Floor Statements

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

cloture motion

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

The following executive reports of committees were submitted:

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following

nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the

dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the

expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these

nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information

of Senators.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Coast Guard nominations beginning with Curtis L. Sumrok and

ending with Jed R. Boba, which nominations were received by

the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on March

14, 2005.

Coast Guard nominations beginning with Michael T.

Cunningham and ending with David K. Young, which nominations

were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional

Record on March 14, 2005.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration nominations

beginning with Paul Andrew Kunicki and ending with Lindsey M.

Vandenberg, which nominations were received by the Senate and

appeared in the Congressional Record on April 4, 2005.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to table the Senator's amendment.

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

Mr. President, that is amendment No. 334.

I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall be vitiated and the Senate adopt that amendment.

Amendment No. 333?

Our records show it is amendment No. 334.

I am corrected; it is amendment No. 333.

I have made the motion we vitiate the rollcall and accept the amendment.

Mr. President, respectfully, the Senator from Massachusetts is wrong. Those who die in training or other activities related to combat are covered by our amendment. We sought to recognize fallen heroes from the time they enter training for combat to go overseas. They are covered by our amendment. What this amendment does is it does not give us the opportunity to recognize those who put their lives on the line. We oppose this amendment because of that fact. We do believe there ought to be a distinction.

The Senator's amendment will mean, if someone right here in this district while in uniform drinks too much and dies while driving home, they are going to get this gratuity, the same gratuity the fallen hero should get. It is wrong to cover anyone in uniform with this type of allowance. We have increased the insurance for everyone in uniform. They can buy up to $400,000. But raising this from $12,240 to $100,000--it should go to those related to combat and in combat.

Mr. President, I move to table this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Will the Senator from Maryland yield?

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. It is an amendment to restore the money for the initial design of the building for the National Intelligence Director. When this bill was before our committee, we reduced that amount at the time, but when the budget was presented, there was not a nominee for that office.

Yesterday, I presented to the Intelligence Committee Ambassador Negroponte to be the new NID and discussed this issue with him. It has become somewhat controversial. This amendment I have would restore the money our committee reduced in the line that deals with the NID. It has been cleared.

I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside temporarily so we may consider this amendment. It has been cleared on both sides.

No.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland. I have a request to set aside the Senator's amendment temporarily while we consider this amendment which has been cleared on both sides. It restores the original budget request for NID.

I offer the amendment on behalf of myself and the Senator from Hawaii, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be brought before the Senate, that it be adopted, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that we go back to the amendment of the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. President, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration represents our Nation's greatest hopes and aspirations. President Bush nominated Dr. Michael D. Griffin to be the next NASA Administrator on March 14, 2005. Dr. Griffin takes over an agency that is embarking on the President's Vision for Space Exploration, which will take America back to the moon and eventually to Mars. The Vision is NASA's biggest mission since the Apollo program began more than 40 years ago. Dr. Griffin will guide NASA on the first steps of this important journey that will define America's presence in space for the next several decades. At the same time, we still mourn the loss of the Columbia's crew as NASA readies the Space Shuttle for its return to flight next month. Dr. Griffin's first task will be to ensure that the shuttle program gets back on its feet safely and effectively. NASA needs its next Administrator immediately, and I thank the Senate for agreeing to the request from Senator Inouye and myself to discharge and approve this nomination.

Dr. Griffin's extensive background in space and science will serve him and NASA well. He is currently head of the Space Department at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Previously, Dr. Griffin was President and Chief Operating Officer of In-Q-Tel, an independent, nonprofit venture group chartered to identify and invest in cutting-edge commercial technologies for intelligence community applications. He has also served as CEO of the Magellan Systems Division of Orbital Sciences Corporation, as General Manager of Orbital's Space Systems Group, and as the company's Executive Vice President/Chief Technical Officer. Prior to joining Orbital, he was Senior Vice President for Program Development at Space Industries International, and General Manager of the Space Industries Division in Houston.

Dr. Griffin has served in a number of Governmental positions. With NASA, he served as both the Chief Engineer and the Associate Administrator for Exploration, and within the Department of Defense-- DOD--he served as the Deputy for Technology at the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization--SDIO. Before joining SDIO, Dr. Griffin played a leading role in numerous space missions while employed at the Johns Hopkins APL, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Computer Sciences Corporation. He holds seven degrees in the fields of physics, electrical engineering, aerospace engineering, civil engineering, and business administration, and has been an Adjunct Professor at the George Washington University, the Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland. He is the lead author on more than two dozen technical papers and the textbook Space Vehicle Design. He is a recipient of the NASA Exceptional Achievement Medal and the DOD Distinguished Public Service Medal. He is also a Registered Professional Engineer in Maryland and California, and a Certified Flight Instructor with instrument and multi-engine ratings.

