The Insider

Biofuel proponents are gearing up for a major fight over Defense Department clean energy and alternative fuel policies when the Senate Armed Services Committee marks up the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill this week, as committee Republicans ready amendments to block DOD plans to purchase advanced biofuels, according to a story published in last week's Clean Energy Report:

The Senate mark-up follows House passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2013 on May 18, which would block DOD efforts to purchase advanced drop-in biofuels. House Republicans opposed the DOD effort over the program's cost and as a proxy attack on President Obama's clean energy and climate change agendas.

Sens. Mark Udall (D-CO) and Patty Murray (D-WA) will offer amendments in the Armed Services Committee that support DOD's biofuel development priorities, staffers say. Democrats are bracing for an effort by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), a vocal critic of DOD's biofuel efforts, to block all military purchases of drop-in fuels with an amendment similar to that of Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) that succeeded in the House.

Sources say Inhofe is readying several amendments to block the military's green energy programs. A spokesman for Inhofe says the senator is perplexed that the military plans to spend billions to buy expensive biofuels for its fleets, while DOD is cutting its budget for ships and planes.

Staffers for Udall and Murray briefed industry May 18 on their strategy to preserve the military's biofuel programs during a drop-in fuels forum hosted by the Agriculture Department that drew hundreds of industry representatives as well as staff from the Energy Department and DOD. The forum was part of series of briefings on a multi-agency effort to advance drop-in fuels, which the military eyes as an alternative to petroleum with characteristics that make it superior to other biofuels like ethanol.

A Udall staffer told the industry audience that Inhofe will offer amendments that may go beyond the Conaway amendment. The staffer said it was urgent for industry to show support for the DOD biofuels programs in the coming days, with messaging focused on economic gains that come from DOD's biofuel efforts, the energy security aspects of advanced drop-in fuels, and the support it provides to troops by reducing their vulnerabilities in fossil-fuel supply convoys.

"The attack has been, this is about the green agenda" and that it's a proxy for climate change legislation, said the staffer. But the debate over drop-in fuels needs to shift to, "this is going to win wars," it's about combat effectiveness, energy security and protection. "We have a fight on our hands . . . and a genuine debate needs to happen," the staffer added.

Udall has asked senior military officials to describe the problems posed by the Conaway amendment in an effort to counter that provision in the Senate, according to the staffer, who said Udall expects to get an answer back from the military soon. In the meantime, Udall staff are poring over the Conaway amendment "line by line" to understand it enough to effectively block it in the Senate version of NDAA 2013.

House lawmakers just passed the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill by a 299-120 vote.

Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee Chairman Mike Turner (R-OH) had this to say about the bill's passage:

This year House Republicans have continued to support our men and women in uniform while ensuring the safety and security of this nation. As the Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee I have sought to place an emphasis on a number of issues which are confronting our national security structure including: missile defense, modernization of our nuclear enterprise, and reform of bureaucratic entities such as the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Earlier this year, President Obama lifted the curtain on his 'secret deal' with the Russians. We still do not know the terms of this 'secret deal.' What does he mean that he will have greater 'flexibility' past his 'last election?' The White House has never made clear what deals it has been offering to the Russians, despite requests for such information by myself and my colleagues. The bill the House passed today will ensure this nation is protected from the threat of a missile attack. This includes the study of an East Coast missile defense site in order to prepare us for emerging threats across the globe.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate in crafting a final bill which will meet these goals and continue to see that our country remains ready to meet the threats of tomorrow, while providing for our defense today.

Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA):

This year's defense authorization bill helps meet my priorities as chairman: resolve sequestration, restore strategy and sanity to the defense budget, and rebuild our military after a decade of war.

In an era of austerity, it is critical that we carefully allocate every penny that goes to the Defense Department. This bill mandates fiscal responsibility within the Department of Defense, through sound fiscal stewardship, careful prioritization of resources, and reforming the way the Pentagon interacts with the defense industrial base. We’ve taken steps to ensure that competition is promoted for government contracts, worked to ease stresses on small businesses seeking to do business with the Armed Forces, and evaluated the military’s supply chains for weaknesses.

The bill also postures our Armed Forces for potential future threats. Despite a tough fiscal environment, we have provided our Armed Forces with the tools they need to win the war today and deter against the wars of tomorrow.

I am particularly proud of the fact that this bipartisan bill honors the service of our military personnel, veterans and their families. We have kept faith with our all-volunteer military, shielding our troops and veterans from inflated health care and retirement fees. They paid for those benefits with their service, and I am proud that we were able to protect our wartime military from unfair fiscal burdens.

