Deepwater Drilling Royalty Relief Prohibition Act

Mr. President, today, I join the Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Murkowski, in reintroducing The Republic of the Marshall Islands Supplemental Nuclear Compensation Act at the request of the President of the Marshall Islands, the Honorable Jurelang Zedkaia.

This legislation tracks S. 1756, a bill that was introduced in the 110th Congress at the request of then-President of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Kessai Note, and that was ordered reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, on September 11, 2008. The bill was reintroduced in the 111th Congress as S. 2941 at the request of President Zedkaia, and it was again reported from the Committee, on August 5, 2010. Unfortunately, there was insufficient time before adjournment for floor consideration and to identify an offset for the bill's CBO-estimated cost of $58 million. It is my hope that the 112th Congress will move promptly to consider this bill, find any necessary offset, and enact this legislation as a part of our Nation's continuing engagement with the Marshall Islands to address the damage and injuries that resulted from the nuclear weapons testing program.

The need for consideration of this bill is clear--to monitor and, as appropriate, update our Nation's continuing response to the consequences of the nuclear weapons testing program conducted in the Marshall Islands in the 1940s and 50s.

For a period of 12 years, the United States detonated nuclear bombs in the Northern Marshall Islands that caused substantial damage and injury. In 1986, with the negotiation of the compact of Free Association between the United States and the Republic of the Marshall Islands and its approval by Public Law 99-239, the United States ``accept[ed] the responsibility for compensation owing to citizens of the Marshall Islands . . . for loss or damage to property and person of the citizens of the Marshall Islands . . . resulting from the testing program . . .''. The compact and other U.S. laws established programs designed and intended to provide compensation and to respond to the consequences of the nuclear tests.

First, Section 177 of the compact provided a $150 million grant to the Marshall Islands for the settlement of all claims arising from the nuclear testing program through the establishment of the Nuclear Claims Tribunal, including $2 million annually for the so-called ``Four Atoll Health Care Program'' to provide supplemental health care services to those communities most affected by the tests and funding for a nationwide radiological survey. The subsidiary agreement implementing Section 177 further provided that the Marshall Islands could seek additional funds from Congress through a so-called ``changed circumstances'' petition, if ``injuries render the provisions of this Agreement manifestly inadequate.'' Finally, Section 105(c) of the law approving the compact authorized additional appropriations for ``health and education as a result of exceptional circumstances,'' and authorized ex gratia contributions for the affected populations of the northern atolls of Bikini, Enewetak, Rongelap, and Utrik.

Second, in response to the nuclear tests, Congress funded the Department of Energy's Marshall Islands Program to continually monitor residual radiation in the environment, research strategies for mitigating radiation effects, and to support mitigation and resettlement efforts. This DOE program also monitors and provides health care to members of the Rongelap and Utrik communities who were seriously exposed to radiation fallout from the ``Castle Bravo'' test which took place in 1954 and contaminated the inhabited islands downwind.

Third, in 2001, Congress enacted the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, EEOICPA, to provide compensation for DOE and DOE-contractor employees who were associated with the Nation's nuclear weapons program. The legislative history for the program indicates that workers hired from the local population at the Marshall Islands Test Site were intended to be covered. However, islanders who applied for compensation from EEOICPA had their claims denied because they were not U.S. citizens.

The purpose of this legislation is to make appropriate amendments to programs and activities to meet our continuing responsibility to address the consequences of the nuclear testing program. Accordingly, this bill would expand the scope of these existing programs: the Four Atoll Health Care Program; the DOE Marshall Islands Program; and the U.S. Department of Labor's Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. The bill would also provide for an assessment and report by the National Academy of Sciences on the health impacts of the nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands.

However, there is recent information regarding the health impacts of the testing program which may meet the objectives of this section. Last year, the August issue of Health Physics published a series of peer- reviewed papers on the radiation doses and cancer risks in the Marshall Islands from U.S. nuclear weapons tests. These papers grew out of a request from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to the National Cancer Institute for their expert opinion of the health effects of the testing program. I anticipate a presentation of the conclusion of these papers when a hearing is held on this bill.

