophole for one year and direct the resulting savings toward the expansion of teacher loan forgiveness programs for math, science and special education teachers in schools with large numbers of disadvantaged students, without cutting student benefits enjoyed by borrowers who receive loans from nonprofit lenders.

Specifically, the bill would protect taxpayers by shutting down the loophole in 2005 in a way that immediately halts the high subsidies for refunding, transfers of loans from tax-exempt to taxable bonds and other related transactions. It puts lenders and note holders on notice that Congress will permanently and quickly phase out all other aspects of the 9.5 percent guarantee without putting the federal government in jeopardy of costly litigation. The bill protects student benefits provided by non-profit lenders, including 0 percent interest rate student loans for on-time completion, lower interest rates for certain students and loan forgiveness for teachers, nurses and public safety personnel.

The bill invests the related savings to more than triple teacher loan forgiveness to $17,500 for teachers of math, science, and special education--disciplines where there are widespread shortages, particularly in the inner city and rural communities--who teach in high-need schools districts for five years, and who meet the No Child Left Behind definition of a highly qualified

teacher. Such loan forgiveness provides an important recruiting tool for local districts to fill teacher shortages, and rewards teachers who teach disadvantaged children and children with disabilities, while preparing the students in the areas of math and science that are so critical to our security and prosperity as a nation.

The President recently sent us a letter reiterating his desire that Congress act quickly to enact legislation to close the loophole. I urge my colleagues who are serious about ending this loophole to join me in supporting the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004, so that we can send it to the President's desk without delay, and send our dollars where they belong--benefiting students.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as we all know, people from all over the world want to come to America to pursue a better life for themselves and their families.

Unfortunately, however, some people entrust their lives to some very dangerous people in their effort to gain our shores. And, tragically, some people are brought here against their will and kept as human chattel, enslaved in horrible conditions, in the midst of our freedom.

After hearing of the horrible deaths of aliens smuggled into the country and inhumanely abandoned along a Texas highway last year, I wanted to examine whether we are doing all we can to combat these horrible crimes.

In talking with various law enforcement officials and victims, I heard of alien smugglers and traffickers who, through unabashed acts of profiteering, endanger the lives of countless aliens while compromising the integrity of our immigration laws at the same time. Make no mistake, the incentives for human smugglers are enormous. According to the Department of State, human smuggling around the globe generates an estimated $9.5 billion a year.

The commodities involved in this illicit trade are men, women, and children who, for the smuggler, represent substantial profits. The State Department estimates that more than a million women and children are trafficked around the world each year, generally for the purpose of domestic servitude, sweatshop labor, or sexual exploitation. At any given time, the Department estimates that thousands of people are in the smuggling pipeline, with the United States being the primary

target. Smugglers deliver some 50,000 aliens here each year. Alien smuggling is a global problem which requires a systematic and coordinated response. We should do all we can within our criminal laws to combat this terrible problem.

Given the risks associated with these crimes every time they are carried out, the punishment should be appropriate to deter future smuggling or trafficking, and to sufficiently sanction those who are caught. Currently, Title 8 smuggling provisions provide that a person found guilty of alien smuggling where death results is subject to the full range of punishments, including the death penalty. However, if death results from a Title 18 trafficking offense, where the victims are arguably more vulnerable, the defendant is not subjected to the death penalty.

In my opinion, an important component of criminal justice prosecutions is to serve as a deterrent to others who may be disposed to commit a crime. We should ensure that the punishments for smuggling and trafficking crimes are such that the risks of apprehension, prosecution and punishment far outweigh the payday at their delivery point. And, we need to be diligent in making certain that notice of these penalties is conveyed to those who are engaged in this enterprise, up and down the smuggling and trafficking organizational chain. Obviously, in my opinion, the best way to do that is the vigorous prosecution and harsh punishment of those we do catch.

I also want to say a word about the goal of this legislation. Clearly, the smuggling and trafficking problem impacts a host of immigration issues. 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.

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.