Contact: Josh Holly; 202.226.3988
Jessica Mancari; 202.225.6365
Forbes Opening Statement for Hearing on the Department of Defense’s Energy Posture
Washington D.C. – Today, the House Armed Services Subcommittee of Readiness held a hearing to explore the near- and long-term energy posture of the Department of Defense. Ranking Republican J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) released the following opening statement for the hearing:
“Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud your leadership and foresight in addressing not only the issues that are impacting military readiness today—but also issues that are long-term threats to the readiness of the Department of Defense (DOD). Today's hearing on DOD's energy posture, and the hearing we had this past Tuesday on Inherently Governmental Functions, address issues that are complex and very often ill-defined. They require a long-range strategy and commitment if we are to have an impact. Yet, they truly are issues that define and underpin the readiness posture of the department. Thank you for your vision and thank you for holding this hearing.
“I would also like to thank you for assembling this terrific panel of witnesses. Gentlemen—thank you for taking the time to talk with us today. We appreciate your expertise on this matter and we value your time.
“Today, we have an opportunity to look at a wide variety of issues related to the energy requirements and the energy posture of the Department of Defense. The recently released Defense Science Board (DSB) study on DOD's energy strategy provides a solid backdrop for our conversation. The findings and recommendations in this report are important and timely. With the rising price of crude oil, one might even argue that they are overdue.
“We are honored to have one of the study's co-chairman with us today: General Michael Carns (retired). General, my thanks to you and all the members of the task force for the work you have done in examining the Department's energy challenges.
“One of the goals of the hearing today is to discuss the two serious energy risk areas that are identified in your report—energy risks to our operational forces and the risks of extended loss of power at fixed installations. As you proceed with your testimony, I'd ask each of you to also address what you believe needs to be done so that we can actually see real benefit from the study.
“I say that because we study and report on things all the time, yet it is very difficult to bring about real change. Mr. Solis—you probably understand this point better than any of us. I know the committee has kept you very busy and we certainly appreciate all you do to support Congress.
“I make this point because we can not afford to have, what I believe are very salient and very plausible recommendations, be put on a shelf and forgotten. I'd like to know what needs to be done to bring your recommendations to fruition so that we can take steps necessary to further strengthen DOD's energy posture and therefore strengthen our national defense. I'm very interested in understanding how the DSB study will inform the strategic plans of the Department and how such strategic plans will be developed and implemented.
“I'd also ask that you let us know if there are legislative changes that are needed to improve DOD's energy posture. Oftentimes, energy legislation, such as the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is written with a broad focus across the government. While I agree that the US government's energy policy should be just that—government wide—the Department of Defense has unique mission-sets, a unique structure, and unique operating requirements. We must take care to ensure that legislation that has all the best intentions does not have unintended consequences that unduly degrade military capability.
“Once again, thank you for joining us today. I look forward to your testimony and to gaining a better understanding of what we need to do to ensure military readiness through a strong energy posture.”
###