Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvements Act of 2012

Madam President, I want to describe to the Senate what we just did. It is a little different from what we sometimes do around here, which is we have long threats of filibusters on motions to proceed; then, we, finally, often or sometimes reach unanimous consent agreements to proceed. What we did here--and it was very deliberate-- was to proceed by motion, not by unanimous consent, to this bill so that if persons were going to filibuster the motion to proceed, they were then going to have to come to the floor and debate it--not just simply threaten to filibuster the motion to proceed, but they would have to come and actually debate it. Because I believe that is the correct way for us to operate.

Motions to proceed, I believe, have been abused. The threats to filibuster those motions have been allowed to be successful. One way we can overcome what has been a bad habit of allowing threats to filibuster motions to proceed to succeed is to basically tell those folks, our colleagues, that if they want to filibuster a motion to proceed--in this case, the Defense authorization bill--they are going to have to come over and filibuster.

This is something which is significant. It may sound like a nuance to many. I think it probably would to most outside this body and our staffs as to what I am saying. But it is important to those of us who are trying hard to get this body to be more functional that we use the existing rules--and I am all in favor of rules changes, by the way--but that we use in the meantime the existing rules to get this body more functional than it is right now. And one of those existing rules is the one we just used, which is to proceed by a motion to proceed, and then to indicate, as our leader just did, there appears to be no one who wishes to be recognized to debate it, and then for the Chair to put the question, the Presiding Officer to then put the question to the body: All those in favor of the motion say ``aye,'' all those opposed say ``nay.'' The ayes have it, and now we are on the bill.

So, Madam President, I have a long opening statement. I will, however, with the assistance here of my friend, Senator McCain, also make the following statement. There is no cloture motion which is filed or pending. We hope we can adopt this bill without a cloture motion. We are hopeful that people who have amendments will bring them over. We will try to dispose of them, either by saying we could agree to them or we cannot agree and putting them in line for debate; but proceeding in a way that if folks, colleagues, have amendments, they bring over those amendments and let us try to work those amendments through this process without having to go through cloture and without having to set aside pending amendments in order to make other amendments pending.

If we can proceed without a cloture motion, we are not going to have to use that process of setting aside pending amendments, making other amendments pending, because if we can avoid a cloture motion, we are not going to have a postcloture period where that pendency of amendments becomes relevant. If we are not going to need to go to a cloture, then it is not relevant that an amendment is made pending because the bill is open to amendment. That is what we are hoping to do.

We are willing to stay here late hours. Senator McCain and I have spent a lot of time talking about this--we spent a lot of time getting this bill to the floor, by the way; and it came out of our committee unanimously--but we spent a lot of time talking about how do we get this bill done in 3 days because that is what we told the majority leader we think we can do. By the way, that is all the time we are going to have. The majority leader has made it clear we do not have more than 3 days.

We want colleagues, Senators, who have amendments to bring those amendments to us. We will try, if we cannot resolve them, to put them in packages. If they need to be debated and voted on, that is fine. That is what we are here for. We are going to then try to line up those amendments so that we will go back and forth to the extent we can between Democrats and Republicans offering amendments and voting on those amendments.

So, therefore, I intend to object, in the absence of a cloture motion being filed, to laying aside amendments because, again, in the absence of a cloture motion pending, there is no need to do that and it confuses and complicates the life of the managers of this bill. So I want to make that clear to our colleagues.

I wonder if Senator McCain might have a comment on that.

Madam President, I thank my good friend from Arizona for those comments.

Madam President, on behalf of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am pleased to bring S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013, to the Senate floor. The Armed Services Committee approved the bill by a unanimous, 26-0 vote, making this the 51st consecutive year that our committee has reported a defense authorization act. Every previous bill has been enacted into law.

This year's bill would authorize $631.4 billion for national defense programs--the same amount as the President's budget request and $31 billion less than the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2012. U.S. forces are drawing down in Afghanistan and are no longer deployed in Iraq. However, real threats to our national security remain and our forces are deployed throughout the globe. I am pleased that this bill provides our men and women in uniform the funding and support that they need as they engage in continued combat in Afghanistan, work to track down al-Qaida and associated forces in the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa, and perform other military missions around the world.

First and foremost, this bill continues the increases in compensation and quality of life that our service men and women and their families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing military operations around the world. For example, the bill authorizes a 1.7 percent across-the-board pay raise for all military personnel, extends over 30 types of bonuses and special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment, reenlistment, and continued service by active-duty and reserve military personnel, and authorizes increases to several of these bonuses; does not accept Department of Defense proposals that would have increased the cost of medical care for service members and their families by establishing enrollment fees for TRICARE Standard and TRICARE for Life, and increasing TRICARE deductibles and the annual catastrophic cap; authorizes $30 million in supplemental impact aid and related education programs for the children of service members, and adjusts the impact aid formula to alleviate delays in impact aid funds; requires the Secretary of Defense to provide recommendations for statutory or regulatory changes to further increase career and service opportunities for women in the armed forces; and strengthens protections on consumer credit for members of the armed forces.

The bill includes funding needed to provide our troops the equipment and support that they need in Afghanistan, while preparing the way for a transition of responsibility to Afghan forces. For example, the bill funds the President's request for $88 billion for overseas contingency operations; fully funds the President's request for $5.7 billion to train and equip the Afghan National Army and Afghan Police--growing the capabilities of these security forces so those forces can continue the transition to taking the security lead throughout Afghanistan by 2014; reauthorizes the use of DOD funds to support a program to reintegrate insurgent fighters into Afghan society at the requested level of $35.0 million; reauthorizes the Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan with a reduction in the Administration's request, given reductions to U.S. force levels in Afghanistan; reauthorizes the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund at a reduced level and restricts the availability of the authorized funds until the Secretary of Defense submits information on how new projects will be sustained following completion; and requires an independent assessment of the size and structure requirements of the Afghanistan National Security Forces necessary to ensure that Afghan forces are capable of providing security for their own country after 2014.

The bill also contains a number of provisions that will help improve the management of the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. For example, the bill enhances protections for contractor employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse on DOD contracts; restricts the use of ``pass-through'' contracts by requiring that at least 50 percent of the work on any service contract be performed by the prime contractor or by a subcontractor identified in the contract; lowers the cap on contractor salaries and compensation that is allowable for DOD reimbursement from $750,000 to $230,700; prohibits the use of cost-type contracts for the production of major weapon systems, with limited exceptions; and adds $59 million to enable the DOD IG to provide more effective oversight and help identify waste,

fraud, and abuse in DOD programs, especially in the area of procurement.

There are a number of controversial issues that are not addressed in this bill.

First, the sole detainee-related provision in this bill is a one-year extension of existing language addressing certifications for transfers of GITMO detainees and the construction of facilities inside the United States to house GITMO detainees. I understand that some of my colleagues would like to revisit issues we addressed last year regarding the authority to detain individuals apprehended in the course of our ongoing fight with al-Qaida, the Taliban, and associated forces, and they have that right, but those issues are not addressed in the bill reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Second, the bill does not authorize new rounds of base closures, as requested by the administration. In fact, the bill includes a one-year moratorium on implementing any realignment that would result in a military installation falling under the threshold for closure without going through the BRAC process. The Department of Defense has achieved savings through previous BRAC rounds, but there are other options-- including further reductions to our overseas basing structure--that should be considered to achieve savings before Congress authorizes a new round of base closures inside the United States.

Third, in accordance with the policy that the Armed Services Committee has adopted over the last two years, the bill does not contain any earmarks, as defined in rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate. I continue to believe that we it is wrong for us to give up the power of the purse given to Congress in the Constitution. I don't believe that the executive branch has a monopoly on good ideas; in fact, I think that we are often more receptive to creative, new ideas that can lead to advances in the national defense than the defense bureaucracy is. Nonetheless, there are no earmarks in this bill.

Finally, I would like to discuss four issues in the bill that are of particular importance to the Department of Defense and the Nation.

