Floor Statements

I appreciate the chance to speak as in morning business.

World Oil Supplies

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to discuss the increasing oil prices that we are observing each day and the evolving situation in the Middle East and North Africa.

From an oil market perspective, the turmoil in the Middle East changed course just over a week ago, and it changed course when Libya joined the group of countries that are witnessing historic popular uprisings. Libya is the first major energy exporter in the region to experience such an uprising.

At the moment, as much as 1 million barrels per day of Libya's total 1.8 million barrels per day of oil production is offline, with continued political turbulence threatening to take even more oil offline before order is restored.

It appears that international oil companies, which are responsible for over 40 percent of Libyan oil production, have removed their personnel from the country, and that has led to shutdowns of most fields operated by those international companies.

For the moment, it appears that the Libyan national oil companies themselves are mostly continuing to produce and export oil, although there might be some limited production losses in national oil company production as well.

There is reason to be concerned that the situation in Libya and throughout the region could become worse before it improves. I do not know that it is useful to try to predict the most likely outcome for what is occurring in the country, but the reality is that many of the potential scenarios that have been thought of are not good for the stability of world oil flows.

Fortunately, Saudi Arabia is widely believed to have enough spare oil production capacity to offset any losses in Libyan oil production. The Saudis have already publicly committed to compensating for any Libyan shortfall and very likely have already ramped up production to make good on that promise.

However, the additional Saudi crude oil will not be of the same quality as the lost Libyan barrels of oil, which are light sweet crude. About three-quarters of Libyan exports go to Western Europe, and the refineries in Western Europe generally cannot manage the heavier and sour crudes that come out of the Persian Gulf region. There will be some crude oil dislocation, as higher quality crudes are rerouted to Europe, and incremental Saudi barrels of oil head for refineries that are able to handle the lower grade oil they produce.

Between the lost production in Libya, the crude oil dislocation associated with additional Saudi production, and the prospect of further turmoil in the region, we are now unquestionably facing a physical oil supply disruption that is at risk of getting worse before it gets better.

For this reason, I believe it would be appropriate for the President to be ready to consider a release of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve if the situation in Libya deteriorates further. Any additional oil market disturbance--such as turmoil spreading from Libya to Algeria, or from Bahrain to Saudi Arabia--would clearly put us into a situation where there would be a very strong argument in favor of a sale from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

While I do not think high oil prices alone are sufficient justification for tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, I do believe the announcement of a Strategic Petroleum Reserve sale would help to moderate escalating prices.

My recommendation that we stand ready to release oil from the SPR is squarely in the traditional policy we have had in our government for SPR use, going back to the Reagan administration in the 1980s. In testimony before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on January 30, 1984, President Reagan's Secretary of Energy Donald Hodel stated that the administration's SPR policy in the event of an oil supply disruption was to ``go for an early and immediate drawdown.'' The SPR would be used to send a signal, a strong signal, to oil markets that the United States would not allow a physical oil shortage to develop.

The SPR policy carried out during the 1990-1991 Desert Storm operation offers an example of this ``early and in large volumes'' policy in action.

On January 16, 1991, President George H.W. Bush announced that the allied military attack against Iraq had begun. Simultaneously, he announced that the United States would begin releasing SPR stocks as part of an international effort to minimize world oil market disruptions. Less than 12 hours after President Bush's authorization, the Department of Energy released an SPR crude oil sales notice, and on January 28, 1991, 26 companies submitted offers.

Then-Secretary of Energy Watkins noted:

We have sent an important message to the American people

that their $20 billion investment in an emergency supply of

crude oil has produced a system that can respond rapidly and

effectively to the threat of an energy disruption.

According to an analysis posted on the Department of Energy's Web site during the George W. Bush administration:

The rapid decision to release crude oil from government-

controlled stocks in the United States and other OECD

countries helped calm the global oil market, and prices began

to moderate. . . . World oil markets remained remarkably calm

throughout most of the war, due largely to the swift release

of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil.