The FY13 NDAA would not have been possible without the partnership and leadership of my friend, Ranking Member Adam Smith. I am also particularly grateful to our subcommittee chairmen, all the Committee members and our staff for their diligent efforts on behalf of the men and women of our armed services.

Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA):

I want to thank Chairman McKeon, all members of the House of Representatives and staff for their hard work on this important piece of legislation.

Overall, this bill prioritizes our troops deployed in Afghanistan and around the world by ensuring that they have the tools and resources they need to do their job and protect national security.  It also provides our troops and their families with the benefits and support that they deserve, including a 1.6 percent pay increase.

It continues to make counterterrorism a priority and makes significant investments in all branches of our Armed Services, ensuring that our military is prepared to meet the threats of today as well as the future.  It supports our troops as they continue to fight overseas, invests in new technologies for the future, and protects vital military equipment production capacity here at home.

However, I am troubled by the language throughout the bill that either relies too much on a large and extended combat mission in the case of Afghanistan or, simply, overly confrontational language in the cases of Russia, North Korea, Iran, and China, to name a few.

In many cases, the only thing preventing me from voting against this bill is the qualifying language.  For example, on Afghanistan, the bill requires 68,000 troops through the end of 2014 but then says “if necessary.”  On Iran, it calls for all avenues to be used including military force, but again, only "if necessary."

The language on Russia is particularly troubling.  Much of the rhetoric during debate on this bill echoed sentiments from 1982, when we were at the height of the Cold War. We are no longer in the Cold War, and we should not be treating Russia like an enemy.

On North Korea, the confrontational language went so far as to include a study that suggests deploying tactical nuclear weapons to the region.  This would be dangerous and reckless and could destabilize the entire region.

If this were binding language, I would have to vote against this bill.  Luckily, it is simply a statement of policy by the majority -- policies that I strongly disagree with.

Additionally, given the size of our debt and deficit and growing budgetary pressures, I am concerned the bill supports an overall defense budget that is roughly $8 billion over the Budget Control Act.  Congress made a commitment to get our budget under control, and I fully expect that the Senate will honor the Budget Control Act number.

The bill also includes provisions that discriminate against gay and lesbian service members.  For years, many members of our Armed Services had to hide who they were to fight for the country they love, and I am strongly opposed to efforts that seek to turn back the clock on the progress we have made in the name of equality.

The bill also takes a big step back on energy, by ending support for many kinds of alternative fuels which undermine our national security policy.  Our nation must decrease, if not eliminate, its reliance on imported fuels and maintain our leadership in this area.  China and many other nations are seeking to become leaders in this area, and the committee’s actions will set us back and risk our leadership in this arena.

Again, I supported his bill in its current form because we must support our troops while they are in harm's way.  We must ensure that they have the tools and resources they need to ensure national security and accomplish missions we ask of them.  However, there is still much more work to be done to address many of the issues with this bill.  I look forward to reviewing the Senate’s version of this bill and working with my colleagues here in the House to make sure we send the President a final bill that meets the high standards of the United States Armed Services.

The House Appropriations Committee just approved the $519 billion defense-spending bill for fiscal year 2013 by a voice vote. It also approved $88.5 billion for overseas contingency operations.

Click here to view the draft report accompanying the bill, and here to view the committee's statement.

Appropriators on the Senate side have yet to schedule a mark-up date for their version of the bill.

Acting Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall has endorsed the use of next-generation, performance-based logistics strategies.

In a May 14, 2012, memo, Kendall writes:

Operations and Support (O&S) costs comprise 60 to 70 percent of total ownership costs. We must find ways to lower our O&S expenditures while maintaining the right readiness for our Warfighters. A key method to lowering O&S costs is the implementation of sustainment strategies that optimize readiness at best value. Appropriate use of Performance-Based Logistics (PBLs) will help to achieve affordable sustainment strategies and is a method for achieving our Better Buying Power (BBP) goals.

PBLs can be an effective method of achieving notable cost savings while improving readiness and should be broadly applied across the Department. A recently completed study by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness (ASD(L&MR)) provided compelling evidence that properly constructed and executed performance-based product support strategies (commonly referred to as PBLs) deliver best-value weapon system support.

ASD(L&MR) is spearheading an effort focused on enabling broader, more effective implementation of PBLs across the inventory of DoD platforms, sub-systems, and components as appropriate based on business case analysis results. The Next-Generation PBL Integrated Product Team will provide effective policies, processes, tools, and training across all functional communities engaged in structuring and executing PBLs.