For more information on this legislation, I recommend review of previous Committee hearings, S. Hrg. 109-178 and S. Hrg. 110-243, and last year's Committee report on S. 2941, S. Rpt 111-268. I look forward to continue working with President Zedkaia, the RMI Ambassador to the United States, Banny Debrum, officials at the U.S. Departments of State, Energy, and the Interior, and my colleagues on the Committee in considering this legislation as a part of our continuing response to this tragic legacy of the nuclear testing program in the Pacific.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague and the Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Lisa Murkowski, in introducing 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.

Palau is one of the world's smallest nations, located in the western Pacific about 800 miles south of Guam and 500 miles east of the Philippines. It has a total land area of 177 square miles with a population of about 21,000. The close ties between the U.S. and Palau date from World War II, when Japanese forces were defeated in the Battle of Peleliu. 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 the 1970s, talks on future political status were undertaken with the United States. The Northern Mariana Islands voted to become a U.S. territory, and the districts of Palau and the Marshall Islands chose to separate from the remaining Trust Territory districts. 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 U.S. entered into similar Compacts of Free Association with the Marshall Islands and the remaining districts of the Trust Territory, now known as the Federated States of Micronesia, in 1986, P.L. 99-239.

The U.S.-Palau Compact consists of four parts:

Title One, ``Government Relations,'' provides for

government-to-government relations including the privilege

for Palau citizens to enter the U.S. to work and reside as

non-immigrants, and for U.S. citizens to do the same in

Palau.

Title Two, ``Economic Relations,'' provided for a total of

$560 million in U.S. assistance from fiscal year 1995-2009,

including operational support of about $13 million annually,

$149 million for road construction, and $70 million for

capitalization of a Trust Fund to provide funds after the end

of direct U.S. financial assistance.

Title Three, ``Security and Defense Relations,'' closed

Palauan territory to the military forces of any nation except

the U.S., so-called ``Strategic Denial,'' and provides that

the U.S. may establish defense sites, although none exist at

this time or are planned.

Title Four, ``General Provisions,'' among other things,

Section 432 requires that there be a formal bilateral review

of the relationship on the 15th, 30th and 40th anniversaries

of the compact's entry into force, and that both parties

commit themselves to take specific actions based on the

conclusions of the review.

The U.S. and Palau completed this formal 15th anniversary review and, on September 10, 2010, signed an agreement setting forth amendments to the compact based on the conclusions and recommendation of the review. The bill being introduced today would approve this agreement and its appendices and incorporate them into the law which originally established the compact.

First, the legislation would extend financial assistance for another 14-year

term, until 2024, for operations, construction, maintenance and trust fund contributions totaling $229 million, or an average of $16.4 million annually. This is a substantial reduction from the average of $37.3 million annually that was provided in the first 15-year term. Second, the legislation significantly enhances accountability of U.S. financial assistance by requiring Palau to undertake financial and management reforms, and the U.S. is authorized to withhold funds if the U.S. determines that Palau ``has not made significant progress in implementing meaningful 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.

I believe this Agreement and legislation reaffirm and strengthen 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. will continue to face new challenges in the region.

Another indicator of the close relationship between the U.S. and Palau is evidenced by comparing votes in the United Nations. Palau and the U.S. vote together consistently. The most recent issue of the State Department's report, ``Voting Practices in the United Nations 2009,'' shows that Palau's voting coincidence with the United States in 2009 on 12 important issues was 100 percent. This is the highest voting coincidence of any country and indicates that Palau is a trusted and reliable ally at the U.N.

In 2003, the U.S. determined that a number of Chinese Uighurs who had been arrested in the war on terrorism and were sent to Guantanamo were not terrorists. The Bush Administration sought new homes for them, knowing that they would likely be persecuted if they were returned to China. Plans to send them to a Uighur community in Virginia were dropped because of Congressional opposition. Nearly every nation in the world was asked to assist in their resettlement, but Palau was the first to agree. Six Uighurs were resettled there. Palau has taken more detainees from Guantanamo than any other nation except Albania not counting those who were repatriated to their home countries.