In recent years, the policy signals surrounding SPR use have not been as clear. Some SPR sales were criticized as efforts to manipulate oil prices. The SPR was then ignored during other oil supply disruptions-- including simultaneous oil supply disruptions due to a

strike in Venezuela, political turmoil in Nigeria, and the initiation of the current war in Iraq.

I believe the Reagan administration set the correct course for SPR decisionmaking. The current administration would be well served in considering that example and should be ready, in my view, to make a decision to calm world oil markets should the threat to world oil supplies increase in the coming days and weeks.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 8, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nomination of Peter B. Lyons, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Nuclear Energy).

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Amanda_kelly@energy .senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler or Amanda Kelly.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, March 10, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 398, a bill to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to improve energy efficiency of certain appliances and equipment, and for other purposes, and S. 395, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Abigail_Campbell @energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Al Stayman or Abigail Campbell.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator Murkowski, the Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in introducing the Implementation of National Consensus Appliance Agreements Act of 2011, INCAAA. This bill is an updated version of the appliance energy efficiency standards legislation, S. 3925, that apparently came within a single Senate vote of passage by unanimous consent last December, as the 111th Congress drew to a close.

As with the six appliance energy efficiency laws that have been enacted since 1986, this bill enjoys consensus support among appliance manufacturers, energy efficiency advocates, and consumer groups. Such broad support is to be expected, given the bill's many benefits. It would reduce the regulatory burden on appliance manufacturers, increasing their profitability and their ability to protect and create jobs; reduce national energy and water demand, slowing the need for new energy and water supplies, freeing capital for other investments and making our economy more competitive overall; save consumers money on their monthly energy and water bills, freeing household income for spending in other areas; and reduce power plant emissions and other environmental costs of energy production.

At the core of this bill are the appliance efficiency provisions that were reported with bipartisan support from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in 2009 as a part of the comprehensive energy legislation, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act, ACELA, S. 1462. INCAAA also includes the amendments reported from the Committee in May 2010 to enhance ACELA. Finally, INCAAA includes several more-recent agreements and revisions on appliance efficiency that have been reached by industry, energy advocacy, and consumer stake holders.

I note that there are continuing discussions among stakeholders on Section 2(a) regarding the definition of ``energy conservation standard'' and whether this term should allow an efficiency standard to have more than one metric. For example, that a standard could require a specified energy efficiency and also, say, specific water efficiency or smart grid capability, or some other additional performance measures. Stakeholders have agreed to allow inclusion of this provision in the bill for the purposes of introduction while discussions continue. Also under continuing discussion are provisions regarding reflector lamps. The Department of Energy is scheduled to complete its current rulemaking for these products this August and stakeholders continue to negotiate what guidance could be given the Department for future rulemakings. I am committed to working with all stakeholders to resolve these issues as the legislative process moves forward.

From a business point-of-view, INCAAA's greatest value is as a regulatory-reform bill. 25 years ago, the national appliance market was in danger of become unmanageably Balkanized because certain States were beginning to enact appliance efficiency standards in response their power supply problems. Faced with a growing patchwork of state standards, industry joined with energy efficiency and consumer groups to support Federal authority to pre-empt state standards and thereby assure a single national market for appliances.

INCAAA, as with the five appliance standards laws enacted since 1986, would go a step further than simple Federal pre-emption of state standards by enacting consensus standards that are negotiated among the stakeholders as the Federal standards. By directly enacting consensus standards as Federal standards, these laws have the added benefit of saving the time, cost, and uncertainty associated with a formal Federal rulemaking.

INCAAA would enact standards agreed to by the manufacturers of the covered products and by the Nation's leading energy efficiency groups, the Alliance to Save Energy, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. These include new efficiency standards for certain outdoor lighting, as supported by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and major lighting manufacturers such as General Electric, Osram Sylvania, and Philips; increased efficiency standards for furnaces, heat pumps and central air conditioners, as supported by the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute and its dozens of member companies including Carrier, Johnson Controls, Rheem, Lennox, Nordyne, Goodman and Trane. The furnace provisions are also supported by the American Gas Association; and Increased energy and water efficiency standards for refrigerators and freezers, clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers, and room air-conditioners, as supported by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and its many member companies including Electrolux, General Electric, Sub-Zero, and Whirlpool.

