Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the McCain amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. 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.

Mr. LEVIN. I note the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. LEVIN. 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.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Vermont yield?

Mr. LEVIN. I understand the Senator will take about 10 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN. And then the Senator will take approximately 10 minutes?

Mr. LEVIN. I ask that the two Senators be recognized for 10 minutes each as in morning business.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it now be in order for Senator Leahy to call up his amendment No. 2955; that the time until 6 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form; that at 6 p.m. the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Leahy amendment No. 2955; further, that there be no amendments in order to the Leahy amendment prior to the vote.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am not sure what that request was.

Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. LEVIN. 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.