Monday, April 23, 2012

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley and Sen. John Thune are asking the Energy Department to explain the selection of a luxury automaker - now described as "troubled" -- for a $529 million federal loan for advanced technology vehicles manufacturing.  The federal government made part of the loan to the Fisker Automotive Corporation, then froze the remaining portion, raising questions about whether the company was vetted properly in the first place.

"The government is responsible for minimizing risk to taxpayers," Grassley said.  "It's important to know what went into the Energy Department's decision to fund the production of expensive luxury vehicles.   The riskiness of loans to companies that may or may not be able to pay them back deserves scrutiny.  The taxpayers can't and shouldn't have to subsidize these decisions."

"There seems to be a troubling pattern developing at the Department of Energy when it comes to providing taxpayer-backed government loans to private companies," Thune said. "Taxpayers have a right to know why their hard-earned money was used in part to back the production of luxury automobiles overseas, especially in a manner that might not have undergone proper review. I hope Secretary Chu will provide Congress with answers about why this loan was granted and to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not at risk."

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 required the creation of a direct loan program from the federal government to car companies through the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive program.   Fisker's two planned vehicles would sell for more than $100,000 and about $50,000.  The high retail prices seem to indicate the vehicles would be out of reach for most Americans, thereby seeming like a questionable choice of investment for a federal program.  Also, the senators questioned whether the company's vehicle production in Finland diminishes the goal of developing advanced vehicle technology to create jobs in the United States.

The text of the Grassley-Thune letter to Energy Secretary Stephen Chu is available here.

DES MOINES, Iowa, April 20, 2012 - Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today toured a Midwest facility that is using plant-based materials to manufacture ingredients used in dietary supplements and in personal care products for Americans, as well as in agriculture. Kemin is working to add six new manufacturing facilities, three new research facilities and a new corporate headquarters building, creating nearly 100 new jobs. This is an example of how manufacturing products from biobased materials is creating jobs across the country and?coupled with a broader Obama administration effort to promote an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy"?is reducing our reliance on foreign oil.

"Promoting production of biofuels and embracing biobased products have helped reduce dependence on foreign oil to less than 50 percent and will continue to help reduce our reliance for years to come," said Vilsack. "Innovative companies like Kemin are part of a broader biobased economy that supports hundreds of thousands of American jobs producing the energy and goods that the world needs from renewable resources grown here at home. If we are able to produce more energy here at home and build a manufacturing economy producing biobased goods, we'll generate middle-class jobs and strengthen our economy in the long run."

Creating new markets for the nation's agricultural products through biobased manufacturing is one of the many steps the Administration has taken over the past three years to strengthen the rural economy. Since August 2011, the White House Rural Council has supported a broad spectrum of rural initiatives including a Presidential Memorandum to create jobs in rural America through biobased and sustainable product procurement, a $350 million commitment in SBA funding to rural small businesses over the next 5 years, launching a series of conferences to connect investors with rural start-ups, creating capital marketing teams to pitch federal funding opportunities to private investors interested in making rural and making job search information available at 2,800 local USDA offices nationwide.

Since taking office, President Obama's Administration has taken historic steps to improve the lives of rural Americans, put people back to work and build thriving economies in rural communities. From proposing the American Jobs Act to establishing the first-ever White House Rural Council - chaired by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack - the President is committed to a smarter use of existing Federal resources to foster sustainable economic prosperity and ensure the government is a strong partner for businesses, entrepreneurs and working families in rural communities.

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (866) 632-9992 (Toll-free Customer Service), (800) 877-8339 (Local or Federal relay), (866) 377-8642 (Relay voice users).

"Instead of raising taxes, discouraging investment, and punishing the many small businesses that file their taxes as individuals, we in the House want to work together and make it easier for Illinois' more than 200,000 small businesses to grow, create jobs for our unemployed friends and neighbors, and lead us into economic recovery.  It's simple - the more government takes from job creators, the less flexibility they have to maintain current product prices, keep folks on the payroll, or even expand their payroll.  From mom and pop shops to small manufacturing companies; businesses owned by men, women, and minorities alike; we want to help all small businesses provide hope and opportunities for folks looking for work.

"I focus on what we can do to improve things for my constituents and make it easier for them to succeed, not on what the talking heads say can't  be accomplished.  Americans deserve policies like the Small Business Tax Cut Act that promote growth and opportunity, not more taxes and spending.

"I am committed to overhauling the tax code and making it simpler, fairer, and flatter, but this is a step we can take right now to help small business owners grow jobs and paychecks and make a real difference in folks' lives."

Schilling spoke on the floor of the House today in support of the Small Business Tax Cut Act.  Video of his floor speech can be found here.

# # #

Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Senate Budget Committee

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Mr. Chairman - I'd like to thank you, Chairman Conrad, for calling for a markup of the Democratic budget for fiscal year 2013.

Setting a budget for the country is one of the most basic responsibilities and fundamental functions of the Congress.  The Budget Act requires Congress to adopt a budget by April 15.  It's a requirement that this Senate Majority has ignored time and again.

In fact, the Senate hasn't adopted a budget since April 29, 2009.  Nearly three years have passed since the Senate last adopted a budget.  During that time, more than $4 trillion has been added to our nation's debt.  We're in the midst of the fourth consecutive year of spending more than $1 trillion more than we take in.

During this time, the Senate Democrat Majority has failed to propose a budget blueprint that would lay out their priorities for deficit reduction, economic growth or a path to balance.  They've said proposing a budget is "foolish."  It's no wonder our nation is driving toward a fiscal cliff of deficits and debt.  There is no one in the Democrat leadership willing to take hold of the wheel.

While I'm glad we're meeting to consider a budget resolution put forward by the Chairman, I'm also puzzled by today's exercise.  First, the Chairman has said repeatedly that we already have a budget in place for this year and next.  The Chairman and Majority Leader Reid feel that the Budget Control Act was a budget resolution.

Then why are we here?  Why do we need to mark up a budget resolution if the BCA was truly a budget resolution?  The answer is clear.  The Budget Control Act is not a budget.  President Obama clearly agreed when he proposed his budget.  House Republicans and Democrats alike agreed when they voted on seven budget resolutions authored by both Republicans and Democrats.  The Democratic Leadership in the Senate stands alone in their belief that the BCA was a budget resolution.

Is it because they have no ideas on how to balance the budget, contain out of control spending, grow the economy or create jobs?  I don't know.  I'm also confounded by what I've read in the press that this markup will end today with no consideration of amendments and without a vote on the Chairman's budget resolution.  A "markup" entails debate, amending and actually marking up the resolution.  But today is nothing more than speeches, with a suggestion that maybe we'll meet again sometime near the end of the year to offer amendments and vote on a resolution.

The Chairman was quoted yesterday as saying, "This is the wrong time to vote in committee; this is the wrong time to vote on the floor.  I don't think we will be prepared to vote before the election."  Do we need to add another $1 trillion to the national debt before it's time to vote on a budget resolution? Or $2 trillion?  If now is not the time to lead, propose bold solutions and take action, when is?

The American people are going to pay a heavy price for the unwillingness and inability of the Senate Democratic leadership to lead and offer solutions.  I understand the predicament the beloved Chairman is in and I'm sorry for the way he's being treated by his leadership.  He deserves better.  Despite what he knows should be done, and wants to do, his party leadership won't let him act.

Once again, the Senate Democratic leadership and President Obama are content with being absent from the discussion.  There are no solutions.  There is no leadership.  There is only failure and punting until after the next election.

We have a moral obligation to offer serious solutions for today and for future generations.  This exercise would be humorous if the consequences of inaction weren't so serious.  I yield.