[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 94 (Thursday, June 27, 2013)]
[Senate]
[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.''.
____________________