National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to commend Chairman Levin, who has brought his usual thoughtful approach to these issues, and to thank him for his help specifically in two areas in which I have been interested.

I also see my friend Senator McCain. He and I have worked often on these and other matters, and I thank him for his wise counsel as well.

Mr. President, as I indicated, I am going to talk briefly on two amendments in which I have a special interest. The first is the amendment of Senator Udall to strike section 313 of the bill.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I have followed closely the proposition that the Department of Defense is the single largest user of energy in the United States, with annual fuel expenditures in excess of $16 billion. This is an extraordinary thirst the Department of Defense has for energy. It creates a host of issues for the Pentagon, and fluctuations in global energy prices can have dramatic effects on defense spending. For every $10 increase in a barrel of oil, it costs the American military annually an extra $1.3 billion.

Recognizing the potential instability DOD's current energy needs can cause, military experts from across the various branches of the armed services have begun looking at ways to cut energy use and find energy alternatives. I continue to hear all of this discussion about how this is somehow a ``green agenda,'' that it is a subversive plot and that it is being forced upon a resistant Pentagon. I would like to take a minute or two to say that I don't think anything could be further from the truth, and I wish to describe for a moment why I feel that way.

First, those who oppose defense energy initiatives often argue that in today's fiscal environment, the country can't afford to waste money on energy programs when it is necessary to provide for our Nation's security. I don't believe it is an either/or proposition because my view is that an investment in energy efficiency and energy self-sufficiency is hugely important to protecting our country's national security in a dangerous time.

I have heard some argue that military research, development, and testing of alternatives to oil-based fuels is a ``misplacement of priorities,'' but this argument is based largely on the proposition that biofuels currently cost more per gallon than petroleum. But the reality is that the makers of biofuels have not reached full-scale production, and the Department of Defense contracts include research and development costs. So any attempt at a gallon-to-gallon analysis of biofuels versus petroleum is really what I would call an apples-to-oranges comparison. The fact is that DOD investments in biofuels development have resulted in a cost-per-gallon reduction--a cost-per-gallon reduction of 94 percent in just the last 3 years.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance analysts predict that some aviation biofuels will be cost-competitive with standard jet fuel by 2018, given the continuation of current rates of development. So in about 5 years, the American biofuels industry could produce fuel for our military aircraft and vehicles at a cost equal to that of foreign oil.

The Truman National Security Project recently held a press call with retired generals, and one in particular was quoted as saying the following:

Moving away from oil ..... ensures we remain the most capable and effective fighting force on the planet. ..... And this is what this is all about. This is not about politics or saving polar bears. It is about being effective as a fighting force.

Those are not my words but the words of an important retired general.

So that is what this boils down to, in my view--having the most effective fighting force and being in a position to save the lives of our servicemembers.

I know there is going to be a fair amount of discussion throughout the debate on this bill about this issue, but I continue to believe that energy efficiency and energy self-sufficiency increase our national security. I hope my colleagues will support the Pentagon's alternative energy efforts and vote for Udall amendment No. 2985.

Briefly, I wish to turn my attention to the other amendment I have, and I again thank Chairman Levin and Senator McCain for giving me this opportunity to speak.

This morning the Associated Press reported that Iraq war contractor Kellogg Brown & Root has sued the Federal Government to pay the $85 million in damages KBR owes soldiers sickened because of KBR's negligence.

This case started in 2003 when members of the Oregon National Guard were assigned to provide security for contractors from KBR in Iraq at the Qarmat Ali water treatment facility. These soldiers and others were exposed to dangerous levels of chemicals, including sodium dichromate, which contains hexavalent chromium, one of the most carcinogenic chemicals on Earth.

A group of the exposed soldiers sued KBR based on the evidence indicating KBR managers were aware of the presence of the dangerous chemicals but failed to warn the soldiers working in and around the plant. A jury recently agreed that KBR was negligent and awarded the soldiers $85 million in damages, and more of the affected soldiers also have lawsuits pending, so the damage awards, in my view, are likely to increase significantly.

However, a recently declassified indemnification provision in the contract between KBR and the U.S. military for work in Iraq passed all financial liability for misconduct from KBR to U.S. taxpayers, even in cases of--and I want to emphasize this--willful misconduct by KBR. These provisions also provided for unlimited reimbursement of legal costs incurred by KBR. In effect, the company--KBR--was handed a blank check drawn on the American taxpayer, and yesterday the company went to court to cash that check.

My amendment would prevent DOD from putting the American taxpayer on the hook for the negligence of contractors without notifying Congress. Our soldiers know when they sign up that they are putting their lives on the line, but they expect their commanders and the contractors working beside them to not expose them to unnecessary risk.

Both the DOD inspector general and a jury have confirmed what Oregon soldiers and I and other members of the Oregon congressional delegation have been saying for years--that KBR failed to protect our soldiers from a known threat. We can't know if the fact that KBR had basically a get-out-of-jail-free card caused them to be negligent, but what we do know is we shouldn't let this happen again.

My amendment was debated as part of the last DOD authorization bill, and my understanding is that it was actually acceptable to both sides, but we weren't able to get it into the final bill. I hope now, especially in light of today's news right over the wire services this morning, we can agree to include this amendment before more of our brave men and women in uniform are harmed by the actions of negligent contractors who then try to pass the buck to American taxpayers.

I again thank Chairman Levin and his staff for their leadership, and I look forward to working with them, particularly on this amendment here this afternoon.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source