First, the budget proposal included a plan by the Air Force to retire or realign various aviation units, resulting in a 4.8 percent reduction to the Air National Guard, compared to a reduction of only 1.2 percent to the active duty Air Force. The Air Force provided no convincing justification for the imbalance in these cuts. Some of the proposed cuts in National Guard force structure were accompanied by proposed increases in active duty force structure for the same aircraft. The rationale provided for other cuts was inconsistent with statements that the Air Force made as recently as two years ago about the capability of its aircraft. In fact, the Air Force was unable even to provide the committee with consistent numbers documenting the impact of the proposed cuts on affected locations.

The bill before us rejects the Air Force plan and fully restores $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2013 funding for the force structure that the Air Force proposed to cut--without increasing the overall top-line of the defense budget. While we understand that the Air Force has to make tough choices in its budget, major changes in Air Force structure are too important to be made without the support of objective analysis. For this reason, the committee bill would delay the actions proposed by the Air Force and instead establish a national commission to provide an objective analysis of how the structure of the Air Force should be modified to best fulfill current and anticipated mission requirements in a manner consistent with available resources. It is our expectation that this analysis will provide a far more sound and defensible basis for future force structure decisions.

Second, the bill establishes a Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission to review elements of military compensation and retirement benefits with the objective of modernizing these systems, ensuring the long-term viability and sustainability of All- Volunteer force, and enabling a high quality of life for military families. In proposing such a commission, the Department of Defense took note of significant changes in the demographics of the national workforce and private sector retirement plans, concerns about the extent to which military compensation is deferred and the vesting of benefits is delayed, and the continuing fiscal pressures on the nation. As recommended by the Department, the provision in our bill provides for expedited legislative consideration of the commission's recommendations--including an up-or-down vote on those recommendations without amendment. Our legislation would ensure that proposed changes do not break faith with the current force by expressly requiring that the commission's recommendations grandfather all members serving in the armed forces as of the date of enactment of the provision.

Third, the bill includes a provision requiring the Department of Defense to develop and implement a plan to reduce the size of its workforce of civilian employees and contractor employees by an amount commensurate with the 5 percent reduction in military end-strength planned through fiscal year 2017. This provision recognizes the reality that a reduction in military end-strength and force structure should be accompanied by a comparable reduction in supporting elements.

In recent years, we have come to understand the critical role played by the acquisition workforce--and the risk that we could lose billions of dollars in failed acquisition programs by trying save millions of dollars in ill-advised cuts to that workforce. But it is not just the acquisition workforce that plays a critical role in ensuring that our military is prepared to meet current and future challenges. DOD's civilian workforce also includes 45,000 nurses, pharmacists, and other medical professionals; 86,000 personnel in cybersecurity, information assurance and related fields; 15,000 personnel in science and technology; and 6,000 personnel in intelligence functions. Our civilian employee workforce plays a critical role in ensuring that our troops get the supplies that they need, that they receive the pay that they earn, that their bases are safe and well-maintained, and that their children receive the education that they deserve. Without this workforce, we would not be able to build, test, and maintain the weapon systems we need to face today's challenges, and we would not be able to conduct the research and development we need to keep our technological edge into the future.

In the current budget environment, however, no area of the Department of Defense can be off limits as we look for savings. I am well aware that the Department has already developed plans to reduce its civilian employee workforce by two to three percent over a 5-year period, and is achieving additional savings through an ongoing pay freeze for its civilian employees. However, these efficiencies initiatives were developed before the current budget crunch and fall short of the 5 percent reduction planned for military end strength. The cuts imposed on the Department's contractor employee workforce have been significantly less deep. The provision in our bill should ensure that savings achieved in the Department's civilian personnel workforce and contractor employee workforce are brought in line with the savings achieved through the newer, deeper cuts to military end strength. It is our expectation that the Department will utilize a deliberative, needs- based planning process to achieve this objective.

Finally, the bill includes a number of provisions on energy conservation, energy research, and alternative fuels. The Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of energy in the United States, spending close to $20 billion a year on purchases of fuel and electricity. I am pleased that the bill authorizes $150 million for the Energy Conservation Investment Program and $200 million for the research of innovative technologies, including technologies that will enhance energy security and independence, through the Rapid Innovation Program. In the long run, these 12 investments should result in substantial savings in fuel costs, reduce logistics requirements for military operations, and enhance our energy security.

The bill also contains two provisions--each adopted on a razor-thin 13-12 vote--restricting the Department's continued investment in alternative

fuels. The first provision prohibits the use of fiscal year 2013 funds for the production or purchase of an alternative fuel if the cost exceeds the cost of traditional fossil fuels available for the same use. The second provision prohibits the Department from entering into a contract to plan, design, or construct a biofuels refinery or any other facility or infrastructure used to refine biofuels, unless specifically authorized by law. These provisions may result in short-term savings, but they will impose significant long-term costs by undermining the Department's efforts to diversify its fuel supplies and enhance its energy independence and security. It is my expectation that we will revisit these provisions as we debate this bill on the Senate floor.

As of today, we have roughly 1.4 million U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines serving on active duty--with tens of thousands engaged in combat in Afghanistan and stationed in other regional hotspots around the globe. While there are issues on which Members may disagree, we all know that we must provide our troops the support they need. Senate action on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform and their families. It will give them the tools that they need to remain the most effective fighting force in the world. Most important of all, it will send an important message that we, as a Nation, stand behind them and appreciate their service.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this vital legislation.

Amendment No. 2985

Senator Udall's amendment is now pending, and I am wondering whether there is a time agreement yet on this amendment and, if not, whether we can work on a time agreement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. today the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Udall amendment No. 2985; further, that there be no second-degree amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I support the amendment introduced by Senator Udall of Colorado. The purpose of this amendment is to strike section 313 from the National Defense Authorization Act that would place undue restrictions on Department of Defense's alternative energy investments. This provision, during our committee mark-up, passed by the closest of margins by a 13-12 vote.

Section 313 aims to block the Department from purchasing or producing alternative fuels if the cost exceeds that of traditional fossil fuels. This would force key decisions regarding energy security to be made exclusively on the basis of cost, without regard for the mission, military capability, or circumstance.

Maybe the intent of section 313 to kill the alternative fuel project currently being conducted under the authority of the Defense Production Act, Title III. However, the impact this provision would have on our military operators, creates a real strategic vulnerability to our men and women on the ground, which reach far beyond biofuels. For example, if the Department wanted to deploy a hydrogen-fueled unmanned aerial vehicle that could operate for an extended duration in a combat zone, this amendment would prevent that since the cost of hydrogen fuel may be higher than a traditional fossil fuel. Or if the Department wanted to generate fuel or energy at tactical locations, including waste-to- energy technology, which the DOD is exploring today, section 313 would again prevent that. Section 313 may also prevent the Department from purchasing non-traditional fossil fuels, such as E85 or B20 biofuel blends, for flex fuel vehicles. Potentially, any fuel which is not a ``traditional fossil fuel'' could be affected.

Mr. President, the sponsors of section 313 have focused on current high costs associated with the production of alternative fuels. However, Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, has already testified before the Armed Services Committee that the Navy will not purchase any alternative fuel for operational purposes until they are cost- competitive with traditional fossil fuels. It's as simple as that. The Department is positioning itself to take advantage of drop-in alternative fuels when they are cost competitive with traditional fossil fuels. This is a prudent insurance policy that requires investments today, which section 313 would prevent.

For years now, the Department has been subjected to significant spikes in the global price of oil, which has created huge bills to pay, leaving less funding for training exercises, flying hours, steaming days, and other negative impacts to readiness. The Department estimates that for every 25 cent increase in the prices of a gallon of oil, it costs the DOD an additional $1 billion to cover the costs, whether it is a result of foreign actions or natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. The advancement of a reliable, domestic energy source such as biofuel would provide us with a safeguard against such unpredictable expenses. In my view, global price volatility is a burden the Department should not be subjected to, particularly if it can be avoided by establishing a viable domestic alternative. Yet section 313 appears designed to ensure that the DOD remains entirely dependent upon traditional fossil fuels.

