On the recordJune 6, 2012
I also rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. We need to move away from our dependency on fuel imported by unfriendly nations. I have in past debates on this floor, and I would do it again, referenced the senior Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar, who has long characterized our energy crisis paramount, as one of national security, given where those petroleum purchases take place. The fact is, if we can get more miles per gallon, we have solved part of that national security crisis. None of us today standing here or sitting here are going to be able to do much about the price of a barrel of oil. But if each one of those individual drivers can get some relief by getting an extra mile per gallon for their vehicle, we have also helped ameliorate their economic pressure and the costs that they have. I think it is shortsighted to eliminate this program which has the potential to address a major issue in the viability and practicality of electric vehicles, and that is the battery. We need to be looking at the cost, performance, life, and abuse tolerance of batteries, and I do support the Department's efforts on this front and have been active for a number of years in seeking additional funds for it because I think it does a great value to this country's future. I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