It is important to note that this legislation is time-sensitive. The first 15-year term of compact financial assistance ended with fiscal year 2009. Fiscal Year 2010 funding for Palau was provided through enactment of a 1-year extension in the fiscal year 2010 Omnibus Appropriations bill, and the first few months of fiscal year 2011 funding is made available by the recent continuing resolutions. It is important that the next CR include continued financial support for Palau through the end of this fiscal year, to allow time for Congress to consider and pass this legislation. I understand that the administration's fiscal year 2012 budget will assume enactment of the bill before October 1, leaving the Congress a relatively short period of time to do its work.

I look forward to working with Ranking Member Murkowski and our colleagues on the Committee in moving this bill promptly. I anticipate reaching out to our colleagues on the Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees because of the important role Palau plays in U.S. foreign and defense policy. Finally, 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 and Senator Murkowski 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 and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Deepwater Drilling Royalty Relief Prohibition Act.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to incentivize the dangerous and often dirty business of offshore drilling in deep waters.

Over the past two decades, Congress has established a number of royalty-relief programs to encourage domestic exploration and production in deep waters. This may have made sense in times when oil prices were too low to provide energy companies with an incentive to drill in difficult places. It may have made sense before we were ready to deploy large scale renewable energy production.

But it no longer makes sense today.

The Deepwater Horizon catastrophe showed that safety and response technologies are not sufficient in deep waters. The President's National Oil Spill Commission pointed out that while offshore oil and gas will remain part of the nation's energy portfolio for years to come, we need to ``begin a transition to a cleaner, more energy- efficient future.'' I agree.

I believe that taxpayer-funded incentives should go to clean, renewable energy, not deepwater oil drilling. It's time that we roll- back incentives for the riskiest, least environmentally friendly non- renewable energy production.

The disastrous impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion illustrate the enormous environmental and safety risks of offshore drilling-- particularly in deep waters. 11 people died and 17 others were injured when the Deepwater Horizon caught fire. Oil and gas rushed into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days before the well was finally plugged. The scope of the disaster was tremendous.

Oil slicks spread across the Gulf of Mexico, pelicans and other wildlife struggled to free themselves from crude oil, tar balls spoiled the pristine white sand beaches of Florida, wetlands were coated with toxic sludge, more than \1/3\ of Federal waters in the Gulf were closed to fishing, and oyster beds could take years to recover, the plumes of underwater oil may have created zones of toxicity or low oxygen for aquatic life, and the response techniques, such as the use of dispersants, may have their own toxic consequences to both wildlife and the spill response workers.

The impacts of an oil spill are so dramatic and devastating, it seems clear to me that this is not an area in which we should be subsidizing development.

Things have not improved much since the oil spill in 1969 off the California Coast near Santa Barbara. Like the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Santa Barbara spill was caused by a natural gas blowout when pressure in the drill hole fluctuated. It was successfully plugged with mud and cement after 11 and a half days, but oil and gas continued to seep for months. The Santa Barbara spill was devastating, but it was a tiny fraction of the size of the Deepwater Horizon spill.

Technology 40 years ago was not good enough to prevent a disaster. We discovered last summer that today's technology is no better at preventing well-head blowouts.

The Deepwater Horizon drill rig was less than 10 years old when it exploded. A similar accident that caused the 2009 spill in the Montara oil and gas field in the Timor Sea--one of the worst in Australia's history--was even newer, designed and built in 2007. That spill continued unchecked for 74 days.

The failures that led to these catastrophes were human and technological. While measures are being put in place to remedy these deficiencies, the risks remain high and the potential damage immense. In deep waters, the risks are higher and the scope of the damage even greater.

Drilling in deep waters is not the type of activity that tax-payer dollars should subsidize.

Drilling in deep water presents even more challenges than drilling in shallow water or on shore. This was demonstrated during the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Methane hydrate crystals form when methane gas mixes with pressurized cold ocean waters--and the likelihood of these crystals forming increases dramatically at a depth of about 400 meters.

These crystals interfere with response and containment technologies. They formed in the cofferdam dome that was lowered onto the gushing oil in the Gulf, which failed to stop the oil in the early days of the spill. And when a remotely operated underwater vehicle bumped the valves in the ``top hat'' device, the containment cap had to be removed and slowly replaced to prevent formation of these crystals again.

In order to drill at deeper depths, many technical difficulties must be overcome.

The ocean currents on the surface and in the water column exert torque pressure on the pipes and cables, which are longer and heavier.

