STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - June 27, 2013)

Text of this article available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

        

[Pages S5501-S5506]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. 
        Alexander):
  S. 1240. A bill to establish a new organization to manage nuclear 
waste, provide a consensual process for siting nuclear waste 
facilities, ensure adequate funding for managing nuclear waste, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
introducing the Nuclear Waste Administration Act.
  This bipartisan legislation, which has been years in the making, is 
also cosponsored by Senators Ron Wyden, Lisa Murkowski, and Lamar 
Alexander.
  This legislation represents our best attempt to establish a workable, 
long term nuclear waste policy for the United States, something our 
Nation lacks today, by implementing the unanimous recommendations of 
the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future.
  First, the bill would create an independent entity, the Nuclear Waste 
Administration, with the sole purpose of managing nuclear waste.
  Second, the bill would authorize the siting and construction of three 
types of waste facilities: a ``pilot'' waste storage facility for waste 
from shut down reactors, additional storage facilities for waste from 
other facilities, and permanent repositories to dispose of nuclear 
waste.
  Third, the bill creates a consent-based siting process for both 
storage facilities and repositories, based on the successful efforts to 
build waste facilities in other countries.
  The legislation requires that local, tribal, and State governments 
must consent to host waste facilities by signing incentive agreements, 
assuring that waste is only stored in the States and communities that 
want and welcome it.
  Fourth, the bill would direct the fees currently collected from 
nuclear power ratepayers to fund nuclear waste management, currently 
about $750 M annually, into a new Working Capital Fund available to the 
Nuclear Waste Administration to fund construction of waste facilities.
  Finally, the legislation ensures that the new Nuclear Waste 
Administration will be held accountable for meeting Federal 
responsibilities and stewarding Federal dollars.
  The Nuclear Waste Administrator will be appointed by the President 
and confirmed by the Senate. The Administration will be overseen by a 
five-member Nuclear Waste Oversight Board, modeled on the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Board. The administration will have an Inspector 
General. The administration will not be able to access the corpus of 
the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund until it reaches agreement with a host 
community. Appropriators may limit the administration's spending, if 
necessary. Finally, if the agency fails to open a nuclear waste 
facility by 2025, additional funding will cease.

[[Page S5502]]