Admittedly, the current price for alternative fuel is high. For example, the Navy purchased biofuel this past July for demonstration purposes at approximately $16 per gallon. Yet small batches of any new technology are expensive, as that is the very nature of research and development. With time to develop a domestic alternative fuel market, the costs of alternative fuels will continue to drop, as the price has already been cut in half since 2009. Furthermore, our military has a rich history of innovation. Investments in technology such as global positioning services, microchips, and the Internet have each carried with them significant up-front costs, but have ultimately paid sizeable dividends far beyond their initial military usage.

The Navy has a notable and effective track record in the arena of alternative fuel development, going back to when the Navy first switched from sails to steam and coal in the 1850s. Once again from coal to oil around the time of World War I, and in the 1950s from oil to nuclear propulsion for aircraft carriers and submarines. And each period has had its complement of critics. Yet think of where we would be today without that long-term eye toward innovation and military capability.

In section 313 there is yet another practical problem in its exception clause, which allows the Department to continue engine or fleet certification of 50/50 fuel blends. That is far too narrow

to cover the wide-ranging array of research and development activities conducted by the Department. In the future, it may be determined that the proper ratio for a weapons platform requires a blend of 60/40, or 70/30. Limiting the DOD to only 50/50 blends would put an entirely arbitrary restriction upon the Department, and is simply not wise.

Mr. President, the DOD and Secretary Mabus have told us that the development of a domestic capability to produce cost-competitive advanced drop-in biofuels at a commercial scale is important to our long-term national security. It is a core defense need. We were also reminded of our strategic vulnerability to fossil fuels and the need to improve our energy security in the last iteration of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. There are valid questions concerning how much a gallon of biofuel will cost in the long run compared to a traditional fossil fuel. Last year alone, the DOD purchased billions of gallons of fuel at a cost of $15.3 billion to conduct worldwide military operations. And we now pay 225 percent more for fossil fuel than we did just 10 years ago. And 12 percent of our gross domestic product goes to fuel for automobiles. By striking section 313, we allow the DOD the freedom to pursue a domestic production capability and it is a smart long-term investment.

Keeping section 313 would hinder efforts currently underway to curtail our reliance on foreign oil by fostering a domestic biofuel capacity. Those in opposition to the Department's alternative energy investments have argued that the cost of these initiatives is too high. They claim that the money would be better spent on other priorities within the DOD. Mr. President, these arguments are shortsighted. The Department has told us that investment in alternative fuels represents less than 4 percent of the Department's total planned investment in operational energy initiatives over the next 5 years, and less than 0.6 percent of what the Department spent on fuel last year. Our military leaders have stated time and again that it is in our national security interest to make these strategic investments, that there is a concrete need to increase flexibility and insulate our forces against volatility in the global oil market. For the future, our men and women in uniform will need alternative fuels to keep our supplies diverse and effective, especially for our legacy fleet of ships and planes, which will be with us for decades to come. The DOD has been examining, testing, and certifying alternative fuels for operational use since 2003. Last July, the Navy successfully demonstrated biofuels with no operational differences in the performance of their ships and aircraft. These efforts are relatively small, yet an important part of the Department's strategy to improve energy security.

Section 313 is in direct conflict with these goals. Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is a strategic vision that has been articulated and embraced in the past on a bipartisan basis--by President George W. Bush in his 2006 State of the Union Address and by a large bipartisan majority in Congress in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. That bipartisan path is still the best approach today.

I thank Senator Udall and the co-sponsors for introducing this important amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this effort to ensure that our military has the flexibility necessary to meet their energy requirements and bolster our national security, by striking section 313.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Boxer also be allocated 5 minutes to speak on the pending amendment.

Can I ask the Senator from Montana if he wishes to speak on the Udall amendment?

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on Senator McCain's amendment No. 3051. We are not quite ready.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be allocated 5 minutes of debate time on the Udall amendment.

We are waiting for just one further word on the McCain amendment. We hope to be able to voice-vote that in the next few minutes.

Mr. President, I support the McCain amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, was Senator Boxer's 5 minutes agreed to?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period of debate only on S. 3254, the Defense authorization bill, until 2 p.m.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the consideration of amendment No. 3016 of Senator Gillibrand.

I was going to add something further to the request, and that is that there be 5 minutes of debate on the Gillibrand amendment and then Senator Mikulski be recognized to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the Gillibrand amendment.

I know of no further debate on the Gillibrand amendment.

I understand under the unanimous consent agreement the Senator from Maryland is to be recognized for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois be allocated 7 minutes to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, for his willingness to sit down and try to work this out in a way which is satisfactory to him and the Foreign Relations Committee. We very much appreciate that. We know what he is after and we believe there should be consultation. So we are trying to make that happen.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to commend and thank Senator Murray for her huge effort in this area. Her efforts on behalf of our veterans and our troops have been instrumental in bringing some of the corrections that are needed to the forefront, and we very much welcome this amendment. It touches issues which are very much on the minds of most Americans; that is, the mental health care we provide for our veterans and for our troops.

I simply not only support this amendment, but I wish to commend Senator Murray for her leadership and her initiative and I hope and believe it can be passed on a voice vote.

Will the Senator from Vermont yield?

Madam President, could I say, I thank my dear and old friend from Michigan. I was recollecting that he and I have now worked together for over a quarter of a century. But far more important than that, this legislation and how we handle it, I say to all my colleagues, can be a model for how this body should do business: Take up a piece of legislation, have amendments and debate, and move forward. If that requires long hours, and even occasionally a Friday or even more, then I think our colleagues should be prepared to do that. We are not sent here for a 3-day workweek. We are sent here to do the people's business.

I am not proud, Madam President--and I will not point fingers at anybody--it was judged by historians the last session of Congress was the least productive since 1947. Now, maybe Senator Levin and I were around in 1947, but we do not remember exactly what happened in those days. But the fact is that when we are looking at basically continuous gridlock, day after day, week after week, month after month, then we have to change the way we do business.

Hanging over all this, I say to my friends on this side of the aisle, is a change in the rules, which could cause what we used to call the nuclear option, which we were able to avoid some years ago when this sort of same thing was contemplated on the confirmation process of judges.

So we are now proceeding, I say to my friend from Michigan, without a motion to proceed, without a cloture vote, without the normal parliamentary back and forth that takes up 2 or 3 days of every week here, and we want people to come to the floor, have amendments--as there is one pending from the Senator from Colorado--we debate it openly and honestly, we have votes on it, and we move forward. If it requires quite a while--because we are talking about this Nation's security, the National Defense Authorization

Act--then we should be willing to spend those hours on it.

So it seems to me, if we can do what the distinguished chairman and I contemplate; that is, that we move forward with the amendments, we have open and honest debate--we will work with any of our Members to try to make sure their issues and their amendments get the consideration they deserve. But we also may have to put in long hours in order to do so. There is no reason to use a parliamentary mechanism to keep us from addressing this Nation's national security. The lives of the men and women who are serving are dependent upon the work we are doing, and for someone--individual Members of this body--to hold up the whole process because of his or her specific issue is not appropriate treatment of this issue.

I urge all my colleagues to cooperate. I believe we can show the entire country that we are capable of moving forward and addressing the issues in a measured, mature, and productive fashion, which is what the American people are demanding of us. I do not need to remind my colleagues of our approval ratings. But there is ample reason for that disapproval because we have not moved forward and done the people's business.

Again, I urge all my colleagues to show the kind of forbearance and the kind of maturity that is necessary in order to complete this legislation.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my friend from Michigan, Chairman Levin, for his leadership in writing this year's Defense authorization bill. We have worked together for many years now, and the chairman has set a high standard of cooperation and bipartisanship that befits the esteemed history of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

I am pleased that we will finally have the opportunity to discuss and debate this crucial piece of bipartisan legislation, which has been on the Senate's calendar for almost 6 months. My colleagues and I have come to the Senate floor numerous times during those months to ask the majority leader to call up the Defense authorization bill. While I had hoped to get started on this bill much earlier, I do appreciate the majority leader's offer to bring up the bill with an open process for dealing with amendments. Unfortunately, here we are, with only a few weeks left in this Congress, just beginning debate on one of the most critical pieces of legislation the Congress annually considers. So I ask my colleagues' cooperation in offering relevant amendments with limited time for debate, so that we may afford all Senators an opportunity to address their ideas and concerns with respect to national defense.

