[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 166 (Wednesday, November 20, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8348-S8349]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               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

[[Page S8349]]

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.

                          ____________________