  The United States has 104 operating commercial nuclear power reactors 
that supply \1/5\ of our electricity and nearly 75 percent of our 
emissions-free power.
  However, production of this nuclear power has a significant downside: 
it produces nuclear waste that will take hundreds of thousands of years 
to decay. Unlike most nuclear nations, the United States has no program 
to consolidate waste in centralized facilities.
  Instead, we leave the waste next to operating and shut down reactors 
sitting in pools of water or in cement and steel dry casks. Today, 
approximately 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste is stored at 
commercial reactor sites. This total grows by 2,000 metric tons each 
year.
  In addition to commercial nuclear waste, we must also address waste 
generated from creating our nuclear weapons stockpile and powering our 
Navy.
  The byproducts of nuclear energy represent some of the nation's most 
hazardous materials, but for decades we have failed to find a solution 
for their safe storage and permanent disposal. Most experts agree that 
this failure is not a scientific problem or an engineering 
impossibility; it is a failure of government.
  Although the Federal Government signed contracts committing to pick 
up commercial waste beginning in 1998, the Federal government's waste 
program has failed to take possession of a single fuel assembly.
  Our government has not honored its contractual obligations. We have 
been sued, and we have lost. So today, the Federal taxpayer is paying 
power plants to store the waste at reactor sites all over the nation. 
The cost of this liability is forecast to reach $20 billion by 2020.
  As we try to manage our growing national debt, we simply cannot 
tolerate continued inaction.
  In January 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear 
Future completed a two-year comprehensive study and published unanimous 
recommendations for fixing our Nation's broken nuclear waste management 
program.
  The commission found that the only long-term, technically feasible 
solution for this waste is to dispose of it in a permanent underground 
repository. Until such a facility is opened, which will take many 
decades, spent nuclear fuel will continue to be an expensive, dangerous 
burden.
  That is why the commission also recommended that we establish an 
interim storage facility program to begin consolidating this dangerous 
waste, in addition to working on a permanent repository.
  Finally, after studying the experience of all nuclear nations, the 
commission found that siting these facilities is most likely to succeed 
if the host states and communities are welcome and willing partners, 
not adversaries. The commission recommended that we adopt a consent 
based nuclear facility siting process.
  Senators Wyden, Murkowski, Alexander, and I introduce this 
legislation in order to begin implementing those recommendations, 
putting us on a dual track toward interim and permanent storage 
facilities. The bill also reflects much work by former Senator 
Bingaman, who put forward a similar proposal as one of the last bills 
he wrote.
  In my view, one of the most important provisions in this legislation 
is the pilot program to begin consolidating nuclear waste at safer, 
more cost-efficient centralized facilities on an interim basis. The 
legislation will facilitate interim storage of nuclear waste in above-
ground canisters called dry casks. These facilities would be located in 
willing communities, away from population centers, and on thoroughly 
assessed sites.
  Some members of Congress argue that we should ignore the need to 
interim storage sites and instead push forward with a plan to open 
Yucca Mountain as a permanent storage site.
  Others argue that we should push forward only with repository plans 
in new locations.
  But the debate over Yucca Mountain, a controversial waste repository 
proposed in the Nevada desert, which lacks State approval, is unlikely 
to be settled any time soon.
  I believe the debate over a permanent repository does not need to be 
settled in order to recognize the need for interim storage. Even if 
Congress and a future president reverse course and move forward with 
Yucca Mountain, interim storage facilities would still be an essential 
component of a badly needed national nuclear waste strategy.
  By creating interim storage sites, a top recommendation of the Blue 
Ribbon Commission, we would begin reducing Federal liability while 
providing breathing room to site and build a permanent repository.
  Interim storage facilities could also provide alternative storage 
locations in emergency situations requiring spent nuclear fuel to be 
moved quickly from a reactor site.
  Both short- and long-term storage programs are vital. Permanently 
disposing of our current inventory of nuclear waste will take several 
decades.
  Because of that long timeline, interim storage facilities allow us to 
achieve significant cost savings for taxpayers and utility ratepayers 
by shuttering a number of nuclear plants.
  One thing is certain: inaction is the most costly and least safe 
option.
  Our longstanding stalemate is costly to taxpayers, utility ratepayers 
and communities that are involuntarily saddled with waste after local 
nuclear power plants have shut down.
  It leaves nuclear waste all over the country, stored in all different 
ways.
  It is long overdue for the government to honor its obligation to 
safely dispose of the Nation's nuclear waste.
  This will be a long journey, but we must take the first step.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Casey, 
        Mr. Franken, and Ms. Klobuchar):
  S. 1251. A bill to establish programs with respect to childhood, 
adolescent, and young adult cancer; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators 
Fischer, Menendez, Casey, Klobuchar and Franken in the introduction of 
the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Reauthorization Act. 
This legislation is an extension of ongoing bipartisan efforts in the 
Senate over the past decade to hopefully one day cure cancers in 
children, adolescents, and young adults.
  I first started working on this issue after meeting the Haight family 
from Warwick, Rhode Island in June of 2004. Nancy and Vincent lost 
their son, Ben, when he was just 9 years old to neuroblastoma, a very 
aggressive tumor in the brain. With the strong support of families like 
the Haights for increased research into the causes of childhood cancers 
and improved treatment options, I introduced legislation that 
eventually was signed into law in 2008 as the Caroline Pryce Walker 
Conquer Childhood Cancer Act.
  Since then, I have worked to secure funding for these efforts, 
including $6 million for the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, CDC, to improve the ability of state cancer registries to 
rapidly collect information on the diagnosis and treatment information 
of children with cancer, and $1 million for the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services, HHS, to help educate families about treatment options 
and follow-up care.
  Then, last year, I met Grace. Grace, from Providence, RI, is now 10 
years old and is a survivor of medulloblastoma, another type of tumor 
that forms in the brain. Grace and her family reminded me that we must 
do more to ensure biomedical advances can continue so that better 
treatments will become available.
  With Ben and Grace, and their families, in mind, I have been working 
to update the original Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer 
Act.
  As such, the reauthorization we are introducing today would help 
create a comprehensive children's cancer biorepository for researchers 
to use in searching for biospecimens to study, would improve 
surveillance of childhood cancer cases, and would require a study of 
ways to encourage the development of novel treatments.
  I am also pleased to be reintroducing the Pediatric, Adolescent, and 
Young Adult Cancer Survivorship Act. Through increased research and 
advances in medical innovation, the population of survivors of 
childhood cancer has grown from just four percent

