California Rep. Jared Huffman seems bent on paying Putin for the fuel needed by US military installations in Europe. Why?
Congressman from Gazprom?
By Steve Milloy
Progressive Congressman Jared Huffman (D-CA) is at it again, this time attempting to undermine recent year gains in the National Defense Authorization (NDAA) bill’s efforts to counter Russian Federation energy stranglehold on Europe as it pertains to U.S. defense installations.
At a time when the United States has an abundance of natural resources and can easily meet the energy needs of installations throughout Europe, we will be paying Russia for fuel.
In the FY20 NDAA (HR 2500) Mr. Huffman bypassed the regular committee process of submitting amendments for consideration months before floor passage by air-dropping his provision without any co-sponsors just days before the bill hit the house floor.
The amendment was part of large en bloc package of amendments which passed by voice vote — without a single minute of policy debate to consider the long term ramifications of the ill-advised measure. This was just one of many controversial policy riders that the Democrats allowed into the bill to appease their progressive members.
As the controversial Russian Nord Stream II natural gas project accelerates in Europe, Congress has taken aggressive steps to counter these efforts. In the FY18 (Sec.2880, Conference Report 115-404, Public Law 115-91) & FY19 (Sec.2811, Conference Report 115-874, Public Law 115-232) defense policy bills, Congress adopted in a bi-partisan fashion measures to combat the growing risk of over exposure to Russian sourced natural gas to power our defense installations.
Of most immediate concern for policy makers, is the pending construction of the Rhine Ordnance Barracks Medical Center Replacement (ROBMCR), which will replace Landstuhl Hospital. The medical center will cover the medical needs of our armed forces and their families spanning 3 continents.
The FY19 NDAA carried language to help mitigate reliance on Russian sourced natural gas by mandating energy security by utilizing a mixed-fuels heating system which would use various fuels, not just natural gas. The law also preferred, if available, U.S. sourced energy. As the United States becomes a net energy exporter, policy planners were wise to include such language to help promote our domestic energy exporters.
Rep. Huffman’s provision (floor amendment #42) eliminates any reference to “natural gas” in the adopted FY20 readiness subcommittee language and even more disastrous, the amendment calls for the complete repeal of the FY19 NDAA language as it pertains to the new medical center in Germany fuel diversification policy mandate.
Why is Rep. Huffman so bent on helping out Putin at the expense of the US energy industry? Let’s have the pravda (truth), Congressman.
Steve Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and served on the Trump EPA transition team.