On the recordJune 19, 2014
This debate will mirror one that took place earlier today. The fact is I would talk about flexibility. The gentleman talks about the costs involved. I think, when you develop new products, new technologies, there is going to be a cost, as far as that research and development. I will point out that the comparisons, as far as some of the costs, perhaps do not fully factor into the issue of transportation and how some of those fuels get on those ships and in those airplanes in remote parts of the world. The gentleman also alluded to the flexibility on foreign soil, where you don't have a gas station handy for some of the energy that those troops may need, so I would also reiterate that the commander for the Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Locklear, did state that the greatest threat to long-term peace in the Pacific region is climate change. I certainly do think that alternative fuels, given the fact that the Department of Defense is the largest consumer on the planet Earth, is worth abiding by, and therefore, I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that forcing the military to pay $26.60 per gallon for fuel that can be obtained for $2.50 a gallon isn't about flexibility. It is about insanity, and it is time that we put an end to this. I yield back the balance of my time.