[[Page S5503]]

surviving more than five years in 1960 to nearly eighty percent today.
  Unfortunately, even after beating cancer, as many as \2/3\ of 
survivors suffer from late effects of their disease or treatment, 
including second cancers and organ damage. This legislation would 
enhance research on the late effects of childhood cancers, improve 
collaboration among providers so that doctors are better able to care 
for this population as they age, and establish a new pilot program to 
begin to explore models of care for childhood cancer survivors.
  We must do more to ensure that children survive cancer and any late 
effects so they can live a long, healthy, and productive life. I look 
forward to working with Senator Fischer, and our colleagues, to see 
these bills enacted.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANDERS (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 1252. A bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate 
segments of the Missisquoi River and the Trout River in the State of 
Vermont, as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my Vermont 
colleague Senator Sanders to introduce the Upper Missisquoi and Trout 
Rivers Wild and Scenic River Designation Act.
  The Upper Missisquoi River gathers itself from snowmelt and from 
pristine springs and cedar bogs in the forests of Vermont's Northeast 
Kingdom. As it flows from the town of Lowell to the town of Westfield, 
this lovely mountain brook grows large enough to float a small canoe 
during its winding journey through Vermont's forests and meadows. A 
paddler on this section is treated to a stream that runs crystal clear 
and abounds with trout and other fish as it winds through pine forest 
and silver maple flood plains, to meadows dotted with grazing Holstein 
cows.
  The beauty and wildness of the river is undiminished as it swells on 
its journey north through the towns of Westfield, North Troy, and Troy, 
and crosses into the Canadian Province of Quebec. Not far downstream 
the river reenters the United States and winds its way across more 
miles of pastoral countryside in Northern Vermont through Richford, 
Berkshire, and Enosburg. Along the way it gathers the ice-cold, 
pristine flow of the Trout River in the town of Montgomery.
  The scenery along the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers in these 
towns is spectacularly beautiful, the water quality is superb, public 
access is unlimited, and Vermonters along the shores are eager to share 
these treasures with visitors from near and far. The Upper Missisquoi 
and Trout Rivers epitomize Wild and Scenic Recreational Rivers of 
national significance, and I am proud to join Senator Sanders in 
introducing this legislation.
  A Federal Wild and Scenic Recreational River designation should only 
be considered after the resource has been closely studied and if this 
designation is actively sought by people living in the area. We can 
report to the Senate that both of these tests are met for the Upper 
Missisquoi and Trout Rivers.
  Seven years ago a group of people living along the rivers asked 
Vermont's delegation to the Congress to request a Wild and Scenic River 
Study, and for more than 5 years these Vermonters--with tremendous 
support from their neighbors, the neighboring towns, and the National 
Park Service--have assessed the river, turn by turn, mile by mile, and 
they have worked hard to plan for its protection and recreational use. 
The study committee kept their neighbors along the rivers and local 
elected leaders fully engaged at every step. Their hard work paid off 
this past March when the citizens of each of the affected, towns, at 
Vermont town meetings--those revered democratic institutions of self-
government in our State--voted in favor of seeking the Wild and Scenic 
River designation.
  This has been one of the most locally driven and strongly supported 
resource conservation initiatives to come before the Congress, and I 
commend the study committee and all of Vermonters in these towns for 
their hard work and cooperation.
  A National Wild and Scenic River designation will help these two 
rivers reach their full potential as major engines of the Northeast 
Kingdom's tourism economy and at the same time help to ensure that the 
ecosystem is protected and enhanced for future generations.
  The Upper Missisquoi River and the Trout River meet each of the 
criteria for a National Wild and Scenic River designation. The 
management of the rivers has been carefully planned, and the 
designation is actively sought by Vermonters living in communities 
along the rivers. I am proud to join Senator Sanders and Peter Welch, 
Vermont's Representative in the other body, in introducing this bill 
and taking this commendable effort to the next level.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Reed, Ms. 
        Cantwell, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 1256. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
preserve the effectiveness of medically important antimicrobials used 
in the treatment of human and animal diseases; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Preventing Antibiotic Resistance Act.
  This legislation puts in place reasonable safeguards on when and how 
antibiotics can be used in agriculture.
  Few people realize that antibiotics are used in animal agriculture; 
even fewer realize the scope of the problem.
  Last year 29.9 million pounds of antibiotics were sold in the U.S. 
for meat and poultry production. That is four times what was used in 
all forms of human medicine.
  But there is more to be concerned about. The vast majority of these 
drugs are fed to healthy livestock and poultry, with little or no 
veterinary oversight. The drugs are used for growth promotion, to 
fatten up animals before slaughter.
  At these low levels, the doses are not large enough, or powerful 
enough, to eliminate all the bacteria inside the animal's body. The 
small dose only kills off the weakest bacteria, leaving the strongest, 
most resistant bacteria behind to reproduce.
  It creates a perfect storm for antibiotic resistance.
  This isn't just a problem for the animals. These antibiotic resistant 
pathogens make their way into our food, our water, and our communities.
  A recent study published in the medical journal Clinical Infectious 
Diseases found that nearly 50 percent of grocery store meat was 
contaminated with antibiotic resistant pathogens. Even more concerning, 
25 percent of the meat was contaminated with pathogens that were 
resistant to three or more type of antibiotics.
  Antibiotics are the closest thing to a ``silver bullet'' in human 
medicine. They are capable of wiping out a wide variety of bacterial 
infections. But we are in danger of losing this weapon in the fight 
against infectious diseases.
  Tens of thousands of people in the U.S. die each year from antibiotic 
resistant infections. Unfortunately, we are learning the hard way that 
these precious, lifesaving drugs no longer work as well as they once 
did.
  That is why I am so committed to this bill, to preserve the efficacy 
of these drugs that save lives every day.
  The Preventing Antibiotic Resistance Act directs the Food and Drug 
Administration to prohibit the use of antibiotics in ways that 
accelerate antibiotic resistance.
  The bill requires drug companies and producers to demonstrate that 
they are using antibiotics to treat clinically diagnosable diseases, 
not just to fatten their livestock.
  But the bill takes a nuanced approach; the restrictions only apply to 
the limited number of antibiotics that are critical to human health. 
Any drug not used in human medicine is left untouched by this 
legislation.
  The Preventing Antibiotic Resistance Act also preserves the ability 
of farmers to use all available antibiotics to treat sick animals. If a 
veterinarian identifies a sick animal, or a herd of animals that are 
likely to become sick, there are no restrictions on what drugs can be 
used.
  This legislation is not revolutionary. Fifteen years ago Denmark 
became the first country to ban the routine use of antibiotics in the 
food and water of livestock. The entire European Union