The water temperature decreases closer to the sea floor, but the earth's core temperature increases the deeper the well--sometimes reaching temperatures in excess of 350 degrees Fahrenheit.

The ocean pressure increases dramatically at depth, but the pressure in a well can exceed 10,000 pounds per square inch.

Drills must be able to pass through tar and salts, and the well bores must remain intact.

The volume of drilling mud and fluids is greater, the weight of the cables heavier, and many technical procedures can only be accomplished with the use of remotely operated vehicles thousands of feet below the surface.

American taxpayers should not forego revenue in order to incentivize offshore drilling. It is not good environmental policy, and it's not good energy policy either.

We need to move to cleaner renewable fuels.

I believe that global warming is the biggest environmental crisis we face--and the biggest culprit of global warming is manmade emissions produced by the combustion of fossil fuels like oil and coal.

Taxpayer funded incentives should not finance production of fossil fuels--particularly in places where the production itself poses potential devastation. Instead, incentives should be used to develop and deploy clean energy technologies like wind and solar.

I have worked with my colleagues on a number of legislative initiatives designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency and incentivize the use of renewable energy.

One of our biggest victories was the enactment of the aggressive fuel economy law, called the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President Bush in the 110th Congress. This law, which I authored with Senator Snowe, will improve fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles at the maximum feasible rate.

The good news is that the Administration has taken the framework of this law and implemented aggressive standards that require raising fleetwide fuel economy to 35.5 mpg in 2016--a 40 percent increase above today's standard.

The other positive development is that the domestic renewable energy industry has grown dramatically over the last few years. In 2009, the United States added more new capacity to produce renewable electricity than it did to produce electricity from natural gas, oil, and coal combined. A great deal of this growth can be attributed to government renewable energy incentives. That is where public investment in energy development should go.

It is clear that the clean energy sector is the next frontier in jobs creation.

We need to ensure that developers can access financing to launch wind, solar and geothermal projects, so that they can put people to work. Programs like Treasury Grant Program have been very successful in encouraging private investment in this sector. So far, the program has helped to bring more than 1,880 renewable energy projects online.

The program, however, is set to expire at the end of this year if we don't act. I'm working on legislation that will extend and expand this successful program.

All told, these types of measures are helping to foster the incentives that will push the United States to adopt a cleaner energy future, and to move away from fossil fuels.

Let me make one final point very clear: I don't believe oil companies need taxpayer dollars to help them out. They are already reaping record profits.

In 2009, the top 10 U.S. oil companies' combined revenues were almost $850 billion. And while all results are not yet in on 2010, it is clear that oil companies did even better last year.

Exxon Mobil reported $30 billion in profit, up 57 percent from 2009.

Shell reported $19 billion in profit, up 90 percent from 2009.

Conoco Phillips raked in $11.4 billion in profit during 2010, a whopping 159 percent increase over its 2009 profits.

Yet we continue to use taxpayer dollars to add to their bottom line. This is unacceptable.

Oil reserves are a public resource. When a private company profits from those public resources, American taxpayers should also benefit.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure that royalties owed to the taxpayers are not waived to incentivize risky off-shore drilling. In these critical economic times, every cent of the people's money should be spent wisely.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Deepwater Drilling Royalty Relief Prohibition Act.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to incentivize the dangerous and often dirty business of offshore drilling in deep waters.

Over the past two decades, Congress has established a number of royalty-relief programs to encourage domestic exploration and production in deep waters. This may have made sense in times when oil prices were too low to provide energy companies with an incentive to drill in difficult places. It may have made sense before we were ready to deploy large scale renewable energy production.

But it no longer makes sense today.

The Deepwater Horizon catastrophe showed that safety and response technologies are not sufficient in deep waters. The President's National Oil Spill Commission pointed out that while offshore oil and gas will remain part of the nation's energy portfolio for years to come, we need to ``begin a transition to a cleaner, more energy- efficient future.'' I agree.

I believe that taxpayer-funded incentives should go to clean, renewable energy, not deepwater oil drilling. It's time that we roll- back incentives for the riskiest, least environmentally friendly non- renewable energy production.

