releases: https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=f6160658-3433-4b04-b453-95a16e845471
Data license: MIT · Data source: dwillis/congress-press
This data as json
| url | title | date | year | month | party | chamber | state | member_name | bioguide_id | domain | scraper | source | date_source | text | has_text | collected_at | updated_at |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=f6160658-3433-4b04-b453-95a16e845471 | Sen. Flake Illustrates Washington’s Spending Problem, Targets Waste from the Department of Energy | 2013-11-22 | 2013 | 2013-11 | Republican | House | AZ | Jeff Flake | F000444 | www.flake.senate.gov | legacy | Mesa, Arizona – United States Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), delivered on the Senate floor the following remarks highlighting Washington’s continued spending problem, despite a $17 trillion-and-growing national debt. This is the second speech on reining in federal spending “Fiscal Follies” across agencies and issue areas. Today’s address highlights wasteful spending within the U.S. Department of Energy. Video of Sen. Flake's remarks can be seen below. “We’re now at the halfway point in the countdown to the next budget deadline. By Dec. 13, the budget conference committee must report its plan for the remainder of fiscal year 2014 and beyond. We’re already two-and-a-half-months into the fiscal year, it’s critical that the conferees agree on funding the government within the framework of the Budget Control Act. As I’ve mentioned before on the Senate floor, the BCA – which placed caps discretionary spending – has provided us with a necessary dose of fiscal discipline. While the BCA is not a silver bullet that 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, that deficit reached $680 billion. And in 2014, it is estimated to go up $750 billion. Should Congress chose to ignore the BCA, we will find ourselves even deeper in the red. In fact, some of my friends 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 of these same Democrats have been compiling a list of their favorite tax hikes to replace the sequester. Mr. President, that action fails to recognize one simple truth, a point I made here on the floor last week, and one that I will to make over and over again: Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. In fact, 2013 set the record for the most taxes ever collected, at $2.77 trillion dollars – that’s 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 to moderate the federal budget’s hunger for taxpayer dollars, make no mistake: The budget is still bloated. And anyone who says there’s nothing left to cut simply isn’t looking hard enough. Last week I offered my suggestions for cutting waste at the Department of Agriculture. Just the programs I highlighted – and there are surely others – would save $5 billion when compared to the president’s budget. Today, I want to share with you 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 for instance the Vehicle Technologies Program, which is slated to receive $575 million under President Obama’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 up marketing strategies to promote consumer acceptance of products like electric vehicles and renewable fuels. Is there really anyone in America who doesn’t know what an electric vehicle is or what it does? Yet we’re 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 dollars of taxpayer funds. Curiously, the VTP’s official online listing of goals and accomplishments has not been updates since 2010. Another well-established industry benefiting from taxpayer largesse is wind energy. But don’t take my word for it: Just read DOE’s budget request, which prominently highlights wind industry’s “great success in deploying land-based technology over the last five years.” You also may recall recently retired Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s admission that he considers wind a “mature” technology. Why then, Mr. President, 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 U.S. is both the world’s largest wind power market and home to the world’s No. 1 one wind-power supplier, General Electric. A recent GAO report found that 82 federal wind-related initiatives funded across nine agencies cost $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2011. This is for, what we’ve been told, is a mature technology. What is more troubling than the sheer cost of the federal government’s fragmented wind program is the GAO’s finding that more than 80 percent of those programs had overlapping characteristics. GAO’s subsequent recommendation seemed 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 one month later, recommended an unprecedented funding level of $144 million for the DOE wind energy program in 2014. Wind’s windfall at 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 seven-year window to take advantage of and prepare for the expiration of the original PTC in 1999. But who is surprised that parochial interests and a host of extensions continue to keep this zombie subsidy from expiring as designed. Today, as the credit’s supporters repeat their plea for just one 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’ve 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 from my colleague from Oklahoma, Sen. Coburn’s Duplication Nation report, these redundant programs cost taxpayers $15 billion dollars in 2010 alone. Instead of continuing to pick winners and losers, Congress should reduce its footprint in well-established areas of the energy sector. Not only would this help level the playing field for emerging energy technologies that are actually prepared to compete in the marketplace, it would save taxpayers untold billions of dollars. With just one 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.” ### | 1 | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z |