Because of the delay in bringing up this bill, we are considering the Defense authorization bill under the imminent threat of budget sequestration mandated by last year's Budget Control Act. Pentagon leadership has repeatedly warned that these automatic, across-the-board cuts to defense spending, totaling almost half a trillion dollars over the next decade, would devastate the Department's ability to provide for the Nation's defense. Sequestration would undermine the readiness of the armed services; dramatically reduce our ability to project power and defend our interests at a time when the world is becoming more dangerous; jeopardize the livelihood of civilian and uniformed personnel alike; and bring with it the likelihood of hundreds of thousands of layoffs. Furthermore, the way in which these cuts would be applied will likely require that thousands of contracts be terminated and renegotiated at a huge cost to the taxpayer.

It is unconscionable that the President has not come to the Congress with a proposal to avoid the devastation of sequestration, not only on our national security but on our economic security as well. It has been over a year since the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, or supercommittee, admitted defeat, and the President has shown no leadership and offered no solutions to the impending sequestration. Many of us in this body have been meeting and discussing potential alternatives to sequestration. Sequestration will take effect on January 2, just a short time from now. We need leadership to avoid this disaster and to address the spending and revenue issues that have brought our Nation to the fiscal cliff.

The Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act contains many ``must pass'' authorizations, including a pay raise for our men and women in the Armed Forces, bonuses, health care, and quality of life programs that are essential to the readiness of our Armed Forces and the well-being of their families. The bill helps to address the needs of wounded service members and their families. Military construction and family housing projects cannot proceed without the specific authorizations contained in this bill.

This bill also includes important authorities that support our national security objectives around the world, including an extension of the Afghan Security Forces Fund, a program instrumental to our efforts to build the capacity of the Afghan Army and Police. It also extends the CERP program which provides commanders on the ground with the ability to fund small-scale humanitarian projects that directly benefit the Afghan people, as well as the Coalition Support Funds program which reimburses cooperating nations supporting the effort in Afghanistan. The bill also contains a provision mandating an independent assessment of the size, structure, and capability requirements of the Afghanistan National Security Forces necessary to provide enduring security for their country so it does not revert to a safe haven for international terrorism.

In the area of military compensation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the President's request for fiscal year 2013 for pay and benefits of current and retired members of the military represents more than one-quarter of DOD's total base budget request. In light of this, the bill would establish a Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission to review these benefits and recommend any future changes necessary to ensure both quality of life and sustainable benefits for those who serve.

In the area of acquisition and contracting, the bill includes provisions that would improve how the Department buys weapons systems and other goods and services by prohibiting the use of cost-type contracts for the production of major weapon systems; requiring the Department to revise its ``profit policy'' to make sure that it effectively incentivizes contractors to control costs; requiring that the Department notify Congress of potential termination liability on contracts for major weapon systems; and calling on the Department to improve its guidance on how it procures capability in response to ``joint emergent operational needs''.

Several provisions in the bill continue the committee's strong oversight of troubled programs. The bill fences 50 percent of the funding for the second Ford-class aircraft carrier until the Navy submits a report on how it will control its construction costs, while the accompanying Senate report directs the Navy to recertify the current $8.1 billion cost cap on CVN-79. Other provisions enhance oversight of, and transparency into, the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship Mission Packages; subject how the Air Force maintains and modernizes F-22A aircraft to greater oversight; and continue strong oversight of the F-35 program.

This year's bill also contains important initiatives intended to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars by codifying the 2014 goal for the Department of Defense to achieve an auditable statement of budgetary resources; requiring the implementation of recommendations provided by the GAO to eliminate duplicative programs and functions; imposing additional protections for DOD whistleblowers; and requiring a detailed cost estimate and personnel plan for the new Defense Clandestine Service.

Another important provision would require the commander of U.S. Cyber Command to provide a strategy for the development and deployment of offensive cyber capabilities to serve as deterrents to, and for response in the event of, a cyberattack. I believe strongly that cyber warfare will be the key battlefield of the 21st century, and I am concerned about our ability to fight and win in this new domain without a robust offensive capability. Crafting a comprehensive, well-defined strategy, required under this provision and others, should also spur U.S. Cyber Command to identify critical personnel

requirements for offensive cyber missions, which are presently understaffed.

Again this year, the committee restricted further construction on Guam related to the realignment of U.S. Marines in the Pacific theater until Congress has a clear understanding of the costs and strategic implications of the proposed force realignments on our strong allies in the region. The bill also contains no funding for the Office of Economic Adjustment activities on Guam, and it requires future requests for the construction of public facilities and infrastructure be specifically authorized by law, thereby eliminating another potential source of earmarks.

In addition, this bill would impose restrictions on DOD expenditures to develop a commercial biofuels industry. I strongly support continued Defense Department research in energy technologies that reduce fuel demand for our weapons systems and save lives on the battlefield. But I do not condone siphoning defense funds from those critical efforts to pay $27 per gallon for biofuels or $170 million to use as venture capital for the construction of a commercial biofuels refinery. This is not a core defense need and should be left to the private sector, or to the Department of Energy, which received over $4 billion last year for energy research and development for related programs. The committee's action corrects this misplacement of priorities.

Even without the massive budget cuts that will occur if sequestration is not averted, the President last year proposed $487 billion in defense budget cuts by fiscal year 2021. The total funding authorized in this bill reflects the President's reduced defense budget plan. However, within that total funding, the Armed Services Committee cut an additional $3.3 billion from programs requested by the Department of Defense to fund congressional special interest items. I am concerned that, in light of the budget realities facing the Pentagon and the Nation, at a time when our military is being asked to make drastic cuts in personnel, some of our colleagues continue to divert resources from vital military requirements to fund unnecessary and unrequested projects.

Some argue that the Department of Defense does not have a monopoly on good ideas. While true, the committee has an obligation to ensure that funding added to new programs results in tangible value to our national security and our military personnel. Terms like ``Committee initiative,'' as used in this bill, do not effectively disguise additions to the budget that are earmarks by any other name. Two perennial additions that highlight the problem of unrequested authorizations are the Industrial Base Innovation Fund, IBIF, and the Defense Rapid Innovation Program, DRIP, which together are earmarked for $230 million in this bill. These funds were not requested by the Department of Defense and as a result, the Department has struggled to put them on contract and manage the money for any useful purpose.

Serious threats face our Nation, most recently evidenced by the deaths of four brave Americans in Benghazi, and our Armed Forces are still engaged in operations in Afghanistan and deployed around the world. At the same time, our Nation is facing a severe fiscal crisis which is only weeks away, due to the unwillingness or inability of the President and Congress to agree on a solution to the current tax-and- spending stalemate.

And once again, Congress has failed to enact either an authorization or appropriations bill for the Department of Defense almost 2 months into the fiscal year. We have failed to provide the Department with a baseline to plan for sequestration, if it is ultimately not averted. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to swiftly approve this legislation so that a Defense authorization bill can be enacted before the end of the year.

Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair, what are we waiting for?

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3051 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

This amendment is to authorize additional Marine Corps personnel for the performance of security functions for the U.S. Embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic facilities abroad.

The tragic events in Benghazi on September 11 and the ongoing tumult throughout the Middle East and north Africa should serve as a stark reminder that the security environment confronting American personnel serving in U.S. Embassies and consulates abroad is as dangerous as any time I can remember.

Despite claims by some, al-Qaida and its affiliates remain dangerous and determined to kill Americans. This reality must force us to reassess the threat to U.S. Embassies and consulates around the world and provide additional resources and military end strength; that is, U.S. marines, to increase protection of diplomatic personnel from those threats. This amendment will do that. It will provide the necessary end strength and resources to support an increase in Marine Corps security at U.S. Embassies and consulates throughout the world--up to 1,000 additional personnel--in particular at locations identified by the Secretary of State as in need of increased security in light of known and emerging threats to U.S. personnel and property by terrorists.

