[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 176 (Thursday, November 17, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7695-S7696]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOSSIL ENERGY FUNDING
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the
fossil energy funding in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
Fossil energy is a critical resource that we should not and can not
just throw away. Providing the majority of our energy, we need to use
these resources in a safe and responsible way. Harnessing domestic
fossil energy could create jobs, lift up struggling communities, and
provide jobs for our strong and dedicated workforce.
I know there are people who remain very much opposed to funding
fossil energy research who want to move away from fossil fuels as
quickly as possible. But the fact of the matter is that, at this time,
our Nation is not capable of quickly moving away from fossil fuels,
which provides that majority of the energy we use. We need fossil
energy to help us move forward, and we should not pretend otherwise.
While I believe that our country will continue using fossil fuels for
many decades, it is my hope that we will also continually seek better
ways for using these resources.
We need to find more efficient ways of burning coal that emit fewer
pollutants and protect public health. We need to find more
environmentally friendly ways to extract natural gas and oil. And we
need to find ways to design and build carbon capture and sequestration
facilities that will allow us to reduce the impacts of using fossil
fuels on the climate.
This is the type of work that fossil energy research and development
goes towards, and work that I believe we must continue to support.
Without it, we are only putting our country at a disadvantage.
In Morgantown, WV, the National Energy Technology Laboratory or NETL
is doing this work and pioneering fossil energy research and
development activities that are lighting a pathway for a new era of
energy use that is critical to West Virginia and our nation.
Unfortunately, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill slashes
fossil energy funding by 25 percent in just 1 year. In Fiscal Year 2011
the overall fossil energy Budget was $586 million. The President only
requested $452.9 million for Fiscal Year 2012 and this bill only
contains $445.5 million.
In comparison, the overall Energy and Water bill cuts spending by
less than 1 percent. The nuclear section of this bill cuts funding by
20 percent and the renewable section of this bill remains flat--not
facing any cut this year.
I recognize that in this budgetary climate cuts may be inevitable to
many programs. But I firmly believe that in the Department of Energy
budget no one account can be asked to shoulder that burden alone. But
if cuts must be made they should be done in fair and reasonable way,
when compared to funding for other energy programs.
Unfortunately, the fossil energy cuts in this bill are neither fair
nor reasonable. The cuts to fossil energy in this bill are
disproportionate compared to funding levels for other areas of
research.
To correct this situation, I have introduced an amendment that would
restore $30 million to the fossil energy account, $10 million for
natural gas, $10 million for unconventional fossil fuels and $10
million for advanced energy systems in coal areas.
Again, I understand the budgetary times that we are facing in
Washington. I understand that cuts have to be made. But what I strongly
disagree with is the idea that fossil energy must shoulder more than
its fair share of cuts.
Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join with me to restore a portion
of funding for the fossil energy program.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, last week, the Senate Armed Services
Committee held a hearing on whether to elevate the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This was an
important hearing for the men and women of our armed services, and I am
grateful that the committee allowed me to submit a statement for the
hearing record. In light of the upcoming National Defense Authorization
Act, in which I expect these provisions to pass, I ask unanimous
consent that my statement be printed in the Record before the full
Senate, so that the rest of my colleagues may have a chance to read it.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Senate Committee on Armed Services
Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, Members of the Committee--
thank you for holding this hearing on whether the Chief of
the National Guard Bureau should be a member of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. And thanks to all of the Chiefs of our armed
forces--both active duty and reserve--for being here today.
There is no question--as a matter of both principle and of
national security--that the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau should be elevated to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The
Guardians of Freedom Act, which passed overwhelmingly in the
House of Representatives on May 25, would accomplish this
goal. I hope that today's hearing will lead to swift action
on this important legislation, and I look forward to the
testimony of each of the witnesses.
It is important to acknowledge that the role of the
National Guard has evolved over the last ten years. Since 9/
11, National Guardsmen have mobilized more than 700,000 times
to support overseas and domestic missions. They have played
an essential role in the conflicts in both Afghanistan and
Iraq
[[Page S7696]]
and are a critical operational reserve for our armed forces.
Today's National Guard accounts for more than 460,000 service
members from every state in the Union--roughly 25 percent of
all of our 1.9 million-member force.
The Guard has also become an essential part of our nation's
response to both man-made and natural disasters. This August,
when Hurricane Irene slammed the East Coast, the National
Guard responded by calling up over 11,000 soldiers and airmen
from 24 states to coordinate the relief efforts. Our Guard is
being trained to respond to chemical, biological, nuclear and
radiological attacks. It is being trained to deal with
pandemics. It is asked to be the first on the scene after
major earthquakes, snowstorms, and hurricanes. These homeland
defense responsibilities will continue to increase, as well.
