Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to amendment No. 115, the Toomey amendment. This amendment would reduce funding for advanced drop in biofuels production.

I strongly oppose this amendment for several reasons. First, this amendment undermines our long-term national security. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review outlines several areas where reforms are imperative to improving our national security. Implementing reforms to strengthen our energy security was one of these areas.

Right now, our military is almost totally dependent on fossil fuels. These resources are finite, priced on a global marketplace, and produced by nations with whom we don't always see eye to eye. There are also new powers rising and new challenges evolving. So to preserve a 21st century force, we need to invest in 21st century priorities. This means we must diversify how we power our military.

The project this amendment seeks to cut is fairly modest in the scheme of the military budget, but the overall benefits to our forces will be well worth it. Our Nation has always invested in technologies that produce long-term benefits and address changing circumstances--from more advanced tanks and aircraft to faster communications and lighter armor. We have to innovate now in order for our military to have the capabilities to protect our Nation. We need to make the same kinds of investments now in our military's long-term energy needs.

Already the research and deployment of alternative energy is benefiting our long-term capabilities, improving troop safety, and making security operations more affordable. In fact, just last summer, at the Rim of the Pacific Exercise--RIMPAC--the U.S. Navy demonstrated its ``Great Green Fleet'' with surface combatants and aircraft using advanced biofuels for the first time. This exercise--the largest international exercise in the world--proved that our military platforms can use these fuels.

Prior to this exercise, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said of the biofuels demonstration:

The Navy has always led the nation in transforming the way we use energy, not because it is popular, but because it makes us better war fighters.

Clearly, continuing to support this type of investment will pay additional dividends that will help ensure the United States remains the world's preeminent military and technological power in the 21st century.

However, there is another reason to oppose this amendment and support the military's ongoing efforts to improve its energy security. That reason is that it makes good long-run budgetary sense. Fossil fuels are a finite resource that are priced on a global market. Increasingly, as I mentioned, this fuel is produced by nations with whom we don't see eye to eye. As global competition for fuel resources intensifies, it is vital that we reduce the amount necessary to power our military.

Not only does our reliance on fossil fuels constrain our assets and resources from an operational perspective, it also puts significant strains on already stretched budgets. For example, between

fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2011, the Department of Defense spending on petroleum rose from $4.5 billion to $17.3 billion. That is a 381-percent increase. While that number is shocking, another shocking fact is that during this time the Department of Defense was actually using 4 percent less petroleum. In other words, we are paying nearly four times more money for less fuel.

In addition, global price spikes make budgeting for our current energy costs extremely challenging. According to the Navy, every time oil prices rise by $1, their fuel budget inflates by $30 million. In fiscal year 2012, the U.S. Pacific Command, which is based in Hawaii, faced a $200 million shortfall in operation and maintenance funds. This is directly related to spiking fuel costs. These unforeseen circumstances reduce our military's capabilities and readiness. It is also unsustainable in today's budget environment.

So while the Senator from Pennsylvania argues that biofuels are too expensive now, new technologies are always more expensive at first. That is exactly why we need to invest in scaling up instead of scaling back. The first fighter jets off the assembly line are always more expensive than the 100th fighter off that line. The fact is that it is the height of irresponsibility for us to rely on fuel sources with such unstable costs.

That is why the military is already working to reduce its fossil fuel usage and to develop and deploy alternatives wherever possible. At the U.S. Pacific Command, investments in renewable energy, energy-efficient buildings, and fuel cell or hybrid vehicles are making installations more cost-effective. In fact, PACOM expects to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels for electricity by 80 percent. That would reduce the total DOD electricity demand in Hawaii by 34 percent and save the DOD $42 million per year in electricity costs. This $42 million could be put to better uses.

These are savings that can be replicated on a servicewide scale and will save far more money that could be used to support O&M than the Toomey amendment will. The military recognizes this. This is why GEN James Mattis has stated:

I remain committed to unleash the burden of fuel from our operational and tactical commanders to the greatest extent possible.

These investments are about improving our national security by changing the way we power our military. Advanced biofuels is an investment in that goal and one we should continue.

As U.S. Marine Corps Gen. John Allen has said:

Operational energy equates exactly to operational capability. Let's all work this hard, together!

So I urge my colleagues to vote against the Toomey amendment.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source