[[Page S5504]]

followed suit in 2006. Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Korea, Thailand, 
the Philippines and Japan have also implemented full or partial bans on 
non-therapeutic uses of antibiotics.
  But the majority of producers in the U.S. have not followed suit; and 
it is time for a wakeup call.
  Put simply--irresponsible use of antibiotics endangers us all. And if 
the drugs can't be used safely, they shouldn't be used at all.
  Some still refuse to accept the facts; they say that there is no 
evidence that antibiotic use in agriculture leads to infections in 
humans.
  They are wrong.
  Rear Admiral Ali S. Khan, MD, MPH, Assistant Surgeon General and 
Director of the Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response at 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testified in the House 
Energy Committee that ``studies related to Salmonella as both a human 
and animal pathogen, including many studies in the United States, have 
demonstrated that use of antibiotic agents in food animals results in 
antibiotic resistant bacteria in food animals, resistant bacteria are 
present in the food supply and are transmitted to humans, and resistant 
bacterial infections result in adverse human health consequences, e.g., 
increased hospitalization.''
  Doctor Joshua Sharfstein, Principal Deputy Commissioner of the Food 
and Drug Administration, also testified at the hearing and agreed with 
Rear Admiral Khan. The FDA, he said, ``supports the conclusion that 
using medically important antimicrobial drugs for production purposes 
is not in the interest of protecting and promoting the public health.''
  Quantitative evidence from the EU and Canada also support this 
conclusion. In response to public health concerns about the rise of 
resistance to the antibiotic cephalosporin in Salmonella and E. coli, 
chicken hatcheries in Quebec voluntarily stopped using the drug in 
February 2005. Following the ban, the public health agency of Canada 
reported a dramatic 89 percent decrease in the incidence of resistant 
salmonella in chicken meat and 77 percent decrease in related human 
infections. Once the drug was partially reintroduced in 2007, 
antibiotic resistant infections in people jumped back up 50 percent.
  Unfortunately we are fighting an uphill battle with antibiotic 
resistant infections. Our tools and resources are diminishing even 
while the number and severity of these infections are increasing.
  One example is Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. 
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, MRSA 
infections in 1974 accounted for only two percent of the total number 
of staph infections; in 1995 it was 22 percent; and by 2004 it was 63 
percent.
  CDC estimates that by 2005, there were 94,360 MRSA infections in the 
United States. Tragically, about 19,000 of them, 20 percent, were 
fatal. The primary reason is that MRSA is virtually immune to almost 
every antibiotic used in modern medicine.
  By comparison, during the same year there were 17,011 deaths due to 
AIDS; so the scope and consequence of this problem is stunning.
  Of course not all MRSA is derived from the overuse of antibiotics on 
the farm. Many infections are acquired in the hospital, and it is 
believed that these bacteria became resistant to antibiotics due to the 
misuse of drugs in human medicine.
  But MRSA is infecting individuals who have not been in a hospital 
setting.
  There is strong evidence that at least one strain of MRSA infecting 
people is coming directly from livestock. This strain, known as ST398, 
has been shown to disproportionately infect farmers and their families. 
Like all MRSA, ST398 is resistant to the antibiotics methicillin and 
oxacillin. But resistance to other antibiotics is also common among 
ST398 strains which make treatment especially challenging.
  A study by the CDC in December 2009 showed that hospital-acquired 
MRSA strains and community-acquired MRSA strains such as ST398 are 
trending in opposite directions.
  The study found that community-acquired MRSA, a type of MRSA that did 
not emerge in the hospital setting and is not contracted there, 
