Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, the current law that this amendment addresses doesn't hinder our readiness at all, nor does it raise costs. It is not costly. It is not a general ban on the internal combustion engine.

Mr. Chairman, I believe I may be the only certified internal combustion engine mechanic in the U.S. Congress right now, although my certification has long since run out. I love internal combustion engines, but they do run out of fuel. They need fuel, just as electric vehicles need electricity.

The current law allows for a preference for leasing or procuring electric, hybrid, biofuel-capable, or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles when reasonably comparable on cost to an internal combustion engine. The current law does not mandate buying a non-ICE vehicle. It just establishes a preference when all else is equal.

Also, Mr. Chairman, it has many exemptions that prevent impacts to readiness and makes this a nonproblematic, commonsense provision. These include tactical vehicles that are entirely excluded from this preference policy.

The policy can only be put in place if the alternative-fuel vehicle fully meets the needs of the Department of Defense. The alternative- fuel vehicle must be commercially available at a cost, including both purchase or leasing price and operating cost, that is comparable to traditional internal combustion engine motor vehicles, and there is an exemption if the purchase or lease of such a vehicle is, to quote directly from the law, impracticable under the circumstances.

In addition to these numerous exemptions, there is also a waiver provision with no certification reporting requirement, making it very straightforward to get a waiver if an electric vehicle or alternative- fuel vehicle is not the right fit. The preference policy is not restrictive. It is not overly burdensome in any sense. It is just truly a preference if all other conditions are equal.

In addition to eliminating the preference itself, it is pretty interesting to see that there are two other provisions in this amendment that both eliminate even the consideration of noninternal combustion engine vehicles, even the consideration, and other alternative-energy initiatives in the Department of Defense's energy performance goals or when setting energy plans for installations.

It is hard to look at that language and consider this amendment with a straight face. I would be curious to know if the sponsor talked to the agriculture community. I am sure they would have concerns about the attacks on biodiesel and ethanol. This attack is actively harmful, and it sets us backward, especially when newer fuels and technology have such strong potential for energy efficiency, resiliency, and cost- saving gains. The EV business is just getting better and better every single day.

In an environment where our bases need resilience more than ever, it makes no sense to remove the consideration of practices that can make energy performance or goals or plans more efficient and help the Department and installations meet their targets.

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this harmful amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, that would make sense as to why there is a preference. They could do it differently if they are near saltwater versus being in, say, Dayton, Ohio.

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), my good friend.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source