Developing correctly structured, priced, and executed PBLs is often a more complex task than initiating a standard transactional arrangement. It requires a combined and focused effort by the Program Manager, the Product Support Manager, and the Contracting Community, among others. However, the ability to more affordably support the Warfighter at a greater level of readiness is worth the effort.

I will closely track our progress toward the goal of aggressively implementing PBLs and solicit your endorsement, commitment of resources, and active support.

The Obama administration late this afternoon threatened a presidential veto if the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill includes provisions proposed by House lawmakers on nuclear weapons policy and detainee matters.

According to today's statement of administration policy:

If the cumulative effects of the bill impede the ability of the Administration to execute the new defense strategy and to properly direct scarce resources, the President's senior advisors would recommend to the President that he veto the bill.

Specifically, two provisions would spark a veto:

Limitations on Nuclear Force Reductions and Nuclear Employment Strategy: The Administration strongly objects to sections 1053-1059, which would impinge on the President's ability to implement the New START Treaty and to set U.S. nuclear weapons policy. In particular, sections 1053 and 1055 would set onerous conditions on the Administration's ability to implement the Treaty, and section 1058 would set onerous conditions on the President's ability to retire, dismantle, or eliminate non-deployed nuclear weapons. Further, section 1054 raises constitutional concerns as it appears to encroach on the President's authority as Commander in Chief to set nuclear employment policy -- a right exercised by every president in the nuclear age from both parties. If the final bill presented to the President includes these provisions, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Detainee Matters: The Administration strongly objects to sections 1035-1043, which would continue and in some cases expand unwise restrictions that would constrain the flexibility that our Nation's armed forces and counterterrorism professionals need to deal with evolving threats. Section 1035, which would prohibit any detainee who has been repatriated to Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, or the Republic of Palau from traveling to the U.S., is unnecessary and could undermine our relations with a friendly government whose citizens may serve in the U.S. military. Sections 1036, 1037, 1038, and 1043 unnecessarily renew, supplement, or enhance the restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees into the United States or a foreign country. The Administration continues to strongly oppose these provisions, which intrude upon the Executive branch's ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees. Likewise, the Administration opposes the notice and reporting requirements in sections 1040, 1041, and 1042, which would unnecessarily complicate and potentially compromise military operations and detention practices -- including aboard naval vessels at sea. These sections, like section 1039, would also greatly add to the military's administrative burden. Section 1041 is an unprecedented, unwarranted, and misguided intrusion into the military’s detention operations in a foreign combat theater during an active armed conflict. The reporting requirements seek to micromanage the decisions of experienced military commanders and diplomats, threaten to compromise the Executive's ability to act swiftly and flexibly during a critical time for transition in Afghanistan, and could deter or jeopardize the success of effective foreign prosecutions. Sections 1036, 1037, and 1041, moreover, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. If the final bill presented to the President includes provisions that challenge critical executive branch authority, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

To view the full statement of administration policy, click here.

In response to some very public comments made by two F-22 pilots on the safety of flying the fighter jet, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has directed the Air Force to take further precautions against the hypoxia-like incidents affecting the fleet.

In a Pentagon press conference today, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs George Little announced that OSD has instructed the Air Force expedite the installation of a backup, “auto” oxygen system on the entire F-22 fleet. The Raptor's existing on-board oxygen generation system requires a manual activation, and the backup system would presumably activate automatically, but Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby deferred questions about the new backup system to the Air Force.

Little also announced that F-22 flights will temporarily fly only short-duration flights and should remain close to potential landing locations at all times in case pilots encounter any hypoxia symptoms. This restriction is particularly relevant near Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska, an F-22 home base and a location where Raptors often fly long-range missions. F-22 aircraft will not be limited to a specific distance or time in flight, Kirby said, and the decision on how far, how long or at what altitude to fly will be left to operators. However, long-duration flights will be performed by other aircraft for now, Little said.

In addition to those two precautions, OSD has instructed the Air Force to submit a monthly progress report on the service's quest to discover a root cause of the F-22 fleet's oxygen generation issues.

Some F-22s are deployed in the Middle East, and Little said those airplanes will stay there and continue executing their missions. “We believe we can safely continue that deployment given the geography of the region,” he said.

The Congressional Budget Office recently wrapped up a "preliminary estimate" of what it calls the "direct spending effects" of the House version of the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill, according to a May 11 letter to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA). The letter further states:

Based on legislative language for H.R. 4310 that was provided to CBO from May 2 through May 10, CBO estimates that enacting this bill would decrease net direct spending by $33 million in 2013, $554 million over the 2013-2017 period, and $44 million over the 2013-2022 period. Because the bill would affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues.

Click here to view the bill language, and here to view the accompanying report.