increased 700 percent between 1999 and 2006.
  By contrast, hospital-acquired MRSA cases declined roughly 10 percent 
over this same time period.
  Over the past decade, it has become clear that MRSA is not just a 
problem for hospital administrators. More and more individuals are 
acquiring this devastating infection in their homes, at their gyms or 
in restaurants.
  While it is exceedingly difficult to determine the exact extent that 
antibiotic use in agriculture influences individual MRSA cases, we know 
for certain that statistical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that a 
reduction of antibiotic use in agriculture will result in a reduction 
of highly resistant MRSA cases.
  Since the recent data released by the FDA confirm that more than 80 
percent of all antibiotics sold in this country are for meat and 
poultry producing animals, one can reasonably conclude that a reduction 
of antibiotic use in agriculture will result in a reduction of highly 
resistant MRSA cases.
  This legislation will very likely reduce the number of resistant 
infections and will very likely save lives.
  But some still claim that this legislation may make our food supply 
less safe. They argue that antibiotics keep our animals healthy, and 
healthy animals make for healthy food.
  But research shows us that these concerns are misguided. More than 
375 public, consumer and environmental health groups, including the 
American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, 
and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, support the 
legislation.
  This bill makes incremental changes to ensure that our actions on the 
farm do not negatively impact the health and well being of our farmers, 
their families, and every one of us who consume the food they produce.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass these critical 
reforms.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (by request):
  S. 1268. A bill to approve an agreement between the United States and 
the Republic of Palau; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to 
strengthen the relationship between the United States and the Republic 
of Palau, one of our closest and most reliable allies. This 
legislation, if enacted, would implement the recommendations of the 15-
year review called for under the Compact of Free Association between 
our two nations.
  The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will be holding a 
hearing on insular issues on Thursday, July 11, and it is my intention 
to add this bill to the agenda for that hearing.
  Palau is located in the western Pacific about 800 miles south of Guam 
and 500 miles east of the Philippines. The close ties between the U.S. 
and Palau date from World War II, when Japanese forces were defeated in 
the Battle of Peleliu with a loss of nearly 2,000 U.S. marines. In 
1947, the islands became a District in the United Nations Trust 
Territory of the Pacific Islands. The United States was appointed 
Administrating Authority of the Trust Territory with the responsibility 
to promote economic and political development. Because of the United 
States' strategic interest in this region, the Trust Territory was 
established as the only U.N. ``Strategic'' Trust under the authority of 
the U.N. Security Council, as opposed to the U.N. General Assembly.
  In 1982, Palau signed a 50-year Compact of Free Association that was 
approved by the U.S. in 1986, P.L. 99-658. The Compact went into effect 
on October 1, 1994, and the U.N. Trusteeship was subsequently 
terminated, making Palau a sovereign, self-governing state in free 
association with the United States. The Compact provides the U.S. with 
the ability to deny the use of Palauan territory to the military forces 
of other nations, and to establish military bases in Palau, should the 
need arise. These security provisions are described by the 
administration as ``vital'' to U.S. regional security and diplomatic 
interests.
  The U.S. and Palau completed a formal review of the Compact in 2010 
and, on September 10, 2010, signed an agreement with amendments to the 
Compact based on the conclusions and recommendation of the review. The 
bill