INCAAA also includes consensus standards that were earlier reported by the Energy Committee on smaller classes of products such as drinking water dispensers, hot food holding cabinets, electric spas, pool heaters, and consensus standards that were negotiated more recently for service-over-the-counter refrigerators.

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy estimates that INCAAA would save the Nation nearly 850 Trillion Btus of energy each year by 2030--enough energy to meet the needs of 4.6 million typical American households. For comparison, the states of Utah and Connecticut each used just over 800 Trillion Btus of energy in 2008. Result in net economic savings, benefits minus costs, to consumers of more than $43 billion annually by 2030. Save nearly 5 trillion gallons of water annually by 2030, roughly the amount needed to meet the current needs of every customer in Los Angeles for 25 years. Improve the environment by reducing annual carbon dioxide emissions by about 47 million metric tons in 2030.

The Department of Energy's appliance standards program has been one of the nation's most powerful and successful tools for promoting energy and economic efficiency. ACEEE estimates that by 2010 appliance efficiency standards had reduced national non-transportation energy use to 7 percent below what it would otherwise be. For comparison, 7 percent of energy consumption in the U.S. is more than the annual energy consumption of Florida or New York. Standards not only defer the construction of power plants, but also all of their associated costs for planning, siting, operating, fueling, maintaining, and the environmental costs of their emissions, and the costs associated with the distribution of that energy.

Finally, INCAAA contains no authorizations. Based on the CBO analysis conducted last year on ACELA, it is clear that this bill would not incur any no new spending.

This legislation represents government at its best, as a catalyst, bringing together stakeholders on consensus solutions to complex problems. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting enactment of INCAAA and reaching the goal that was so narrowly missed last December.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator Murkowski, the Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in introducing the Implementation of National Consensus Appliance Agreements Act of 2011, INCAAA. This bill is an updated version of the appliance energy efficiency standards legislation, S. 3925, that apparently came within a single Senate vote of passage by unanimous consent last December, as the 111th Congress drew to a close.

As with the six appliance energy efficiency laws that have been enacted since 1986, this bill enjoys consensus support among appliance manufacturers, energy efficiency advocates, and consumer groups. Such broad support is to be expected, given the bill's many benefits. It would reduce the regulatory burden on appliance manufacturers, increasing their profitability and their ability to protect and create jobs; reduce national energy and water demand, slowing the need for new energy and water supplies, freeing capital for other investments and making our economy more competitive overall; save consumers money on their monthly energy and water bills, freeing household income for spending in other areas; and reduce power plant emissions and other environmental costs of energy production.

At the core of this bill are the appliance efficiency provisions that were reported with bipartisan support from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in 2009 as a part of the comprehensive energy legislation, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act, ACELA, S. 1462. INCAAA also includes the amendments reported from the Committee in May 2010 to enhance ACELA. Finally, INCAAA includes several more-recent agreements and revisions on appliance efficiency that have been reached by industry, energy advocacy, and consumer stake holders.

I note that there are continuing discussions among stakeholders on Section 2(a) regarding the definition of ``energy conservation standard'' and whether this term should allow an efficiency standard to have more than one metric. For example, that a standard could require a specified energy efficiency and also, say, specific water efficiency or smart grid capability, or some other additional performance measures. Stakeholders have agreed to allow inclusion of this provision in the bill for the purposes of introduction while discussions continue. Also under continuing discussion are provisions regarding reflector lamps. The Department of Energy is scheduled to complete its current rulemaking for these products this August and stakeholders continue to negotiate what guidance could be given the Department for future rulemakings. I am committed to working with all stakeholders to resolve these issues as the legislative process moves forward.

From a business point-of-view, INCAAA's greatest value is as a regulatory-reform bill. 25 years ago, the national appliance market was in danger of become unmanageably Balkanized because certain States were beginning to enact appliance efficiency standards in response their power supply problems. Faced with a growing patchwork of state standards, industry joined with energy efficiency and consumer groups to support Federal authority to pre-empt state standards and thereby assure a single national market for appliances.