Most Americans believe that U.S. marines are stationed to protect our Embassy personnel abroad, but I think they would be surprised to learn that marines are assigned in only slightly more than half of our diplomatic missions worldwide--182 missions in 137 countries. Moreover, their numbers are small. A typical detachment consists of only six military Marine personnel. Today there are 126 U.S. diplomatic missions outside the United States without Marine Corps security protection, including parts of Asia and Africa where we suspect al-Qaida is expanding its presence.

As the nature of threats to American diplomatic personnel is changing, the Marine Corps security guard mission has not. The current mission of this program dates back to the post-war era of 1948, principally for the protection of classified information and equipment in diplomatic facilities.

The Marine Security Guard Program is also the only Marine Corps program that is under the operational command of the Department of State. For this reason, this amendment would also require the President to present discrete budget requests for Marine Corps security personnel overseas in support of diplomatic personnel and Marine Corps end strength and resources required to maintain readiness to protect our national security. These are distinct missions, and increasing one--as is necessary in light of the attack in Benghazi--cannot come at the expense of another.

Americans may believe our marines are the first line of defense in attacks on diplomatic compounds overseas. The truth is that they are not. They are not mandated to engage with attackers and in some cases may not be permitted to engage. For this reason, this amendment calls on the Department of Defense to reassess this mission and rules of engagement as we increase our capability to protect embassies and consulates throughout the world.

As the world now knows, there were no marine guards at the consulate at Benghazi at the time of the September 11 attack despite the rapidly deteriorating security situation. Would their presence have made a difference and saved the lives of our heroic Ambassador and his security personnel? I think I know the answer to that question, and so do the American people.

So I think it is time for the administration to rapidly complete a reassessment of the risk to U.S. personnel conducting diplomacy abroad posed by terrorists and others wishing to do us harm and ensure that personnel at all 285 missions, not just 182, have adequate protection, including by U.S. marines. I am not saying this amendment requires that marine presence at every one of these missions. What we are saying is that as a result of the risk assessments, we have sufficient authorization and appropriation for adequate protection, part of which--and a major part--is the presence of the U.S. Marine Corps.

I call on my colleagues to fulfill the mission of the Marine Security Guard Program to ensure that U.S. personnel are protected and authorize the necessary end strength and resources for the Marine Corps to achieve this necessary goal.

Mr. President, at this time I yield to Senator Murray.

I ask unanimous consent the following Senators be added as cosponsors to my amendment No. 3051: Senators Inhofe, Ayotte, Brown of Massachusetts, and Webb.

Mr. President, are we going to voice-vote the amendment at this time?

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask that the Senator modify his request that the Senator be immediately followed by Senator Kyl to offer an amendment, with the proviso that it is cleared by the majority.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may address the Senate as in morning business for 20 minutes.

Mr. President, ``fairness'' has become one of the watch words in this year's political debates, both at home and abroad. The term echoes throughout Europe, where German Chancellor Angela Merkel is under pressure to come up with billions in bailouts for troubled eurozone countries. Her insistence on reasonable reforms is considered unfair by many in those countries, even though Germans have sacrificed to live within their means, for example, by forgoing wage increases to avoid the problems of their neighbors.

In the United States, President Obama and his supporters have used fairness as a justification for various redistributionist policies, including a massive tax hike, a government takeover of health care, complex financial regulations, and new government spending programs.

The President and his supporters believe the Federal Government should pursue policies that will result in economic equality. But forced equality is inherently unfair. It necessarily relies on the wrong incentives that penalize success. More fundamentally, it is based on a shallow, materialistic definition of ``fairness.''

Aristotle wrote: ``The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.''

Contrary to the goal President Obama pursues, the key determinant of lasting happiness and success is not whether you have as much money as your neighbor, regardless of the differences between you. Rather, it is what American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks calls earned success and meritocratic fairness.

Much research shows people are happiest when they have the opportunity to succeed and earn their rewards. Sometimes we take risks and succeed. Sometimes we fail. Sometimes we defer gratification by saving our money. Maybe our neighbor does not. Some of us are better at making money than others. Some deliberately earn less to enjoy other pursuits in life. Decisions about families result in very different economic circumstances.

When the government tries to equalize everyone or take all the trouble out of life by taking care of our every need, it makes earned success and meritocratic fairness that much harder to achieve. When government aims to smooth over every rough patch, it eliminates the experiences that make us resourceful and resilient--the experiences that teach us how to work harder or smarter for our rewards.

Those of us who believe in earned success and meritocratic fairness believe the best way to promote these concepts is through the free enterprise system, a system in which opportunity is sacred and excellence is rewarded. We reject the notion that it is fair to impose interventionist and redistributionist policies to guarantee material equality. As Brooks notes: ``For the overwhelming majority of Americans, fairness means rewarding merit, not spreading the wealth around.''

In his new book, ``The Road to Freedom,'' Brooks asks some fundamental questions related to the future of earned success, the pursuit of happiness, and meritocratic fairness:

First, ``Will we see a growing bureaucracy or more entrepreneurship?''

Second, ``Will we be a culture of redistribution or a culture of aspiration?''

Third, ``Will we be a nation of takers or a nation of makers?''

These are serious questions that will be answered in the long run-- not in 1 day or 1 year or in one session of Congress. But for now, I would like to focus on the short term. How do recent government policies help answer these questions about what is fair?

How does government spending, and the staggering debt that comes with it, affect bureaucracy and entrepreneurship? How does a redistributionist tax policy affect the aspirations of job creators and innovators? And how does our burdensome regulatory regime affect the so-called ``makers'' in American society?

Let's take these Brooks' questions one at a time. First, will we see a growing bureaucracy or more entrepreneurship? We all know entrepreneurship requires opportunity and private investment. But a burdensome Federal Government reduces opportunity and it crowds out private investment. Let's take a look at the growth of government under President Obama. Since his inauguration in January of 2009, the Federal debt has increased by more than $5 trillion, and it is rapidly approaching $16 trillion in total.

Meanwhile, the Federal budget deficit has exceeded $1 trillion 4 years in a row. The highest deficit before President Obama was less than half that

amount. How did our deficit and debt skyrocket so quickly? Well, for starters, President Obama's economic policies have resulted in slower GDP growth, which means less tax revenue flowing to the Treasury and more Americans requiring government assistance. So government income is down.

Second, the President has dramatically increased government spending. Prior to the 2008 fiscal crisis, the 40-year average for Federal outlays was less than 21 percent of our gross domestic product. But under President Obama, spending soared over 25 percent of the GDP in 2009. It has remained above 24 percent since then. This new spending has grown the Federal bureaucracy and it has increased the regulatory burden on families and businesses.

For example, the President's 2,700-page health spending law created or codified at least 159 new boards, bureaucracies, and programs, along with thousands of new pages of government regulations and more than 20 new taxes. A recent Bloomberg News report notes that the President's health care law imposes $813 billion in taxes on middle-income families and job creators, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In total, it has imposed $24 billion in new regulatory costs on the private sector and States, as well as almost $59 billion in annual paperwork hours on the economy.

The 2010 Dodd-Frank law is a similar story. It is still creating countless new rules and its direct compliance costs have already exceeded $7 billion. Indeed, according to the Financial Services Roundtable, Dodd-Frank will force more than 26,000 employees to comply with the law.

Other Obama initiatives have failed to pass the Congress, but likewise would have expanded the bureaucracy and funneled resources from the private sector to the government. These initiatives include cap and trade, the deceptively named Employee Free Choice Act, and the more recent Paycheck Fairness Act. We need to get back to basics.

As Congressman Ryan has said, we need to make it easier for people to employ their ``right to rise.'' That means leaving more money in the private sector and reducing the size of the Washington bureaucracy. We can start by stopping tax hikes and bills such as ObamaCare that suck needed resources out of the economy and give unaccountable regulators immense power.