[[Page S5505]]

being introduced today would approve this agreement and its appendices 
and incorporate them into the law which established the Compact.
  First, the legislation would extend and phase-out annual financial 
assistance over 11 years, through 2024, for operations, construction, 
maintenance and trust fund contributions totaling $165 million, or an 
average of $15 million annually. Second, the legislation significantly 
enhances accountability of U.S. financial assistance by requiring Palau 
to undertake financial and management reforms. Third, the bill would 
require any Palauan entering the U.S. to have a Palau passport. This 
would be the same requirement that was imposed on citizens of 
Micronesia and the Marshall Islands when their Compacts were reviewed 
and amended in 2003.
  This agreement and legislation reaffirms and strengthens the special 
ties between the U.S. and Palau. Together we will continue our 
commitment to regional security. The United States will continue to be 
responsible for the security and defense of Palau, and the U.S. is 
honored to have the continued service of the men and women of Palau in 
the U.S. armed services. Strategic denial and the associated base 
rights provided for under the Compact were originally designed to 
counter the Cold War threat in the Pacific. While the Cold War has 
ended, the U.S. continues to face new challenges in the region.
  I look forward to working with officials in the administration and in 
Palau who conducted the Compact Review and concluded this important 
agreement. I urge my colleagues to join with me in approving this 
agreement and assuring the continued strength of this historic 
partnership.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1268

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

     SECTION 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED 
                   STATES AND THE REPUBLIC OF PALAU.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the Agreement 
     and appendices signed by the United States and the Republic 
     of Palau on September 3, 2010.
       (2) Compact of free association.--The term ``Compact of 
     Free Association'' means the Compact of Free Association 
     between the Government of the United States of America and 
     the Government of Palau (48 U.S.C. 1931 note; Public Law 99-
     658).
       (b) Results of Compact Review.--
       (1) In general.--Title I of Public Law 99-658 (48 U.S.C. 
     1931 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 105. RESULTS OF COMPACT REVIEW.

