Ed Case: “First of all, let's take a look at the actual language of the amendment. I have heard the arguments from my colleague…”

“First of all, let's take a look at the actual language of the amendment. I have heard the arguments from my colleague about what this amendment does, but when you take a look at the actual language of the amendment, what you discover is uncertainty all over the place. Let's start with the stated goal of cutting climate research from the Defense-wide research and development budget. Well, this doesn't specify that in the amendment itself. It talks about Defense-wide research and development budget, so I guess that means all Defense research and development that in any way, shape, or form may be linked in some way, shape, or form to evaluating the effects of the climate on defense research and development, so we don't really know what this amendment is doing in that department. That is number one. Similarly, we have no idea what the increase in the Army's budget for unmanned ground vehicles is really all about. It is just a general increase. On a very basic level, the amendment just fails for lack of certainty and direction to the Defense Department. However, let's be clear about what this amendment is actually all about. I take for granted that the gentleman, in fact, wants to increase funding for unmanned ground vehicles, but it is at the expense of further climate-related activities within the Department of Defense. We, of course, had this discussion in the Appropriations Committee. This is a longstanding discussion.…”