The disastrous impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion illustrate the enormous environmental and safety risks of offshore drilling-- particularly in deep waters. 11 people died and 17 others were injured when the Deepwater Horizon caught fire. Oil and gas rushed into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days before the well was finally plugged. The scope of the disaster was tremendous.

Oil slicks spread across the Gulf of Mexico, pelicans and other wildlife struggled to free themselves from crude oil, tar balls spoiled the pristine white sand beaches of Florida, wetlands were coated with toxic sludge, more than \1/3\ of Federal waters in the Gulf were closed to fishing, and oyster beds could take years to recover, the plumes of underwater oil may have created zones of toxicity or low oxygen for aquatic life, and the response techniques, such as the use of dispersants, may have their own toxic consequences to both wildlife and the spill response workers.

The impacts of an oil spill are so dramatic and devastating, it seems clear to me that this is not an area in which we should be subsidizing development.

Things have not improved much since the oil spill in 1969 off the California Coast near Santa Barbara. Like the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Santa Barbara spill was caused by a natural gas blowout when pressure in the drill hole fluctuated. It was successfully plugged with mud and cement after 11 and a half days, but oil and gas continued to seep for months. The Santa Barbara spill was devastating, but it was a tiny fraction of the size of the Deepwater Horizon spill.

Technology 40 years ago was not good enough to prevent a disaster. We discovered last summer that today's technology is no better at preventing well-head blowouts.

The Deepwater Horizon drill rig was less than 10 years old when it exploded. A similar accident that caused the 2009 spill in the Montara oil and gas field in the Timor Sea--one of the worst in Australia's history--was even newer, designed and built in 2007. That spill continued unchecked for 74 days.

The failures that led to these catastrophes were human and technological. While measures are being put in place to remedy these deficiencies, the risks remain high and the potential damage immense. In deep waters, the risks are higher and the scope of the damage even greater.

Drilling in deep waters is not the type of activity that tax-payer dollars should subsidize.

Drilling in deep water presents even more challenges than drilling in shallow water or on shore. This was demonstrated during the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Methane hydrate crystals form when methane gas mixes with pressurized cold ocean waters--and the likelihood of these crystals forming increases dramatically at a depth of about 400 meters.

These crystals interfere with response and containment technologies. They formed in the cofferdam dome that was lowered onto the gushing oil in the Gulf, which failed to stop the oil in the early days of the spill. And when a remotely operated underwater vehicle bumped the valves in the ``top hat'' device, the containment cap had to be removed and slowly replaced to prevent formation of these crystals again.

In order to drill at deeper depths, many technical difficulties must be overcome.

The ocean currents on the surface and in the water column exert torque pressure on the pipes and cables, which are longer and heavier.

The water temperature decreases closer to the sea floor, but the earth's core temperature increases the deeper the well--sometimes reaching temperatures in excess of 350 degrees Fahrenheit.

The ocean pressure increases dramatically at depth, but the pressure in a well can exceed 10,000 pounds per square inch.

Drills must be able to pass through tar and salts, and the well bores must remain intact.

The volume of drilling mud and fluids is greater, the weight of the cables heavier, and many technical procedures can only be accomplished with the use of remotely operated vehicles thousands of feet below the surface.

American taxpayers should not forego revenue in order to incentivize offshore drilling. It is not good environmental policy, and it's not good energy policy either.

We need to move to cleaner renewable fuels.

I believe that global warming is the biggest environmental crisis we face--and the biggest culprit of global warming is manmade emissions produced by the combustion of fossil fuels like oil and coal.

Taxpayer funded incentives should not finance production of fossil fuels--particularly in places where the production itself poses potential devastation. Instead, incentives should be used to develop and deploy clean energy technologies like wind and solar.

I have worked with my colleagues on a number of legislative initiatives designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency and incentivize the use of renewable energy.

One of our biggest victories was the enactment of the aggressive fuel economy law, called the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President Bush in the 110th Congress. This law, which I authored with Senator Snowe, will improve fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles at the maximum feasible rate.

The good news is that the Administration has taken the framework of this law and implemented aggressive standards that require raising fleetwide fuel economy to 35.5 mpg in 2016--a 40 percent increase above today's standard.