Dr. Griffin succeeds a close friend and former leader of my staff, Sean O'Keefe. Sean did an admirable job getting the agency's finances under control and, more importantly, holding NASA together after the Columbia tragedy. We were lucky NASA had such a leader during that trying time. At the Commerce Committee's hearing on Dr. Griffin's nomination I spoke of my recent travels with Sean, during which I was approached repeatedly by people who raved about Dr. Griffin. They all said he was the man for the job if he could be convinced to accept it. I am pleased the President appointed Dr. Griffin and I look forward to working closely with him and his team of talented professionals.

Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor to support the defense portion of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill before us. I thank Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd for their support of the funding requested by the Pentagon to continue the efforts of our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism.

The bill has been highlighted by the chairman and Senator Byrd. It provides $73.3 billion in new discretionary spending authority for the Department of Defense programs. Most of those funds are to continue the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we also have authorized use of that to pay back those accounts from which funds were borrowed during the first half of the current fiscal year on an emergency basis for continued operations in those areas.

Mr. President, $17.5 billion of this money will go toward military appropriations accounts. Those moneys are used to fund pay allowances and subsistence and other personnel costs for active Guard and Reserve troops activated for duty throughout the world.

This bill also includes funding for special pay, such as imminent danger pay, family separation allowances, and hardship duty pay.

We also provide additional funds for the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Program and for an enhanced death gratuity. Specifically, this bill increases service members' insurance coverage from $250,000 to $400,000 and raises the death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000. This has been requested, and Congress has authorized to fund these enhanced benefits to cover those military personnel who have been or may be killed in combat operations.

We recommend an increase in the death gratuity benefit to cover those service members killed in training or in other combat-related activities. Almost half of the defense portion of this bill goes toward the operation and maintenance accounts of the Department of Defense-- $37.4 billion. Now,

this reflects the cost of ground operations, flying hours, logistics support, fuel, travel, transportation, and support of the global war on terrorism.

Additionally, it will finance the repair and refurbishment of equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure that our forces remain ready to meet global operational commitments.

The bill provides $15.9 billion for procurement activity across the military. It funds force protection equipment, replacement and repair of equipment lost in operations, and the equipping of units to support upcoming rotations. Senior Department of Defense officials informed our committee that they need to receive this supplemental funding by early May in order not to impact readiness levels.

We all know it will take some time to take this bill through conference, so I urge the Senate to complete action on the supplemental bill as soon as possible so that we can proceed to confer with our friends in the House and give this bill to the President for signature so it can be reviewed by the processes downtown, which takes at least 10 days, and get this money to the Department in time to meet these contingencies so they don't have to borrow additional moneys from other accounts. It complicates the operation when that continues.

I hope Senators will come forward with their amendments, if they have any, on this portion of the supplemental bill.

Again, I commend our distinguished chairman and senior ranking member, Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd, for their cooperation with us in bringing this portion of this bill before the Senate. We are a little bit lower than the House, and the bill is lower than the President's request. I think as matters continue we are going to have to review the numbers and make sure we meet the pressing, urgent needs of those who wear the uniform of the United States.

Again, I urge Senators to come forward and make suggestions for amendments, if they have them. I look forward to continued support of this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Katy Hagan, a detailee with the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, be granted privileges of the floor during consideration of this bill.

The amendment to strip development in ANWR from the budget yesterday ignores the outlook for the global consumption of oil. I am pleased that the Senate took a proactive approach to our current energy crisis, and voted to keep ANWR in the budget.

After listening at length to the statements of those opposed to responsible development on Alaska's North Slope, I was struck by the lack of concern over the national security implications of our dependence on foreign oil.

The global outlook for oil consumption is sobering, and it validates our decision yesterday to increase our domestic production by opening ANWR. One of the most serious areas of concern is the projected increase in China's oil consumption, which is set to grow at staggering rates.

China's economy is doubling every 8 to 10 years. This level of growth is expected to continue for at least 25 years.

To do this, China will need access to an increasing supply of oil. Milton Copulos, the President of the National Defense Council Foundation, told our House colleagues yesterday that fueling this economic growth will require ``so much oil . . . that the ability of current suppliers to produce it may be stretched to the breaking point.''

Jeffery Logan, Senior Energy Analyst and China Program Manager for the International Energy Agency, testified that, the average Chinese citizen consumed only one fourteenth of the oil consumed by the average American in 2004, but Chinese consumption is poised to increase rapidly.

Mr. Logan noted that in late 2003 China surpassed Japan to become the world's second largest petroleum consumer. He said:

In 2004, Chinese demand expanded nearly 16 percent to 6.83

million barrels per day . . . [but] Domestic crude output in

China has grown only very slowly over the past five years . .

