Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to amendment No. 5413. I hope at some point to be able to call up that amendment and perhaps have it either included as…
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, I rise today to speak to amendment No. 5413. I hope at some point to be able to call up that amendment and perhaps have it either included as part of the managers' package or have it debated and voted upon. Let me explain a little bit about the history of this and why I think this is so important to our Nation's military.
The Defense Department authorization bill we have before us is a critical piece of legislation that we need as a Congress to deal with before Congress adjourns. We have done that for the past 42 years. It sets the policy and the framework and funding for matters that are important to our men and women in uniform and important to making America safe and secure as we head into the future. I believe this amendment fits right in with that overall objective. The amendment to which I speak today will advance innovative Air Force programs that are already positively affecting the critically important and complex issue of energy policy. As I said, that is a national security issue as well.
Furthermore, this amendment will expand these valuable programs to other Department of Defense services.
As we all know, the issue of fuel prices has significant implications not only for our economic security, but also for our military. In fact, the Department of Defense is the largest single consumer of fuel in the United States.
Consider this: In the last 4 years, the Air Force fuel bill has tripled. Furthermore, the Air Force spent over $6 billion buying energy last year, even though they used 10 percent less than the year before. This is a substantial sum, and I can almost guarantee it will cost the Air Force more next year to buy the same amount of energy. As the lead paragraph in an article headlined ``Worries of Rising Fuel Costs Extend to DoD's Budget'' published in Defense News on May 19, 2008, noted:
The skyrocketing cost of fuel isn't just hitting U.S.
drivers in the pocketbook--it's blowing a bit of a hole in
the Pentagon's budget as well.
I ask unanimous consent that the entirety of this Defense News article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
We are at a moment in our history when we must move toward more secure, domestic energy sources.
One need look no further than the embargos of the 1970s or the recent oil price spikes or the Russian-Georgian conflict to see the negative implications of relying on foreign sources for the preponderance of our energy needs. Additionally, continuing to fund unfriendly foreign regimes grows increasingly untenable by the day, and we should look to produce lower cost domestic alternatives that stop this capital flight.
It is well past time that we further the development of these lower cost domestic alternatives through responsible public policy.
Given this context, I am proud to report that the U.S. Air Force has already become a model for Government leadership in these areas. We should now expand these Air Force programs to the other Department of Defense services, as these valuable programs will undoubtedly pave the way for increased public-private cooperation.
One example of Air Force leadership in this area is evident in existing programs to find alternatives to increasingly expensive aviation fuel. Not only has the Air Force already flight tested the B- 52, B-1, C-17, KC-135, F-15, and F-22s on a 50 percent synthetic fuel blend, it has plans to certify its entire inventory on this synthetic fuel blend by 2011. Moreover, the Air Force is dedicated to procuring at least half of its fuel needs from environmentally friendly, domesticaly produced, synthetic fuel blends by 2016.
We should now call for the other services to do the same. We should seek to understand how the Department of the Army and the Department of the Navy can also use these fuels and how the buying power of the entire Department of Defense can achieve efficiencies and decreased costs due to large economies of scale.
Because they are the largest user of fuel in the Department of Defense, this amendment specifies that the Air Force continue to be on the leading edge in finding lower cost, domestically produced alternatives to conventional aviation fuels. The amendment dictates that the Air Force continue to certify its entire fleet on a synthetic fuel blend and to press forward in its efforts to acquire half of its domestic fuel requirement by 2016 from a domestically sourced alternative fuel blend.
To protect the American taxpayer, it is important to note this acquisition would only occur if the price is less than or equal to the market prices for petroleum based fuels.
To protect the environment, the amendment specifies the fuel is ``greener'' than conventional petroleum based fuels. On this second point, it is important to note there has been recent uncertainty over section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The intent of this amendment is that the lifecycle emissions of these fuels will be lower than pending Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency baselines for conventional petroleum fuels.
A binding authorization for the Air Force to acquire this fuel will have a dramatic effect on the domestic aviation and fuels industries. With the Air Force and the other services of the Department of Defense leading the way, it is likely commercial airlines and fuel producers will see the increasing viability of these fuels and wish to build on these efforts. To further civil-military cooperation, the amendment also encourages the services to partner with the commercial aviation industry to engage in further research and development.
To encourage feedstock diversity, the language in the amendment is not specific regarding fuel source, and producers could use anything from cellulosic ethanol to biodiesel.
Ultimately, this amendment positively impacts energy policies in this country at no additional cost to the American taxpayer. Simply put, if the alternative fuels cost more than conventional fuels, the Department of Defense doesn't have to buy them. In actuality, it is likely to actually lower the cost of these fuels by inducing market based competition among synthetic fuel producers.