The other positive development is that the domestic renewable energy industry has grown dramatically over the last few years. In 2009, the United States added more new capacity to produce renewable electricity than it did to produce electricity from natural gas, oil, and coal combined. A great deal of this growth can be attributed to government renewable energy incentives. That is where public investment in energy development should go.

It is clear that the clean energy sector is the next frontier in jobs creation.

We need to ensure that developers can access financing to launch wind, solar and geothermal projects, so that they can put people to work. Programs like Treasury Grant Program have been very successful in encouraging private investment in this sector. So far, the program has helped to bring more than 1,880 renewable energy projects online.

The program, however, is set to expire at the end of this year if we don't act. I'm working on legislation that will extend and expand this successful program.

All told, these types of measures are helping to foster the incentives that will push the United States to adopt a cleaner energy future, and to move away from fossil fuels.

Let me make one final point very clear: I don't believe oil companies need taxpayer dollars to help them out. They are already reaping record profits.

In 2009, the top 10 U.S. oil companies' combined revenues were almost $850 billion. And while all results are not yet in on 2010, it is clear that oil companies did even better last year.

Exxon Mobil reported $30 billion in profit, up 57 percent from 2009.

Shell reported $19 billion in profit, up 90 percent from 2009.

Conoco Phillips raked in $11.4 billion in profit during 2010, a whopping 159 percent increase over its 2009 profits.

Yet we continue to use taxpayer dollars to add to their bottom line. This is unacceptable.

Oil reserves are a public resource. When a private company profits from those public resources, American taxpayers should also benefit.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure that royalties owed to the taxpayers are not waived to incentivize risky off-shore drilling. In these critical economic times, every cent of the people's money should be spent wisely.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America's Security Act. There is little doubt that our immigration system is broken and needs reform. Yet, we can make progress by starting with the laws that already exist. The proposed legislation would enhance our core immigration and enforcement laws for both legal and illegal immigrants.

When I first introduced my bill last September, I mentioned that it represents countless hours of conversation and feedback from my constituents. This bill is a common-sense approach on how best to enforce and tighten-up our immigration laws.

Of course, securing the actual physical border should remain our top priority. However, we cannot ignore the residual problems caused by a porous border. The weakness of a porous border has been experienced by communities across the country--draining all facets of local resources, including public safety, welfare programs, and medical assistance.

By no means is the proposed legislation intended to be a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Rather, it is focused on enforcement and accountability of existing immigration laws and programs. There is much that remains to be done before we can tackle comprehensive immigration reform. But this bill is the next step toward strengthening our immigration laws.

The Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America's Security Act will curb identity theft and techniques that have been exploited by the illegal alien community; stop the abuse by this administration from granting mass parole or deferral to illegal aliens; help prevent Mexican drug cartels from growing marijuana in our national parks and on our public lands; and prevent so-called sanctuary cities by requiring law enforcement agencies that are selected and enrolled in the 287(g) and Secure Communities programs to fully comply with the established requirements.

There is a need for accurate accounting to track the flow of federal and state welfare dollars given to illegal aliens and ensure that U.S. citizens are the first to receive Federal health benefits. Additionally, my bill would rectify a gaping hole in our visa system by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to create a mandatory visa exit procedure that would track the departure of our foreign visitors to the United States; provide that gang members will be ineligible to receive a visa for travel to our country; and direct the State Department to examine the Diversity Visa program, which in the past has been wrought with fraud and abuse.

I do not think anyone could disagree with the substance of the Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America's Security Act. It touches on some of the more overlooked, but critical areas of our broken immigration system. Moreover, I believe these steps can be enacted in a bipartisan fashion without creating a host of new programs and revenue streams. I encourage my colleagues to work with me to move this bill forward.

Mr. President, today Chairman Baucus filed an original bill and an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, bill currently being considered by the Senate. Both of these items are identical. They reflect the revenue title to the FAA bill that was reported by the Finance Committee last Tuesday. I am hopeful that this heralds the passage of long-term FAA reauthorization and represents a break with our ongoing pattern of funding the FAA with short-term extensions of current law.

