Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. cloture motion

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, April 20. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and there then be a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with the first 30 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee, and the final 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee; provided that following morning business the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1268, the Iraq- Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill; provided further that notwithstanding morning business and the adjournment of the Senate, all time be counted against cloture under rule XXII.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I make this announcement: Tomorrow, following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill. We have invoked cloture on the bill, and therefore the only amendments that qualify under the cloture rule will be in order to the bill. There are still quite a few germane amendments that are pending, and therefore we will need a number of rollcall votes prior to final passage. It is the leader's hope that we can finish tomorrow, and we can finish if we can show restraint and not require votes on each of these amendments. Senators should expect a late evening tomorrow as we try to finish the bill on Wednesday.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand there are eight bills at the desk. I ask for their first reading, en bloc.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request, en bloc.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Lisa Murkowski, in introducing legislation pertaining to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) and the Quality Bank. The Quality Bank was created to balance accounts among oil producers on Alaska's North Slope who produce crude oil of different quality and value from different oil fields. When the oil is delivered at Pump Station No. 1, it is commingled and transported by TAPS to Valdez, Alaska, where it is shipped by tanker to the lower 48 States. This Quality Bank accounting concept also applies to oil refineries in my State who receive needed crude oil from TAPS, refine various petroleum products and return the balance of the crude oil to the pipeline. The methodology used to determine these payments has been the subject of dispute since the Bank's inception, creating uncertainty in the market and a chilling effect on business investment in Alaska. In 1989, a legal proceeding was initiated at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that in 1993 changed the methodology under which ``Quality Banks'' in Alaska were operated. After 15 long and protracted years of legal proceedings before FERC, an Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision proposing to replace the Quality Bank methodology that the parties assumed they were operating under since 1993. It proposes instead a new complex set of valuations that the parties could not have predicted and that have very large financial impacts, especially on refiners. Significantly, this decision also proposes to apply the most significant of these new valuations retroactively, all the way back to 1993. The Administrative Law Judge's decision to apply this new methodology retroactively puts Alaska's in-State refineries at risk at a time when the United States can ill afford to lose its limited refining capacity. Given the Potential impact should FERC decide to adopt the ALJ's decision, Congress included legislative language in the Fiscal Year 2005 Consolidated Appropriations conference report expressing its concern over this issue. Congress urged FERC to carefully Consider the specific equities of this case to prevent special hardship, inequity, or an unfair distribution of burdens to any party, to assess the equity of assigning retroactivity, and to resolve this matter in a fair and equitable manner. In addition, the State's Congressional Delegation urged the parties to reach a settlement to end over 15 years of litigation and bring finality to this issue. Despite repeated calls for settlement, the parties appear to have made little or no progress towards this end. The issue of retroactivity and its application in the aforementioned case is problematic given the lack of clear Congressional action on the subject. Congress' silence on the subject has given the parties incentive to prolong litigation and pursue appeals until they receive a ruling which is beneficial to them. To remedy this situation and prevent similar disputes in the future, we are introducing this legislation to limit FERC's ability to assign retroactivity in matters pertaining to the Quality Bank. This legislation is necessary to limit business uncertainty associated with the use of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System, and to ensure continued domestic refinery activity in order to protect national fuel supplies.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Lisa Murkowski, in introducing legislation pertaining to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) and the Quality Bank. The Quality Bank was created to balance accounts among oil producers on Alaska's North Slope who produce crude oil of different quality and value from different oil fields. When the oil is delivered at Pump Station No. 1, it is commingled and transported by TAPS to Valdez, Alaska, where it is shipped by tanker to the lower 48 States. This Quality Bank accounting concept also applies to oil refineries in my State who receive needed crude oil from TAPS, refine various petroleum products and return the balance of the crude oil to the pipeline. The methodology used to determine these payments has been the subject of dispute since the Bank's inception, creating uncertainty in the market and a chilling effect on business investment in Alaska. In 1989, a legal proceeding was initiated at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that