INCAAA, as with the five appliance standards laws enacted since 1986, would go a step further than simple Federal pre-emption of state standards by enacting consensus standards that are negotiated among the stakeholders as the Federal standards. By directly enacting consensus standards as Federal standards, these laws have the added benefit of saving the time, cost, and uncertainty associated with a formal Federal rulemaking.

INCAAA would enact standards agreed to by the manufacturers of the covered products and by the Nation's leading energy efficiency groups, the Alliance to Save Energy, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. These include new efficiency standards for certain outdoor lighting, as supported by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and major lighting manufacturers such as General Electric, Osram Sylvania, and Philips; increased efficiency standards for furnaces, heat pumps and central air conditioners, as supported by the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute and its dozens of member companies including Carrier, Johnson Controls, Rheem, Lennox, Nordyne, Goodman and Trane. The furnace provisions are also supported by the American Gas Association; and Increased energy and water efficiency standards for refrigerators and freezers, clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers, and room air-conditioners, as supported by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and its many member companies including Electrolux, General Electric, Sub-Zero, and Whirlpool.

INCAAA also includes consensus standards that were earlier reported by the Energy Committee on smaller classes of products such as drinking water dispensers, hot food holding cabinets, electric spas, pool heaters, and consensus standards that were negotiated more recently for service-over-the-counter refrigerators.

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy estimates that INCAAA would save the Nation nearly 850 Trillion Btus of energy each year by 2030--enough energy to meet the needs of 4.6 million typical American households. For comparison, the states of Utah and Connecticut each used just over 800 Trillion Btus of energy in 2008. Result in net economic savings, benefits minus costs, to consumers of more than $43 billion annually by 2030. Save nearly 5 trillion gallons of water annually by 2030, roughly the amount needed to meet the current needs of every customer in Los Angeles for 25 years. Improve the environment by reducing annual carbon dioxide emissions by about 47 million metric tons in 2030.

The Department of Energy's appliance standards program has been one of the nation's most powerful and successful tools for promoting energy and economic efficiency. ACEEE estimates that by 2010 appliance efficiency standards had reduced national non-transportation energy use to 7 percent below what it would otherwise be. For comparison, 7 percent of energy consumption in the U.S. is more than the annual energy consumption of Florida or New York. Standards not only defer the construction of power plants, but also all of their associated costs for planning, siting, operating, fueling, maintaining, and the environmental costs of their emissions, and the costs associated with the distribution of that energy.

Finally, INCAAA contains no authorizations. Based on the CBO analysis conducted last year on ACELA, it is clear that this bill would not incur any no new spending.

This legislation represents government at its best, as a catalyst, bringing together stakeholders on consensus solutions to complex problems. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting enactment of INCAAA and reaching the goal that was so narrowly missed last December.

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

Mr. President, in accordance with Rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have the rules governing the procedure of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources printed in the Record.

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 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, this is to advise you that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Monday, February 21, 2011, at 10 a.m., at the Vincent E. Griego Chambers, Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Government Center, Concourse Level B, One Civic Plaza, 400 Marquette NW, in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The purpose of the hearing will be to receive testimony regarding recent natural gas service disruptions in New Mexico and the reliability of regional energy infrastructure.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Kevin Huyler at (202) 224- 6689, Deborah Estes at (202) 224-5360 or Meagan Gins at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 2, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the President's Fiscal Year 2012 proposed budget for the Department of the Interior.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to allison_seyferth@energy .senate.gov.

