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.
“THE BUDGET” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Agriculture was published in the Senate section on pages S8348-S8349 on Nov. 20, 2013.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE BUDGET
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, we are now at the halfway point in the countdown to the next budget deadline. By December 13 the budget conference committee has to report its plan for the remainder of this fiscal year 2014 and beyond. We are already 2\1/2\ months into the fiscal year. It is critical the conferees agree on funding government within the framework of the Budget Control Act.
As I have mentioned before on the Senate floor, the BCA, which places caps on discretionary spending, has provided us with a necessary dose of fiscal discipline. While the BCA is not a silver bullet which fixes all of our problems, it represents $2 trillion in projected deficit savings that improves the Nation's long-term fiscal outlook. Without it, Federal spending would go unchecked, allowing the deficits to be even higher.
In 2013 the deficit reached $680 billion; in 2014 it is estimated to be $750 billion. Should Congress ignore the BCA, we will find ourselves even deeper in the red. In fact, some across the aisle have indicated that they want to spend a whopping $91 billion more than the BCA mandates in 2014 alone.
Instead of offering smart spending cuts to eliminate waste and prioritize funds, many are compiling a list of their favorite tax hikes to replace the sequester. That action fails to recognize one simple point, a point I made on the floor last weak and one I will make over and over. Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. In fact, 2013 set a record for the most taxes ever collected, $2.77 trillion. That is a 13-percent increase from 2012. Yet some of my colleagues want taxpayers to shoulder the burden of their plans to increase Federal spending.
While the BCA has proved to help moderate the Federal budget's hunger for taxpayer dollars, make no mistake this budget is still bloated. Anyone who says there is nothing left to cut simply is not looking hard enough.
Last week I offered my suggestion for cutting waste at the Department of Agriculture. Just the programs I highlighted--and there are surely others--would save $5 billion when compared with the President's budget. Today I wish to share some similar fiscal follies at the Department of Energy.
The Department of Energy spends an astonishing amount of taxpayer dollars on industries and technologies that are already well established in the public marketplace. But few examples stand out more than the agency's growing role in the automotive industry. Take the Vehicle Technology Program which is slated to receive $575 million under the President's 2014 budget. This program conducts research and development into seemingly every facet of vehicle manufacturing from hybrid technologies to engine efficiency to advanced lightweight materials. It even goes so far as to draw marketing strategies to promote consumer acceptance of products such as electric vehicles and renewable fuels.
Is there anyone in America who does not know what an electric vehicle is or what it does? Yet we are supposed to spend money to improve consumer acceptance for these products. The Vehicle Technologies Program has also awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in grants to automakers, including Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors. Since 2010, the program has received $1.2 billion in taxpayer funds. Curiously, the Vehicle Technology Program's official online listing of goals and accomplishments has not even been updated for 2010.
Another well-established industry benefiting from taxpayer largesse is wind energy. Read DOE's budget request which prominently highlights the wind industry's ``great success in deploying planted-based technologies over the past 5 years.'' You may recall recently retired energy Secretary Steven Chu's admission that he considers wind a
``mature'' technology. Why then are we pumping money into a technology that even DOE indicates should be able to stand on its own?
A recent Navigant Research study made headlines when it reported that the United States is both the world's largest wind power market and home to the world's No. 1 wind power supplier, General Electric. A recent GAO report found that 82 Federal wind-related initiatives funded across 9 agencies cost $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2011. This is for what we have been told is a mature technology.
What is more troubling than the sheer cost of the Federal Government's fragmented Wind Program is GAO's finding that more than 80 percent of those programs have overlapping characteristics. GAO's subsequent recommendation seems reasonable enough; that the DOE should formally assess and document whether Federal financial support of its initiatives is actually needed. Yet the President's budget, released 1 month later, recommends an unprecedented level of $144 million for the DOE wind energy program, just in 2014.
Wind's windfall from DOE comes on the heels of yet another extension of the multibillion dollar wind production tax credit. This tax credit was temporarily established more than two decades ago to encourage investment in the then-fledgling wind industry. This is two decades ago. Congress gave energy a 7-year window to take advantage of and prepare for the expiration of the original PTC in 1999--given 7 years.
But to the surprise of no one, parochial interests and a host of extensions continue to keep this zombie subsidy from expiring as designed. Today, as the credit supporters repeat their plea for just 1 more extension, they ignore America's debt-ridden reality and so the walking dead wind production tax credit, which is little more than a taxpayer-funded entitlement program, lives on. While I have singled out automotive and wind programs at DOE, similar arguments could be made for reducing or eliminating the Department's support for other established industries, including oil, natural gas, solar, and nuclear. Many of these programs are both unnecessary for further development of these technologies and are blatantly duplicative.
In fact, another GAO study identified a mind-boggling 679 renewable energy initiatives across 23 agencies in fiscal year 2010. Prominently featured in a report by my colleague from Oklahoma Senator Coburn, these redundant programs cost $15 billion in 2010 alone.
Instead of continuing to pick winners and losers, Congress needs to reduce its footprint in well-established areas of the energy sector. Not only will this help level the playing field for emergency energy technologies that are actually preparing to compete in the marketplace, it would save taxpayers untold billions of dollars.
With just 1 month to go before the budget deadline, I urge my colleagues to reject the urge to fixate on raising taxes and instead help focus negotiations on smart, achievable spending reductions. By eliminating waste and prioritizing spending within the BCA framework, we can shore up this country's fiscal future. Turning out the lights on wasteful programs at the Department of Energy would be a step in the right direction.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