Let's consider Brooks' second question. Will we be a culture of redistribution or a culture of aspiration? Public policy has a direct impact on economic aspiration and economic mobility. America has traditionally been an aspirational society with high levels of mobility. Although President Obama has made class warfare a central campaign tactic, we do not have a class system here in America. We do not have an American aristocracy or noble bloodlines. Because of our meritocratic system, people in America can and do jump from one income level to another throughout their lifetimes, from the one place to another. But with unemployment stuck above 8 percent now for 41 consecutive months, and the Obama administration's preference for redistributionist policies, there is real concern that America's culture of aspiration may gradually be replaced by a culture of redistribution.

Look at the tax issue. President Obama wants to increase the top marginal income tax rates in order to expand the entitlement state and promote what he calls greater ``fairness'' in society. But what about the economic consequences of taking more money from successful people as the economy continues to struggle? The Joint Committee on Taxation has told us that allowing the top two marginal income tax rates to rise from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent, respectively, will hit 53 percent of net positive income and just under 1 million business owners overall.

Raising marginal tax rates is no way to encourage aspiration or job creation. It certainly imposes a wet blanket on the kind of risk taking that has helped build America. It is merely redistribution under the guise of social justice. The President's approach to investment is also hostile to aspiration and risk taking. He has endorsed raising the top capital gains rate from 15 to 23.8 percent, and he also wants to raise the top rate on dividends from 15 to 43.4 percent.

The so-called ``Buffet tax'' is yet another method of hiking taxes on investment. All of these taxes on investment reduce the value of the asset by reducing the aftertax return. Our private economy runs on business investment, which is highly sensitive to tax rates, especially on capital gains and dividends.

Some of those who prefer higher taxes have argued that if taxes do not go up, those in the top brackets will invest and save more, but that will not do much for job creation and economic growth. Well, that is factually incorrect. Saving does not mean throwing your money under a mattress or burying it in your backyard. Anyone who saves money either puts it into the bank, where it is lent to someone, often a business, so they can hire more people, purchase equipment or invest in stocks and bonds, or the money is directly invested in a stock or a bond, which provides capital for the same purpose.

In other words, savings actually puts the money saved to work providing capital for someone to do something with it. And that creates economic growth. If that increment of income is instead taken from those who earned it and spent by the government, the effect on the economy will almost always be a net negative. If we want to encourage aspiration, innovation, and the job creation that comes with those, is it a good idea to raise the capital gains rate by almost 59 percent and nearly triple taxes on dividends, even though these profits have already been taxed once at the corporate level? The President and some Congressional Democrats think so, but I strongly disagree.

Here is Brooks' third question: Will we be a Nation of takers or a Nation of makers? Many have lamented the decline of the manufacturing base in America. Although the United States is still the largest manufacturing economy in the world, there is no doubt that policies from Washington have made it more difficult for manufacturers--and those are the economy's foremost makers--to compete in global markets. The list of these policies is long. Let me explain a few.

First, the corporate tax rate. At over 39 percent, our combined corporate tax rate is now the highest in the industrialized world. Other countries are cutting their corporate tax rates to encourage economic growth, but we are doing nothing on the tax front to follow their lead and attract more investment to the United States. Is it any wonder jobs are moving overseas? If not, whose fault is it, the company trying to return a profit to its investors or the government which makes it impossible to compete with foreign corporations?

Look at energy. Manufacturers rely on cheap sources of energy to produce products cheaply. Yet President Obama has stood in the way of domestic production of energy such as the Keystone XL Pipeline and worked tirelessly to punitively raise taxes on the oil and gas industries. New regulations on coal-fired powerplants, emissions of greenhouse gases, and industrial boilers will also hurt our economy.

Simply put, domestic makers are being hurt by the President's anti- energy and proregulatory agenda. Is this fair? Why should Americans pay more than the real economic cost of available American energy? And is it fair that a few corporations make billions because the government mandates that we buy ethanol from them, just to cite one example?

Now let's turn to labor. Manufacturers are also being burdened by union-dictated rules including from the National Labor Relations Board such as the ``ambush elections rule'' and new rules on the establishment of ``micro unions'' within the workplace.

With anticompetitive tax, energy, and labor policy, it will be increasingly difficult for our country to compete as a Nation of makers. These are precisely the kinds of policies that encourage employers to move jobs overseas, which hurts American workers and the greater economy. And this is required in the name of fairness?

We are also trending toward being a Nation of ``taking.'' The government is the biggest taker. But a majority of Americans now take more than they contribute. In tax year 2009, 51 percent of Americans paid zero Federal income

taxes, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation--over half of Americans. And these citizens take much more than their follow citizens in government benefits.

Look at food stamps, for example. As my friend Senator Sessions has pointed out, ``food stamp spending has quadrupled since 2001. It has doubled just since 2008. A program that began as a benefit for 1 in 50 Americans is now received by 1 in 7.'' Spending on food stamp welfare has increased 100 percent since President Obama took office. Some 80 percent of all spending in the recently passed farm bill will go toward food stamps.

In total, there are 69 means-tested Federal welfare programs costing taxpayers $940 billion every year, including both Federal programs and State contributions to those programs. The number of Americans living off the wealth of ``makers'' keeps growing and growing. There are nearly twice as many government workers today as there are in the manufacturing sector, meaning that there are more government workers than people making products and paying their salaries. Is that fair?

As economist Stephen Moore noted, ``This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960 when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing, and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.''

The growth of taxpayer-funded dependency is directly connected with the growth in the economy. The more we make as a Nation, the more wealth we generate and the less people who rely on welfare to survive. To get there we need aggressive progrowth policies in place to encourage free enterprise and discourage a Nation of taking. It is neither fair to the makers nor those who must rely on the government for the President to impose policies that reduce economic growth, reduce job creation, reduce savings and investment, and reduce opportunity and freedom.

In conclusion, free enterprise and meritocratic policies are consistent with our founding principles. As Thomas Jefferson declared in his first inaugural address, ``A wise and frugal government . . . shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.''

Will America remain the country our Founders envisioned or will we become a country where fairness means equal outcomes for all dictated by the government? Will we make it easier or harder for people to earn their success? And will the American people be happier if allowed to pursue their dreams, sometimes failing, sometimes succeeding, or if the government tries to force equal economic outcomes? Which is more moral, which is more fair, which is more American?

Pursuant to Senator Levin's question about a time agreement, I ask unanimous consent that the majority side have 30 minutes to speak to my amendment and the Republican side have 15 minutes to speak to my amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to speak to my amendment for 10, 12, maybe 15 minutes. I know Senator Inhofe would like to speak. Then I have additional speakers on our side.

Madam President, I rise today in support of the Department of Defense and our men and women in uniform who stand watch around the clock around the world to protect us from a truly staggering range of threats. As I have alluded, I rise specifically to speak to my amendment No. 2985, which I have introduced in concert with our military officials and leadership.

As a proud member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have designed this amendment to support the Department of Defense and their efforts to pursue alternative fuels and energy investments. Senators Murray, Shaheen, Bingaman, Hagan, Kerry, Begich, and Tom Udall have joined me in cosponsoring this legislation.

We, as Senators and as Americans, frequently acknowledge the courage and the sacrifice of our troops. But I would also point out that they are incredibly smart, insightful, and forward thinking. In order to keep ahead of current enemies and future threats, our military leaders must be students of history. They have to understand the past in order to predict the future. They have to be ready to face challenges from the air, sea, and land, and now increasingly from the cyber domain. They must prepare to defend our Nation from hostile nation States such as Iran and from terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida.

In order to do all of this, they must have the best technology in the world. We must also provide them with the flexibility to adapt to an ever-changing landscape and the resources they need to research, develop, and employ new technologies. That is our solemn commitment, and I would offer our solemn responsibility, to those who fight on our behalf. They have placed themselves between us and harm's way. In return, we promise to invest in the technology, training, and resources they need to stay safe.

For me and many of our colleagues that includes encouraging, supporting, requiring, actually, the DOD to invest in energy sources and fuel technologies that reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Ultimately, section 313 of the Defense authorization bill before us today would severely limit the ability of the Department of Defense to use alternative fuels.

Given the threats facing our Nation today and in the future, that is not acceptable. I want to point out the Department of Defense strongly opposes the constricting provisions in the current Defense authorization bill for that reason and for a number of other reasons. I want to quote what the Office of the Secretary of Defense says about section 313.

