[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.

                          ____________________