. Imports now account for 40 percent of Chinese oil demand.

To put this in perspective, Chinese oil consumption was responsible for 40 percent of the growth in global oil demand over the past four years. This trend will continue and China's consumption is projected to rise from 5.56 million barrels per day in 2003 to 12.8 million barrels in 2025.

Mr. Logan told the subcommittee that eventually China's ``import dependency'' will reach 75 percent stressing an already tenuous world oil supply.

Milton Copulos explained the consequences of this increase in Chinese consumption. He said:

Under the best circumstances, the competition for oil

generated by the explosive economic growth in Asia will serve

to put a tremendous upward pressure on prices, driving them

well above the current $50 plus per barrel average. OPEC

officials have said oil prices could rise to as much as $80 a

barrel and they may well be correct.

Under the worst circumstances, . . . the competition for

oil could lead to armed conflict--particularly with China.

I remember well the days of the 1970's oil embargo, and I agree with Mr. Copulos that, ``America is heading head-long into a disaster. Today our situation is far worse in 1973.''

I also agree with his assessment that:

The simple truth is that America's energy endowment is more

than sufficient to provide for all of our needs, both today

and in the future. The only real shortfall that we have is a

shortfall of the political will to find innovative ways to

fully utilize the resources we are blessed with.

Mr. Copulos discussed several areas where having the political will to take action could help turn our situation around. As an Alaskan, I am proud that our state can play a key role in the solutions he proposed.

The reality that some people do not want to face is the world is changing. China's economy is growing at a staggering pace, and without new domestic production, our country will face unimaginable competition for oil. ANWR is part of the solution to this looming crisis, and I am pleased Congress has finally had the political will to face this challenge and take proactive steps to prevent it.

Mr. President, I have introduced today the Graduation Really Achieves Dreams, GRAD, Act, which will help improve our nation's graduation rate by authorizing a program that has a proven track record--Project GRAD USA. I am joined by my colleagues, Senators Frist, Clinton, Alexander, DeWine, Hutchison and Specter.

Currently in our Nation, we graduate only 70 percent of our students from high school. In high poverty urban districts, we often graduate fewer than half that many--one in three. In rural areas, where one- third of American students are educated--only 58.8 percent of students attend colleges and

universities, compared with 68.2 percent in urban and suburban areas. The problem is especially acute in Alaska, where Alaska Natives are almost twice as likely as other students to drop out of high school.

We must provide better support and resources for our most vulnerable students. Project GRAD USA is already doing that job in 12 sites nationwide, including one in my own State of Alaska.

Project GRAD USA is a national program to increase the number of low- income and at-risk students who attend college and earn degrees. Unlike other national programs, Project GRAD USA is a comprehensive non-profit K-12 education reform program. It serves at-risk students, beginning in kindergarten, and staying with them through college, by offering research-based programs in reading, math, classroom management, social services, and college preparation. Students who qualify then receive a four-year college scholarship. Scholarships are funded by private- industry donations and foundation grants, as well as previously- appropriated Federal dollars.

In Alaska, Project GRAD established a program in the Kenai Peninsula and serves six K-12 schools and one K-10 school, reaching 600 students. Three schools serve small Alaska Native communities; three serve Russian Old Believer communities; and the seventh school serves a mixed community of Alaska Natives, Russians and other Caucasians. More than 47 percent of the students Project GRAD Kenai serves are at poverty level, and 49.2 percent of Kenai students report that a language other than English is spoken at home. Project GRAD is committed to maintaining cultural relevance in each of the schools it serves and creating individualized components developed with community leaders, teachers and families.

This legislation would provide funds so Project GRAD can continue to grow in the States where it now operates and expand its proven model elsewhere. It also requires the local sites to match federal funds it receives with local dollars and in-kind support. In this way, federal funds are leveraged to increase support for needed educational reform and enhancement.

When I visit the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska, I see first hand the impact Project GRAD has made on the students in this district as well as the significant economic impact to the overall Peninsula. In the first five years of the program, over $6 million will be invested in program development and implementation and nearly $250,000 will be awarded in scholarships.

Project GRAD USA has proven its effectiveness nationwide and now serves over 133,000 students. High school graduation rates for long- term participants have increased by 85 percent, and those who have gone on to college have earned college degrees at a rate of 89 percent above the national average. These results have not gone unnoticed as President Bush and Majority Leader Frist have both strongly supported the program. Further, Fortune magazine chose GRAD as its ``charity of choice'' for 2004.

Proven education, retention and graduation initiatives aimed at our students most at-risk deserve every policy maker's attention as we aim to do the most good with limited resources. I am proud to support this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to join me to ensure Project GRAD's continued success for our children.