The OSD says that 313 is ``detrimental to DOD's long-term energy security;'' that it is ``overly broad,'' ``ambiguous,'' and it ``restricts the flexibility of military commanders.'' Those are the DOD's words about this section. I want to point out I strongly agree with those words. Therefore, I have offered this very simple amendment that would remove this limiting provision from the bill. I firmly believe that removing section 313 of the Defense authorization bill is in the best interests of our military and our country. Let me tell you why.

In the carrying out of the work of our Nation, the Department of Defense consumes approximately 330,000 barrels of oil every single day. That works out to 120 million barrels of oil per year. That is a truly staggering number. This year, given those numbers, the military has already spent $15 billion on fuel. Because of rising global oil prices that is about $2.5 billion more than they forecast, and the year is not even over yet. We have another month to go.

Those rising costs in dollars and operational capability are staggering. Think of it this way: For every 25-cent increase in the price per gallon of oil, the military's fuel bill increases by $1 billion. So then what happens? In order to make up for that shortfall, the DOD then has to pull money from the operations and maintenance accounts, which means that rising fuel costs result in less training, deferred maintenance, and reduced operational capability.

Let me be clear. The current language that was added to this bill by some of my colleagues tells the Defense Department they cannot pursue energy security and instead must rely on an energy source that is quickly eating away at their capabilities and effectiveness. That means our people are less prepared when they go into harm's way, and they are less ready to fight when it matters most. For me, and I hope for the majority of my colleagues, that is far too steep a price.

That is why the DOD is investing in technology to increase fuel efficiency, promote conservation, and to find alternatives to foreign oil. General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said simply but powerfully: Saving energy saves lives. It should tell us something that in an era of reduced DOD budgets our senior leaders remain fully committed to this effort. We should support them in these commonsense approaches. That is why the DOD is funding research and development for new fuels that can be made from biological feed stocks. And these are fuels that can be literally grown here and refined here, right in our own country, right at home.

This R&D effort I am alluding to is part of a proud legacy of military research programs that have benefited our entire country through many decades. So what I am saying is even under the threat of sequestration, investments in new energy technology and alternative fuels remain a top priority for our military leadership. For those who would say we cannot afford to spend money on alternative fuels, our uniformed senior leaders tell us otherwise and, in fact, suggest that we cannot afford not to make these investments.

Let me share another way of looking at this. The investment is tiny when we compare it to the potential payoff. For less than .03 percent of the defense budget, our military is building a foundation for a new domestic energy

source that could save billions of dollars and keep more of the money we do spend on fuel right here at home.

We spend about $300 billion a year on overseas sources of oil--$300 billion. If we could keep one-twentieth of a percent of that money at home we would pay for this program. Let me put it in perspective another way.

For about half of what we spend on military bands each year, we could be establishing a domestic energy industry. For less than the cost of a single F-35, we could diversify our energy portfolio and drive down costs. We would be taking billions of dollars out of the hands of terrorists and reducing the risk to our military personnel.

So in that context, what is the problem? Well, the proponents for cutting off these investments in alternative fuels argue that the Defense Department should not be involved in the development of new energy sources. I think it has already become clear, but I want to say it again: I could not disagree more. These biofuels, when we produce them, cannot be used as leverage against us. These refineries cannot be overrun by Nigerian rebels or blockaded by Iranian gun boats.

Energy security is national security. This is exactly the kind of investment our military should be making. In fact, military R&D has sustained the enormous technological advantage that we have maintained over our adversaries historically. Our willingness to invest in the future has kept us safe. So my colleagues say the DOD should not be spending money on energy development. I would respectfully remind them we have always spent money on energy development, and it has made us safer.

If that view had prevailed in years passed, we would not have a nuclear-powered Navy. Without military investment in emerging technologies, we would not have jet engines, microchips, microwave ovens, radar, or GPS navigation. Ensuring our energy security ought to be a national priority. Our reliance on foreign oil is a threat to our security and our economy. Our reliance on foreign oil harms our economy and our national security. Now we have the chance to do something about it.

This is a national problem. That is why DOD has partnered with the Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, and private industry to find a solution. That is exactly how our government is supposed to work.

If we believe the DOD has a vested interest in having reliable sources of fuel and energy, then we should agree they have a role to play in ensuring that new fuels we have to develop meet their needs.

Now, as with any technology, the cost of alternative fuels starts high, but they are coming down steadily. As we all know, the price of oil continues to climb and, equally important, is subject to those sudden spikes due to unpredictable global events. My colleagues who are opposed to the DOD energy programs would have us believe that alternative fuel prices are unaffordable. But let me share some facts.

In 2009 the Navy paid about $66 per gallon for biofuels used for research. But that price decreased over a 3-year period by 61 percent. During that same period, oil prices rose by about 120 percent. Today, right now, drop-in biofuels for cars and jet aircraft are available for around $4 per gallon. These costs will continue to drop if we keep making smart investments in smart technologies.

These are the facts, but even if we disagree with those points, there is another important factor I hope we will consider. Section 313 of the Defense authorization bill harms military missions and technologies that are being used right now to find and destroy our enemies.

Let me explain. The Office of the Secretary of Defense has said the language is so broad and so poorly defined that it would prohibit the DOD from purchasing any nonpetroleum fuel that costs more than traditional fuels. So we have to ask, what does that mean?

Let me give a couple of examples. That would include the solid oxide fuels used in rockets and missiles. That would include coal-to-liquid fuels. That includes alternative fuels purchased overseas where there are no petroleum-based fuels available, like in South Africa and in countries that have mandatory alternative fuel blends. It restricts fuel blends to a 50-50 ratio, even if that is not the best or the most practical mix.

So the outcome of that would be if the DOD wanted to use a more efficient or cost-effective mix of traditional fuel to biofuel, they would not be able to do so. So I believe section 313 of the bill we are debating will send the wrong political message as well. It will make investors wary of the U.S. Government's commitment to weaning ourselves off foreign oil. It would help keep us reliant on foreign oil. Let me list the countries: Russia, Venezuela, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, I have not even mentioned Iran.

It is poorly drafted and damaging to our security. Instead, we have an opportunity today to help our military and our country. This is how we move forward. This is not about an environmental agenda or some kind of a green conspiracy. It is about doing the right thing, supporting our military brass, establishing a stronger national security and energy security posture in the years ahead.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to strike section 313. As I conclude, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Gillibrand and Tom Udall be added as cosponsors to my amendment No. 2985 to S. 3254.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Hagan, Kerry, Begich, and Franken be added as cosponsors of my amendment No. 2985.

Mr. President, I believe we are reaching the end of our time.

I would add just a couple final remarks.

I think we have heard a compelling reason to remove section 313 from the National Defense Authorization Act. National security is energy security and vice versa. Let's stand with our military leadership, let's stand with our NCOs, and let's stand with our enlisted personnel and ensure that the military can continue to invest in this important area of energy security which will save lives, create economic opportunity, and make sure we can project force abroad and protect the values we hold so dear.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment at 2:00 p.m. We have a tentative agreement.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment at 2 p.m.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Baucus, Coons, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Lieberman, Stabenow, Cantwell, Schumer, Durbin, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Bennet, Blumenthal, Whitehouse, and Collins be added as cosponsors to my amendment No. 2985.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator from New Hampshire has a time issue and she would like to have 5 minutes before my time will begin. That is acceptable.

I yield 5 minutes to my friend from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, I hear all the time from my good friend who is involved in this. In this rare case it is true. The Senator from Colorado and I are very close friends, and he and I disagree on this issue. I think it is important for us to understand where this came from. Senator McCain and I are responsible for section 313, and I think when people understand what it is, all of these arguments I have heard against it, none of them holds weight. What we are trying to do is experiment in green energy at the expense of our ability to defend America, and our readiness. Our military is deployed in more locations around the world at a greater rate than was ever the case during the Cold War. I sometimes say, I look wistfully back on the days of the Cold War. Back then we had an enemy we could define. It was an enemy who was predictable. That is not the case anymore, and after almost two decades fighting and all of these contingencies worldwide, including four major regional conflicts with a force structure that is 40 percent smaller and equipment that is decades older than the military readiness during its decline, this is what we are faced with right now. All of this is coming at a time when the Obama administration has cut the defense budget, projecting over the 10-year period, by some $487 billion. If the Obama sequestration becomes a reality, that would be $1 trillion over this period of time coming out of our defense budget.