       ``(a) In General.--The Agreement and appendices signed by 
     the United States and the Republic of Palau on September 3, 
     2010 (referred to in this section as the `Agreement'), in 
     connection with section 432 of the Compact of Free 
     Association between the Government of the United States of 
     America and the Government of Palau (48 U.S.C. 1931 note; 
     Public Law 99-658) (referred to in this section as the 
     `Compact of Free Association'), are approved--
       ``(1) except for the extension of article X of the 
     Agreement Regarding Federal Programs and Services, and 
     Concluded Pursuant to article II of title II and section 232 
     of the Compact of Free Association; and
       ``(2) subject to the provisions of this section.
       ``(b) Withholding of Funds.--If the Republic of Palau 
     withdraws more than $5,000,000 from the trust fund 
     established under section 211(f) of the Compact of Free 
     Association in any of fiscal years 2011, 2012, or 2013, 
     amounts payable under sections 1, 2(a), 3, and 4(a), of the 
     Agreement shall be withheld from the Republic of Palau until 
     the date on which the Republic of Palau reimburses the trust 
     fund for the total amounts withdrawn that exceeded $5,000,000 
     in any of those fiscal years.
       ``(c) Funding for Certain Provisions Under Section 105 of 
     Compact of Free Association.--Within 30 days of enactment of 
     this section, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer to 
     the Secretary of the Interior such sums as are necessary for 
     the Secretary of the Interior to implement sections 1, 2(a), 
     3, 4(a), and 5 of the Agreement, which sums shall remain 
     available until expended without any further appropriation.
       ``(d) Authorizations of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated--
       ``(1) to the Secretary of the Interior to subsidize postal 
     services provided by the United States Postal Service to the 
     Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and 
     the Federated States of Micronesia $1,500,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2014 through 2024, to remain available until 
     expended.
       ``(2) to the head of each Federal entity described in 
     paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of section 221(a) of the Compact 
     of Free Association (including the successor of each Federal 
     entity) to carry out the responsibilities of the Federal 
     entity under section 221(a) of the Compact of Free 
     Association such sums as are necessary, to remain available 
     until expended.''.
       (2) Offset.--Section 3 of the Act of June 30, 1954 (68 
     Stat. 330, 82 Stat. 1213, chapter 423), is repealed.
       (c) Payment Schedule; Withholding of Funds; Funding.--
       (1) Compact section 211(f) fund.--Section 1 of the 
     Agreement shall be construed as though the section reads as 
     follows:

     ``SECTION 1. COMPACT SECTION 211(F) FUND.

       ``The Government of the United States of America (the 
     `Government of the United States') shall contribute 
     $30,250,000 to the Fund referred to in section 211(f) of the 
     Compact in accordance with the following schedule--
       ``(1) $11,000,000 in fiscal year 2014;
       ``(2) $3,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2015 through 2017;
       ``(3) $2,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2018 through 2022; 
     and
       ``(4) $250,000 in fiscal year 2023.''.
       (2) Infrastructure maintenance fund.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 2 of the Agreement shall be construed as though the 
     subsection reads as follows:
       ``(a) The Government of the United States shall provide a 
     grant of $6,912,000 for fiscal year 2014 and a grant of 
     $2,000,000 annually from the beginning of fiscal year 2015 
     through fiscal year 2024 to create a trust fund (the 
     `Infrastructure Maintenance Fund') to be used for the routine 
     and periodic maintenance of major capital improvement 
     projects financed by funds provided by the United States. The 
     Government of the Republic of Palau will match the 
     contributions made by the United States by making 
     contributions of $150,000 to the Infrastructure Maintenance 
     Fund on a quarterly basis from the beginning of fiscal year 
     2014 through fiscal year 2024. Implementation of this 
     subsection shall be carried out in accordance with the 
     provisions of Appendix A to this Agreement.''.
       (3) Fiscal consolidation fund.--Section 3 of the Agreement 
     shall be construed as though the section reads as follows:

     ``SEC. 3. FISCAL CONSOLIDATION FUND.