in 1993 changed the methodology under which ``Quality Banks'' in Alaska were operated. After 15 long and protracted years of legal proceedings before FERC, an Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision proposing to replace the Quality Bank methodology that the parties assumed they were operating under since 1993. It proposes instead a new complex set of valuations that the parties could not have predicted and that have very large financial impacts, especially on refiners. Significantly, this decision also proposes to apply the most significant of these new valuations retroactively, all the way back to 1993. The Administrative Law Judge's decision to apply this new methodology retroactively puts Alaska's in-State refineries at risk at a time when the United States can ill afford to lose its limited refining capacity. Given the Potential impact should FERC decide to adopt the ALJ's decision, Congress included legislative language in the Fiscal Year 2005 Consolidated Appropriations conference report expressing its concern over this issue. Congress urged FERC to carefully Consider the specific equities of this case to prevent special hardship, inequity, or an unfair distribution of burdens to any party, to assess the equity of assigning retroactivity, and to resolve this matter in a fair and equitable manner. In addition, the State's Congressional Delegation urged the parties to reach a settlement to end over 15 years of litigation and bring finality to this issue. Despite repeated calls for settlement, the parties appear to have made little or no progress towards this end. The issue of retroactivity and its application in the aforementioned case is problematic given the lack of clear Congressional action on the subject. Congress' silence on the subject has given the parties incentive to prolong litigation and pursue appeals until they receive a ruling which is beneficial to them. To remedy this situation and prevent similar disputes in the future, we are introducing this legislation to limit FERC's ability to assign retroactivity in matters pertaining to the Quality Bank. This legislation is necessary to limit business uncertainty associated with the use of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System, and to ensure continued domestic refinery activity in order to protect national fuel supplies.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is time control in place right now?

Mr. STEVENS. I have 5 minutes after 1:45 p.m.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wish to speak first on the amendment offered by Senator Kerry.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, our Defense Subcommittee has considered this matter very closely. We believe the provision for death gratuity is a special and unique situation, and we provided it in the bill before the Senate. What we seek to provide is a special recognition for our Nation's fallen heroes who have given their lives in combat defending our Nation or who have died in training or other activity that is considered related to combat by title X. Let me state that again. Our provision covers all service members who lose their lives in combat or who die in training or other activity that is considered combat related by title X. The normal death gratuity in effect now is $12,400. It provides immediate cash to meet the needs of survivors. This amount is payable immediately and is intended to provide sufficient funding to support families until other benefits, particularly those such as the Survivor Benefit Plan, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, and Social Security, come into play. We believe every life is precious, and we grieve over the loss of life when it occurs among anyone in our military. But our Appropriations Committee has included this provision to provide special recognition for fallen heroes. This special recognition is intended for those who have died as a result of combat or combat-related situations, such as training, and in support of the global war against terrorism our Nation is fighting. The administration and the Department of Defense strongly oppose the recommended expansion of the death gratuity to cover all deaths of anyone who is in uniform. In fact, a 2004 independent study requested by the Department of Defense concluded that the full system of benefits provided to survivors of members who die on active duty is adequate, substantial, and comprehensive. That study did identify a lack of recognition for direct sacrifice of life, as provided by the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Act, which pays more than $267,000 to survivors in recognition of deaths in performance of duty of law enforcement officers and firefighters. The Senate supplemental bill provides this type of recognition for our military. First, if we consider opening the special death gratuity for all casualties, we should also consider the significance of a retroactive date, as we considered the concept of trying to cover all casualties. If the increased death gratuity is provided for all deaths, there is no longer a direct connection to the events of 9/11 and the war against terrorism. Finally, to increase the death gratuity to include all deaths would cost an additional $300 million in this year alone, 2005. The total bill for fiscal year 2005 would be about $1.1 billion. Many of us who served in war in defense of our Nation--and I am one of those--believe there is a special significance in the way we have defined death gratuity in the Senate bill before us now. We believe it is fully appropriate for the problem of recognizing fallen heroes. I know this provision is related to other outpourings of those who have lost life in the September 11 controversy. There is a connection in that this provision seeks to recognize soldiers who have fallen as a result of the actions we have taken as a nation to address 9/11 in the fight against terrorism. I