Even the Secretary of Defense, President Obama's Secretary of Defense, said that would be devastating. He used the word ``devastating.'' But if that were not enough, the Obama administration continues to force the military to spend greater proportions of its already depleted funds on an expensive green energy agenda, to include the purchase of biofuels for operational use and construction of commercial biofuel refineries.

I fully support the development and the use of alternative fuels, including biofuels, but not at the expense of the military. Secretary Mabus's primary focus must be or should be on the readiness of the Navy, not on propping up the biofuel industry.

By the way, I have to remind everyone we have a bureaucracy called the Department of Energy. They are the ones who are supposed to be doing all of this experimentation we talked about. Our Navy, according to the Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Jon Greenert, will see a 15- percent increase in the number of ships set to deploy, with the number of ships and attack boats deployed at any time rising from 93 today to 107 by 2016. This increased deployment rate will impact sailors and marines as well as the required maintenance of ships and aircraft.

President Obama talked about pivoting to Asia from the Middle East and some of the concentrations. This is going to create another very serious problem. When every defense cut dollar degrades our military readiness, why should we want our Navy to pay four times the amount than almost any other fuel, or in some cases 100 times the amount? With a military budget that continues to decrease, where is the Navy going to get additional funding to pay its biofuel bill?

What is the Navy willing to give up in order to pay this bill? What is DOD willing to give up in order to pay the higher fuel bills? They have been talking about this on the other side. However, the higher fuel bills are not what this section 313 is all about. We discussed this in the committee. I fully support the efforts that make it affordable are mixed in, but biofuels still face challenges in technologies that remain imprudent. Again, we have a Department of Energy that is supposed to be doing this.

This is a 2011 RAND report, which says:

There is no direct benefit to the Department of Defense and

the services from using alternative fuels rather than

petroleum-derived fuels. In short, the military is best

served by efforts directed at using energy more efficiently

in weapon systems and at military installations.

That is a 2011 RAND Commission direct quote.

Despite the recent assertions by biofuel lobbyists that the two biofuel provisions in S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year

2013, do not restrict the Department of Defense from purchasing alternative fuels, including biofuels, section 313 allows the continued use of the Department of Defense funding for biofuels for testing but precludes them from using the funds authorized for readiness and training. That is what this is all about, readiness.

Section 313 contained in the bill is intended to restore fiscal responsibility and accountability for defense spending at a time when our Nation simply cannot afford to waste taxpayers' funds on speculative green initiatives such as Solyndra and dozens of other companies that are foundering or bankrupt despite billions of government investment, as they call it.

A recent DOD report revealed that the biofuels program will amount to an extra $1.8 billion a year in fuel costs to the Navy alone. That is just the Navy, not the Air Force, not the rest of them. This ludicrous pricetag is not surprising.

Through congressional oversight efforts, we found that in 2009--now listen to this, this is significant--the Navy paid an outrageous $424 a gallon for 20,000 gallons of renewable diesel. In December of 2011, the Navy purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuels for $12 million, equaling about $27 a gallon. That is $27 a gallon we are talking about in our defense budget when we are paying for something that should cost $3, maybe $4 a gallon.

The Navy is not the only service being subjected to this greening agenda. Last month the Air Force bought 11,000 gallons of alcohol to jet fuel at $59 a gallon, twice as much per gallon as what the Navy was forced to spend. So we are talking about amounts such as $400, $450, and $29 a gallon for fuel just to experiment, and this is something the Department of Energy should be doing if anyone is going to be doing it.

DOD has been forced to drastically cut its personnel, the number of brigade combat teams, ships, fighters, and airlift, and it has had to eliminate or postpone critical military modernization programs. Now thanks to President Obama's defense budget cuts, DOD can't afford to do business as usual. Yet they are being coerced to spend $27 a gallon.

Secretary Panetta has warned repeatedly that President Obama's deep cuts will have a devastating effect to our economy. He used the word ``devastating'' when he talked about what was going to happen if he is successful in the next step, which would be the sequestration.

Knowing this, how could anyone support including another $1.8 billion from an already stretched budget? President Obama's climate chief, Heather Zichal, defended the green fleet by arguing that even a dollar rise in gasoline prices would cost DOD $30 million. I think my good friend, the Senator from Colorado, said essentially the same thing. I agree with it. If every $1 of rise in gas prices costs $30 million, a $27 increase in fuel costs due to the forced use of biofuels would add up to about $660 million. So that argument falls completely flat.

Realizing that the economic angle is a political loser, the Obama administration has tried to say that it is about national security in getting off of foreign oil. That is where I want to get.

I spent several years as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and several years as the ranking member. All during that time, people were saying the one thing we all agree on is we need to be off of foreign oil. We need not to be dependent upon the Middle East. Yet right now we know no one is going to refute this fact, no one in this room, no one today or in the future, that when we had the USGS reports and the other reports saying that we now are in a different position than we have been before. People are saying of the resources and the reserves in fossil fuels--and I am talking about ``oil and gas''--we are No. 1 in the world now. We didn't used to be. Two years ago we couldn't have said that. Right now we are. We have the opportunity, and we can look at the opportunity, in terms of our reserves that are usable, of being totally self-sufficient.

The other thing that is so disturbing, when people talk about they don't want to be dependent on the Middle East, therefore we have to spend billions of defense dollars to experiment on biofuels when, in fact, we could be completely self-sufficient, all we have to do is do what every other nation in the world does, and what is that? Every other nation in the world depletes it. They go after their own resources. We have recoverable reserves in gas and oil to take care of this country for the next 50 and 90 years, respectively, and yet we are trying to use this as an argument to go and spend this money on experimental biofuels. I think that part of the argument has to be exposed for what it is. It is a phony argument.

You know, we look, we see, and people ask from around the world, they say why is it that your country, the United States--in my position on this committee I have been asked this many times--why is it that you are the only country that won't exploit its own resources, and I say, well, it is a political thing.

Right now if you want to do something about becoming energy totally sufficient--I asked the other day, because the President keeps saying, well, you know, you are wrong because if we were to develop all of our public lands and be able to get the resources off of that, it would take 10 years for that to reach the pump--I actually called up a man named Harold Hamm. He has testified before our committees up here in Washington several times. I said, let me ask you a question. I am going to be on a TV show and they are going to ask me, if this administration would lift all of the restrictions we have on public lands how long would it take for the first barrel of oil that would come from that to reach the pumps? Otherwise, you go through the refining process and all of that, because we have heard this administration say it would take 10 years. Well, in fact, it would take--his answer was--and I said: Be careful, Harold Hamm, because I am going to use your name on nationwide TV. He said: Yes, I have thought about this. It would take 70 days. Not 10 years but 70 days.

So we are talking about sufficiency that we could have just in this country in a matter of days, not in a matter of years. And I only bring that up--and I know people don't think it should be part of this debate, but it is because they are using the argument that we have to use billions of defense dollars in experimenting with biofuels to wean us off fossil fuels when, in fact, we are doing that now. And we have a Department of Energy that is responsible for actually carrying that out. The argument completely falls on its face.

It was the U.S. Geological Survey report that revealed that America has 26 percent of the world's recoverable conventional oil reserves-- which is more than we are using, so we could become independent--and almost 30 percent of the world's technically recoverable conventional gas resources. So with all these things in mind, the Congressional Research Service agrees and the USGS agrees we could become independent. So it all comes together.

This isn't happening in a vacuum. We have a good bill here, and we need to get it done in the short period of time given us by the leadership. I think we can do it. I agree with the chairman of the committee that we can get this done. But this one amendment is one that would, probably more than any other amendment, take away our ability to spend this money on readiness--on readiness for the experimental program on green energy.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.