       ``The Government of the United States shall provide the 
     Government of Palau $10,000,000 in fiscal year 2014 for 
     deposit in an interest bearing account to be used to reduce 
     government arrears of Palau. Implementation of this section 
     shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of 
     Appendix B to this Agreement.''.
       (4) Direct economic assistance.--Subsection (a) of section 
     4 of the Agreement shall be construed as though the 
     subsection reads as follows:
       ``(a) In addition to the economic assistance of $13,147,000 
     provided to the Government of Palau by the Government of 
     United States in each of fiscal years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 
     2013, and unless otherwise specified in this Agreement or in 
     an Appendix to this Agreement, the Government of the United 
     States shall provide the Government of Palau $69,250,000 in 
     economic assistance as follows--
       ``(1) $12,000,000 in fiscal year 2014;
       ``(2) $11,500,000 in fiscal year 2015;
       ``(3) $10,000,000 in fiscal year 2016;
       ``(4) $8,500,000 in fiscal year 2017;
       ``(5) $7,250,000 in fiscal year 2018;
       ``(6) $6,000,000 in fiscal year 2019;
       ``(7) $5,000,000 in fiscal year 2020;
       ``(8) $4,000,000 in fiscal year 2021;
       ``(9) $3,000,000 in fiscal year 2022; and
       ``(10) $2,000,000 in fiscal year 2023.

     The funds provided in any fiscal year under this subsection 
     for economic assistance shall be provided in 4 quarterly 
     payments (30 percent in the first quarter, 30 percent in the 
     second quarter, 20 percent in the third quarter, and 20 
     percent in the fourth quarter) unless otherwise specified in 
     this Agreement or in an Appendix to this Agreement.''.
       (5) Infrastructure projects.--Section 5 of the Agreement 
     shall be construed as though the section reads as follows:

     ``SEC. 5. INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS.

       ``The Government of the United States shall provide grants 
     totaling $40,000,000 to the Government of Palau as follows: 
     $30,000,000 in fiscal year 2014; and $5,000,000 annually in 
     each of fiscal years 2015 and 2016; towards 1 or more 
     mutually agreed infrastructure projects in accordance with 
     the provisions of Appendix C to this Agreement.''.
       (d) Continuing Programs and Laws.--Section 105(f)(1)(B)(ix) 
     of the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 (48 
     U.S.C. 192ld(f)(1)(B)(ix)) is amended by striking ``2009'' 
     and inserting ``2024''.
       (e) Passport Requirement.--Section 141 of Article IV of 
     Title One of the Compact of Free Association shall be 
     construed and applied as if it read as follows:

     ``SEC. 141. PASSPORT REQUIREMENT.

       ``(a) Any person in the following categories may be 
     admitted to, lawfully engage in occupations, and establish 
     residence as a nonimmigrant in the United States and its 
     territories and possessions without regard to paragraphs (5) 
     or (7)(B)(i)(II) of section 212(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5) or (a)(7)(B)(i)(II)), 
     provided that the passport presented to satisfy section 
     212(a)(7)(B)(i)(I) of such Act is a valid

[[Page S5506]]

     unexpired machine-readable passport that satisfies the 
     internationally accepted standard for machine readability--
       ``(1) a person who, on September 30, 1994, was a citizen of 
     the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, as defined in 
     title 53 of the Trust Territory Code in force on January 1, 
     1979, and has become and remains a citizen of Palau;
       ``(2) a person who acquires the citizenship of Palau, at 
     birth, on or after the effective date of the Constitution of 
     Palau; or
       ``(3) a naturalized citizen of Palau, who has been an 
     actual resident of Palau for not less than five years after 
     attaining such naturalization and who holds a certificate of 
     actual residence.
       ``(b) Such persons shall be considered to have the 
     permission of the Secretary of Homeland Security of the 
     United States to accept employment in the United States.
       ``(c) The right of such persons to establish habitual 
     residence in a territory or possession of the United States 
     may, however, be subjected to non-discriminatory limitations 
     provided for--
       ``(1) in statutes or regulations of the United States; or
       ``(2) in those statutes or regulations of the territory or 
     possession concerned which are authorized by the laws of the 
     United States.
       ``(d) Section 141(a) does not confer on a citizen of Palau 
     the right to establish the residence necessary for 
     naturalization under the Immigration and Nationality Act, or 
     to petition for benefits for alien relatives under that Act. 
     Section 141(a), however, shall not prevent a citizen of Palau 
     from otherwise acquiring such rights or lawful permanent 
     resident alien status in the United States.''.

                          ____________________