do not believe we should devalue the most heroic sacrifices of our men and women in uniform by making this cover anyone in uniform. Mr. President, I do intend to oppose this amendment. I have 5 minutes before 1:45 p.m. Amendment No. 356 Mr. President, I also rise to oppose the amendment to fill the pay gap when Guard and Reserve are mobilized. This is the Durbin amendment. This emergency supplemental bill is not the proper legislative vehicle to add new benefits without approval of the committee of jurisdiction. The Senate Armed Services Committee, I am told, does not support the inclusion of this new benefit in our supplemental bill. The administration did not request that additional authority, and I am told it opposes this amendment. The proposed amendment, I believe, should be held for debate when the appropriate committee, such as the Armed Services Committee, brings the authorization bill before the Senate. The amendment to this bill would require Federal agencies to pay any difference between military pay and civilian compensation for employees of the Federal Government who either volunteer or are called to active duty. The estimate we received from the Congressional Budget Office is this is an additional cost of $152 million over a 5-year period. Reservists and guardsmen know when they are activated what their military pay will be, what their total compensation is. There is no misunderstanding about that. In an all-volunteer force, individuals choose whether they serve in the military. Certainly financial considerations enter into that decision, whether their service be full time or part time, with an obligation to answer the call of duty when necessary. When Guard and Reserve members train for mobilization, they understand they are subject to mobilization during war and national emergencies. The likelihood of mobilization is evident as the Department has been mobilizing Guard and Reserve members almost continuously for the past 13 years. More importantly, this provision would do a disservice to patriotic non-Federal reservists who are self-employed, small businessmen, or employees who do not receive such coverage as proposed by the Durbin amendment. In addition, the amendment would allow mobilized reservists to make significantly more than those active-duty service members whom they join when they are called up to serve in active duty. This could be interpreted by some active-duty members to mean that the Federal Government places a higher value on the service of those people who are called up temporarily than we do on those who are career military people. The amendment would cause a significant equity issue as far as the active-duty service members and I believe would negatively affect their morale. Requiring the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies to pay the differential salary limits the ability of agencies to accommodate staffing shortages through temporary personnel actions. Once these people are called up, the Department has to hire someone temporarily to take their place. The place is there for them when they come back, but they will not have the ability to have the money available if they have to pay this differential. This issue becomes more significant the longer the period of active duty. Another concern is that this amendment does not distinguish between Reservists who volunteer to perform active duty and those who are involuntarily called to active duty. Reservists who volunteer for duty can weigh the financial impact of such service when considering whether to apply for an assignment. Finally, Reserve service offers a robust pay and benefits package. With the support of Congress, military pay is now very competitive with pay in the private and public sectors and allowances are increasing to minimize out-of-pocket expenses. Any changes to Guard and Reserve compensation system should be assessed for the long term, not just during this current deployment. Questions regarding affordability and equity of benefits must be carefully weighed and answered before we legislate changes. This appropriation bill is not the appropriate legislative vehicle to set military compensation policy; this change should be considered by the Armed Services and Governmental Affairs Committees which have jurisdiction over these matters. Thus, we strongly recommend that the Senate hold this authorization measure for full consideration by the Armed Services and Governmental Affairs Committees. The amendment deserves adequate time for analysis and debate in light of the full system of military benefits and funding constraints. I strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we each have 1 more minute.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wish to address the Senator from Illinois because every person the Senator has mentioned in connection with Senator Kerry's amendment is covered. All the people on an airplane going to combat are covered. Any training-related combat, they are covered. The question is whether people who stand side by side with someone in the Pentagon working daily in uniform, a civilian person working the same job, whether one should be covered in the event of death and the other should not, whether one should be covered while driving home here in Washington, DC, after drinking too much, gets in an automobile accident, and get the same benefit a fallen hero gets. I ask the Senator if he would consider in connection with his amendment eliminating a request for the yeas and nays and we would be glad to accept that amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to table the Senator's amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct; we are willing to accept the second amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, that is amendment No. 334. I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall be vitiated and the Senate adopt that amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Amendment No. 333?