For further information, please contact David Brooks or Allison Seyferth.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public

that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, March 3, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the President's Fiscal Year 2012 proposed budget for the USDA Forest Service.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to allison_seyferth@energy .senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Scott Miller or Allison Seyferth.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public

that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 1, 2011, at l0 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2011.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein at (202) 224-5521 or Abby Campbell at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 3, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the Energy and Oil Market Outlook for the 112th Congress.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Tara Billingsley at (202) 224-4756 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 16, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the U.S. Department of Energy's budget for fiscal year 2012.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein at (202) 224-3357, or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2011. The purpose of the bill is to provide certainty in developing a domestic supply of molybdenum-99, which is used to produce technetium-99m, one of the most widely used medical isotopes in the United States. Right now we import all of our molybdenum-99 from outside the United States, primarily Canada and the Netherlands, from reactors that are old and that will most likely be shut down within the next 10 years. In addition, this bill moves us away from using highly enriched bomb-grade uranium targets to those that are low-enriched; that is, that are less than 20 percent in the fissile isotope uranium-235. I think this is a very important nonproliferation goal because the world is currently in discussion with Iran on replacing fuel and targets from their medical isotopes reactor; we should lead by example in dealing in this area with countries like Iran that can now enrich nuclear fuel.

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a very detailed hearing on this topic last Congress. The bill we reported unanimously had a wide body of support among the medical isotopes and non- proliferation communities. I am attaching several letters from the last Congress as evidence of the wide support for this bill.

The new bill that I am introducing today is identical to the bill reported by the Committee in the last Congress, H.R. 3276, as amended. There are only two differences between this bill and the one from the last Congress. The authorization level has been lowered by $20 million to account for the fact that we are in fiscal year 2011 and not fiscal year 2010, and technical PAYGO language has been added.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill entitled the Mescalero Apache Tribe Leasing Authorization Act to allow the Mescalero Apache Tribe in New Mexico to lease certain adjudicated water rights to other communities in need of water. My colleague Senator Tom Udall is co-sponsoring this measure and I am looking forward to working with him on this issue.

As competition for limited water supplies increases and water supplies become more uncertain as a result of a changing climate, more flexibility in water management strategies is essential. This bill will enable the Mescalero Apache Tribe to lease certain unused water rights adjudicated to the Tribe to other communities in New Mexico that have significant water needs. Through this bill, communities including the Village of Ruidoso, the Village of Cloudcroft and the City of Alamogordo would be able to negotiate with the Mescalero Apache Tribe to lease water through a process overseen by the New Mexico State Engineer. These mutually beneficial transactions will provide additional water to communities in times of need and will provide economic benefits to the Tribe. Allowing these types of transactions to occur will also help to strengthen the relationship between Indian and non-Indian communities that co-exist in many parts of New Mexico.

This bill will greatly benefit the Mescalero Apache Tribe and its surrounding neighbors and it is my hope that my colleagues will ultimately support its enactment.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2011. The purpose of the bill is to provide certainty in developing a domestic supply of molybdenum-99, which is used to produce technetium-99m, one of the most widely used medical isotopes in the United States. Right now we import all of our molybdenum-99 from outside the United States, primarily Canada and the Netherlands, from reactors that are old and that will most likely be shut down within the next 10 years. In addition, this bill moves us away from using highly enriched bomb-grade uranium targets to those that are low-enriched; that is, that are less than 20 percent in the fissile isotope uranium-235. I think this is a very important nonproliferation goal because the world is currently in discussion with Iran on replacing fuel and targets from their medical isotopes reactor; we should lead by example in dealing in this area with countries like Iran that can now enrich nuclear fuel.

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a very detailed hearing on this topic last Congress. The bill we reported unanimously had a wide body of support among the medical isotopes and non- proliferation communities. I am attaching several letters from the last Congress as evidence of the wide support for this bill.

The new bill that I am introducing today is identical to the bill reported by the Committee in the last Congress, H.R. 3276, as amended. There are only two differences between this bill and the one from the last Congress. The authorization level has been lowered by $20 million to account for the fact that we are in fiscal year 2011 and not fiscal year 2010, and technical PAYGO language has been added.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill entitled the Mescalero Apache Tribe Leasing Authorization Act to allow the Mescalero Apache Tribe in New Mexico to lease certain adjudicated water rights to other communities in need of water. My colleague Senator Tom Udall is co-sponsoring this measure and I am looking forward to working with him on this issue.

