The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“FOSSIL ENERGY FUNDING” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Senate section on pages S7695-S7696 on Nov. 17, 2011.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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.
____________________