In most respects the Finance Committee product reflects the FAA bill that was passed unanimously last year with 93 votes. However, there is a very important difference. Thanks to an amendment filed by Senator Coburn, who is a new member of the Finance Committee, only 90 percent of forecasted revenues to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for a given year will be spent. Over the past several years the uncommitted cash balance remaining in the trust fund has steadily decreased because actual revenues have fallen short of forecast revenues. Since recipients of trust fund revenues expect to be paid in real dollars and not forecasted dollars, it makes sense to make sure the trust fund contains actual dollars. By allowing only 90 percent of forecast trust fund revenues to be spent, we are putting in place a 10 percent cushion to guard against the frequent occurrence that actual trust fund revenues will fall short of projected revenues.

The Finance Committee product also increases the amount general aviation and fractional aircraft will pay for each gallon of jet fuel they use. These increases will impact neither commercial airlines nor passengers of commercial airlines. The cost of fuel for commercial aviation is not changed at all by the Finance Committee product. What makes the increases of the costs borne by the general aviation and fractional communities unique is that both groups are active supporters of these increases. As these letters explain, the increases in the cost of jet fuel are supported because the proceeds will help our airport and airway system transition to the Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen. NextGen is the satellite-based air traffic control system that is slated to replace our current radar-based system. The transition to NextGen is expected to reduce inefficiencies within and enhance the benefits of our airport and airway system.

In closing, I want to thank Chairman Baucus and the other Members of the Finance Committee for their work on the revenue title to the FAA bill, and I hope for the rapid completion of FAA reauthorization.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support legislation I am introducing today to name the Veterans Telehealth Clinic in Craig, Colorado, after Medal of Honor recipient Major William E. Adams. I am pleased that Senator Bennet will join with me in introducing this bill.

Our bill isn't the first effort to honor Major Adams. My good friend Congressman John Salazar introduced this legislation last year in the House of Representatives with the support of the entire Colorado delegation. I would like to see this bill through to passage in this Congress in part to honor John and his efforts to commemorate the heroism of Major Adams and to get the VA clinic established in northwest Colorado.

I'd also like to honor Larry Neu, a local business owner and Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 4265 quartermaster, who has been the architect of efforts to commemorate Major Adams. With Larry's leadership and the help of other Craig residents, the Colorado state legislature passed a resolution renaming part of Colorado Highway 13 the ``Maj. William Adams Medal of Honor Highway.'' I know he worked closely with Congressman Salazar in the last Congress to develop the legislation I am introducing today.

Above all, this bill is intended to honor Major William Adams himself and his ``conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.''

A resident of Craig, Major Adams served and lost his life in the Vietnam War. He was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously, after distinguishing himself while serving as an Army helicopter pilot. In May 1971, he volunteered to fly a lightly armed helicopter in an attempt to evacuate three seriously wounded soldiers from a small base that was under attack. He made the decision with full knowledge that numerous antiaircraft weapons were positioned around the base and that the clear weather would make him visible to enemy gunners. As he approached the base, the enemy gunners opened fire, but he continued his approach, directing the attacks of supporting gunships while maintaining control of the helicopter he was flying. He picked up the wounded soldiers, but his aircraft was then struck and damaged by enemy anti-aircraft fire and crashed.

I was pleased to learn that many of his family members attended the ceremony in November dedicating part of Colorado Highway 13 to Major Adams. I want to pay tribute today to his wife Sandra and his daughter Jean, both Colorado residents, and his son, Col. John Adams, an intelligence officer in the Marine Corps, recently back from Afghanistan. I hope this bill serves to reinforce what they already know--that Major Adams is a real hero to this county, to Colorado and to Craig. He is part of a special class of American heroes who will forever be remembered for their service and sacrifice. His story will continue inspiring generations to come, while reminding us all about the contributions and sacrifices of America's greatest.

I have introduced this legislation not only to recognize the sacrifice of Major Adams, but also to recognize the service of our Vietnam veterans and especially all veterans in Northwest Colorado. The Telehealth Clinic in Craig is on track to have nearly 1700 visits from area veterans this year, and I will always fight to make sure our veterans get the health care they earned and deserve.

As Larry Neu said about Major Adams, ``The man made the ultimate sacrifice for his country--he should not be forgotten.'' Passage of this bill will help us remember Major Adams and so many other brave veterans who have sacrificed their lives for our country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to continue to support our dedicated men and women in uniform.