As competition for limited water supplies increases and water supplies become more uncertain as a result of a changing climate, more flexibility in water management strategies is essential. This bill will enable the Mescalero Apache Tribe to lease certain unused water rights adjudicated to the Tribe to other communities in New Mexico that have significant water needs. Through this bill, communities including the Village of Ruidoso, the Village of Cloudcroft and the City of Alamogordo would be able to negotiate with the Mescalero Apache Tribe to lease water through a process overseen by the New Mexico State Engineer. These mutually beneficial transactions will provide additional water to communities in times of need and will provide economic benefits to the Tribe. Allowing these types of transactions to occur will also help to strengthen the relationship between Indian and non-Indian communities that co-exist in many parts of New Mexico.

This bill will greatly benefit the Mescalero Apache Tribe and its surrounding neighbors and it is my hope that my colleagues will ultimately support its enactment.

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

Madam President, last Friday the Senate in an act of bipartisanship reauthorized the America COMPETES Act, which was first signed into law August 9, 2007. It did so this time under unanimous consent; the last time it took 3 days of debate. I would like to note that this reauthorization continues the strong tradition of bipartisanship which augurs well for the ability of our Nation to conduct cutting edge research while innovating and competing in our global economy. In a time of concern about our budget deficit, the passing of this act by unanimous consent is an acknowledgment by the Senate as a whole that tax dollars spent on these topics is money well spent.

But behind that simple act of unanimous consent laid almost 2 years of hard work at the staff and Member level in the Senate.

First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of Senator Lamar Alexander. Senator Alexander worked with members of his Republican caucus to ensure their views were incorporated into this bill. He has kept his unwavering belief that the strength of our Nation, its ability to proposer and create good paying jobs, rests on the investment we make in educating our children in science and education, conducting research at universities and laboratories and using a well educated workforce to promote innovation in our global economy.

The America COMPETES Act involved the work of three Senate committees: the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee; the

Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions, HELP; and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. As before, Matt Sonnesyn, who participated in the last America COMPETES effort provided a stable and steady push to keep the bill on track. In the Commerce Committee, Ann Zulkosky on Senator Rockefeller's staff worked long hours through a markup and subsequent staff drafts of the bill while at the same time managing to reauthorize NASA. Maryam Khan and Hugh Derr on Senator Hutchinson's staff worked with Ann throughout this time; Robin Juliano on Senator Harkin's staff on the HELP committee worked with Christopher Eyler on Senator Enzi's HELP staff to ensure education programs were updated where appropriate; Jonathan Epstein on my Energy Committee staff worked tirelessly, as he did on the original bill, and along with Isaac Edwards on Senator Murkowski's Energy Committee staff worked through energy programs and updated them to account for changes since the last COMPETES Act.

There are other important staff I would like to acknowledge who made this effort in the Senate a success: David Cleary on the HELP Committee, Adam Rondinone and Neena Imam in Senator Alexander's personal office, Ann Begeman, Senator Hutchinson's Commerce Committee Staff Director, Ellen Doneski, staff director for the majority and Chris Martin, Andrew Ruffin, Bruce Andrews, and Brian Hendricks of the Commerce Committee; Trudy Vincent, my legislative director and Peter Zamora, my education counsel; Robyn Hiestand on the Budget Committee, Rachel Sotsky in Senator Lieberman's personal office, Lula Davis, the secretary for the majority, Tim Mitchell on Senator Reid's floor staff, Laura Dove the assistant secretary for the minority and Bob Simon, my Energy Committee staff director. Finally, I need to give a special thanks to the legislative counsels who worked with staff to accurately draft the bill--Lloyd Ator on the Commerce Committee, Amy Gaynor who drafted the HELP Committee text and Gary Endicott who drafted the Energy Committee text.

As you can see, the America COMPETES Act involved a large number of bipartisan staff, all working together for the common goal of promoting the ability of our nation to compete in a global economy. I am grateful to all of the them for their hard work.

I am also delighted that today, December 21, the House of Representatives passed this bill as well.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and morning business, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5116 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rockefeller-Hutchison substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and that a budget pay-go statement be read.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.