The National Guard also brings capabilities and
efficiencies to the table that we need in these tough
economic times. For example, the Air National Guard provides
35 percent of the total Air Force capability for seven
percent of the cost. And, the Army National Guard provides 40
percent of the Army's capability for just 11 percent of the
Army budget. Together, 464,900 members of the National Guard
provide a capable, operational and affordable military
force--at just six percent of the Pentagon's annual budget.
The absence of the National Guard from the Joint Chiefs of
Staff has very real consequences. Full membership of the
National Guard in the Joint Chiefs could have better prepared
the Marines' response to the 1992 riots in Los Angeles, our
nation's initial response to the 9/11 attacks, or our
response to Hurricane Katrina.
In October of 2005, the Government Accountability Office
called into question the Army National Guard's ability to
carry out its domestic mission. Then, just like now, there is
no permanent system in place to replenish necessary equipment
once it is removed from Guard units in individual states.
And, the Pentagon has required National Guard units to leave
behind critical equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan. A drastic
shortfall in equipment levels has led to a drop in mission
readiness. As a result, the Guard's ability to respond to
domestic emergencies has been severely inhibited. I find it
hard to believe this would be the case if the Guard had a
seat at the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
With no seat at the table, the National Guard Chief must
rely solely on active duty military leaders to make funding
decisions. Under the circumstances, General McKinley can do
nothing to stop the Joint Chiefs if they put recommend
cutting a key program or ignore an opportunity to maintain
critical operational capability.
In many ways, the Guard has earned the right to be in the
room. Today, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau wears
four stars. He attends regular Joint Chiefs meetings. While I
understand that General McKinley enjoys a good relationship
with Chairman Dempsey, personalities can't be everything.
Now, it's time to give the National Guard a seat at the
table. We need to make sure the National Guard has the voice
it needs--not just to protect its capability, but because of
its increasingly active role in overseas operations, because
of its role in homeland security initiatives, and because of
the cost efficiencies it can offer in these turbulent
economic times.
Ultimately, I understand that change is hard. Some may
argue that these changes are not necessary. Some may argue
that the National Guard does not deserve a seat at the table,
that the National Guard is well-represented on the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, or that the National Guard has the resources
it needs.
Critics may say that elevating the National Guard would
provide a ``second voice'' to the Army and Air Force. That is
wrong. The National Guard's participation would be no
different than that of the Marine Corps, which is both part
of the Navy and has its own seat on the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. Today, as we all know, the Commandant is a valued
member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and no one would argue
that his advice over the last 30 years has not been valuable.
Some may counter that elevating the National Guard could
muddy the Guard's dual commitments to member states and the
federal government. In reality, it would not alter lines of
authority, but better enable the Guard to provide unfiltered
advice on its capabilities and resources. The Guard wouldn't
just have its domestic responsibilities--it would have the
capabilities, clout, and access to do them better.
Critics may also say that the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau has no budgetary authority, but that argument is
misleading. The role of the Joint Chiefs is to provide sound,
useful advice to the President. In fact, the perspective of
the Chief of the National Guard Bureau could save our country
billions of dollars. Earlier this year, for example, the Air
National Guard Bureau offered a proposal that would have
saved up to $42 billion. Unfortunately, the Air Force
dismissed it almost immediately--likely, I've been told, for
turf reasons. That would not have happened had the Chief of
the National Guard Bureau been able to make his case, offer
his perspective, and share his expertise with our planners at
the Pentagon. The National Guard can help the Pentagon cut
costs without cutting capabilities--but only if it is an
equal partner in the decision-making process.
Some may argue that a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff
would give the National Guard too much influence at the
active-duty components' expense. But we know better than
that. Look at the size of the services' Congressional liaison
staff, the military fellows in our offices and the attaches
in the halls--or even the number of Senators, including many
on this Committee, who are former active-duty service
members. An enhanced role for the National Guard would not
diminish the active-duty services' clout among lawmakers.
Now is the time to give the National Guard the voice it
needs on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and to give the President
a broader perspective of the capabilities and resources at
his disposal. Now is the time to use all of the tools in our
arsenal to create a more secure homeland.
Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, Members of the Committee--
thank you for holding this hearing. I look forward to swift
passage of the Guardians of Freedom Act. And thank you to my
good friend, Senator Leahy, for his leadership on this
important issue.
We have given the National Guard the right to be in the
room. Now, let's give them a seat at the table.
Thank you.
____________________