Some may argue this amendment is a Government giveaway program or that it is specially tailored to benefit a specific industry. This is simply not true. This amendment does not specify a specific feedstock from which to make fuels, nor does it offer loan guarantees or tax incentives to any specific industry.
We are at the beginning of a long energy crisis which is already one of the defining issues of our time. If Government agencies are going to be part of the solution, we need sound, responsible public policy that allows them to partner with industry and solve these important problems. This amendment is exactly this type of policy.
I hope my colleagues will support it. I hope, before we complete action on the Defense authorization bill, that we will have an opportunity to call up some of these amendments, to have them debated, have them voted on or, at a minimum, to have them accepted as part of a managers' package. But, in one way or another, I hope this very important issue of energy security can be addressed in the Defense authorization bill through the acquisition of fuels our services use to supply their energy needs and addressed in a way that not only helps America's energy security with regard to lessening this addiction we have to foreign sources of energy, but I also believe it will make our country safer because I think this is a national security issue that forces us to rely upon countries around the world that are hostile to our interests.
I believe that becoming energy independent means we have to lead by example. Our Air Force has stepped up to that challenge. I hope the other services will follow.
As I said before, this amendment does not require any particular feedstock. It is neutral with regard to the whole issue of whether that comes from cellulosic or whether that comes from biodiesel or whether that comes from coal to liquids.
At the end of the day, we need to adopt this amendment. It will be a savings to our military services and a savings to the taxpayer. As I said before, there is a requirement in this amendment that, whatever that source is, it be greener than petroleum-based fuels used today.
It has already been tested on a number of aircraft. The Air Force intends to move in the year 2016 to 50 percent, and I hope the other services will follow. This amendment will see that happens. I hope my colleagues will adopt it.
Exhibit 1
[From Defense News, May 19, 2008]
Worries of Rising Fuel Costs Extend to DoD's Budget
(By William H. McMichael and Rick Maze)
The skyrocketing cost of fuel isn't just hitting U.S.
drivers in the pocketbook--it's blowing a bit of a hole in
the Pentagon's budget as well.
DoD officials have asked Congress to appropriate another
$3.69 billion for all fuels--an increase of $2.2 billion from
their initial request--according to a revised request for
supplemental war funding for fiscal 2009, submitted May 2.
That, of course, looks far ahead and could still prove to
be inadequate. According to Pentagon budget documents, the
request would support a crude oil price of $97.19 per
barrel--and also assumes the military's overall fuel costs
will drop by 4.8 percent.
The current world price, however, has climbed to and is
hovering around $120 per barrel, and many analysts think
rising global demand and other factors will keep prices high.
And 2009 isn't the only concern; the Pentagon needs more
money for fuel to cover the remaining five months of this
fiscal year.
This would come by way of the $108 billion war supplemental
appropriation request, which has yet to be approved.
The Pentagon has asked for a total of $1.9 billion for
fuel, an increase of $281.4 million over its original
supplemental request.
All told, that's an additional $2.48 billion on top of the
amounts included in the Pentagon's 2008 and 2009 base
budgets--and Defense officials already acknowledge the 2009
supplemental request won't cover that entire fiscal year.
That would buy the Air Force another 19 F-22 fighters, or
the Marine Corps 36 MV-22 Ospreys.
In the seven months ending in March, the Pentagon's average
monthly cost for its most-used jet fuel, JP-8, rose 34
percent, from $2.34 to $3.13 per gallon, according to the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA).
The cost of JP-5, used primarily by Navy jets operating
from the sea, increased from $2.22 to $2.94 per gallon.
Regular gasoline jumped from $2 to $2.79 per gallon, or 40
percent, over the same period. Only diesel fuel's rise was
negligible, increasing just 5 cents per gallon.
The Pentagon's prices normally do not fluctuate much
because DLA's Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) buys in
bulk and sells fuel to the individual services at a
``standard price'' based on market projections for the
ensuing year, according to DLA spokesman Jack Hooper.
In September 2007, for example, DESC set the standard price
of JP-8 at $2.31 per gallon.
In a less volatile market, that price might have been good
for the next 12 months. But the market forced a change and in
December, DESC raised its price for JP-8 to $3.04 per gallon.
The House Armed Services subcommittee on readiness approved
legislation May 8 to require the secretary of Defense ``to
consider the full burdened cost of fuel and energy efficiency
in the requirements development and acquisition process,''
said Rep. Randy Forbes of Virginia, the panel's ranking
Republican.