Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes language in the underlying bill that undermines and underfunds the Department of Defense's ability to develop and acquire alternative fuels that improve mission capabilities under section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Section 526 established important baselines that guide private sector innovators in the development of alternative fuels for our military.

It is a low-cost, commonsense provision that helps the military fulfill its existing goals to diversify its fuel supply to reduce costs and save lives.

It does not, as some incorrectly claim, ban any fuels. It has not hindered the Department of Defense from purchasing the fuels that we need right now to counter the new and dynamic threats we face throughout the globe. It simply requires fuel producers seeking to do business with our military to meet certain requirements. We cannot expect to fight and to win the wars of tomorrow with only the fuels of yesterday.

A $1 increase in the price of a barrel of oil translates to approximately a $130 million increase in DOD expenditures over the course of a year. A blip in the world oil market forces the Department to redirect resources away from mission priorities--grounding planes and turning ships around.

Since September 11, 2001, more than 3,000 servicemembers have been killed or wounded in attacks on fuel convoys in Afghanistan. Delivering technologies to our troops that improve efficiency and cost certainty over traditional sources of fuel is both a lifesaving strategy and has tactical benefits on the battlefield.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of this issue will say that section 526 is putting President Obama's green climate initiative into national security policy, but that is not true. But this provision was signed into law 9 years ago by a Republican President, George Bush. It is still supported by our military leaders today, and Congress should support it.

My colleagues will say that they are simply broadening the market for alternative fuels for the military, but they are not. They are ripping the bottom out from under it.

By inserting an anti-environmental agenda into the process of funding our national defense, the funding prohibition cripples existing efforts at the DOD to purchase cost-competitive biofuels and abolishes any certainty in the commercial marketplace.

This would take us backwards at a time when we need a smart, forward- looking approach to increase fuel diversity, particularly in ways that improve efficiency, enhance our range and agility, and better prepare our forces for future security environments where logistics may be constrained.

Energy security is national security.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, again, the politics on this amendment is really on the other side. We have seen the military support this. This is an effort started by President George Bush to improve our security and cost containment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support removing this restriction by voting for this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source