Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike section 9006 and insert the following new section:
SEC. 9006. REPEAL OF BIODIESEL FUEL EDUCATION PROGRAM.
Section 9006 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8106) is repealed.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide for the elimination of the Biodiesel Fuel Education Program subsidy. This is one of a series of duplicative programs.
This program gives money to not-for-profit organizations that inform fleet operators and the public on the so-called benefits of using biodiesel fuels rather than fossil fuels.
Mr. Chairman, this program is yet another example of corporate welfare--taxpayer dollars not being used wisely. The American taxpayer should not be forced to foot the bill for a proposed program in an industry that would be nonexistent if it were not for government subsidies.
The Biodiesel Fuel Education Program incorrectly informs the public that biodiesel fuel is ``better'' than fossil fuels, oil, or natural gas. I am supportive of an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but Congress need not be in the business of picking winners and losers. These industries should stand on their own merit, and the consumer should decide what is the best product. We should not be wasting hard-earned taxpayer dollars on groups that have a bias against fossil fuels. We should use this
money to develop our current natural resources and create jobs.
My district is in the heart of the Marcellus shale, and I have seen the jobs and opportunities created by domestic energy. The unemployment rate is below the national average. I cannot support any program that favors any one type of energy over another.
I am not debating the merits of biofuels, and I am not against or opposed to biofuels; but there are over 20 other energy programs in the FARRM Bill alone. By continuing to funnel money to these programs to not-for-profit organizations going toward salaries, we are preventing other new energy technologies from breaking ground.
We are $17 trillion in debt and borrowing more and more money every day. Let the taxpayers determine what they prefer, what source of energy to use, not the government using hardworking taxpayer dollars. This program is nothing but a colossal government subsidy that is not profitable at all.
Again, I am not against the biofuel itself. I am against using taxpayer moneys going to not-for-profit organizations to promote this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady from South Dakota for yielding to me, and I wanted to come to the floor in opposition, also, of this amendment.
I've seen what this research does, and I've watched as we've gone from no industry to an industry now that's utilizing the products that the gentlelady from South Dakota has said, from animal fats, for soy oil, and it has cheapened up our energy supply and has cleaned up our air, and it's made us a better country because of it. This research that gets done--we should remember that there isn't always a return on that research investment. That's why we do research. That's why we do research in
our universities, for example. And so with that research we can find those things that make us more efficient.
I remember when the research labs said it was impossible to get the energy out of the feed grains that we now turn into energy. We've exceeded that because of research. And to utilize these animal fats has dramatically been changed a lot because of the research that takes place here with this fund.
So I think this is a piece that we need to preserve so that we can preserve the efficiency that's there and we can preserve the education.
Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentlelady.
I, too, oppose this amendment. People need to realize that the diesel engine was invented by a German fellow named Diesel, and it ran on peanut oil. It didn't run on diesel fuel. And the internal combustion engine ran on ethanol. It didn't run on gasoline. They had to reengineer those motors to get them to run on gasoline and diesel fuel. It takes a different type of engine to run those kinds of fuels.
One of the things you do with this type of a program is you help those manufacturers develop engines that can utilize the fuel. The same thing with a car engine. Down in Brazil, they're burning 30 percent ethanol with cars that are made by General Motors that are engineered to run on that fuel, and they get better mileage with that 30 percent ethanol than they get with gasoline because they engineered the engines right.
That's what we're trying to do with this program is help the industry be able to utilize these fuels which are renewable and are made by Americans and are creating jobs. So this is a good program, and I oppose the amendment.
Mr. MARINO. Once again, I'm not against the use of biofuels. I'm against the use of taxpayer dollars going to not-for-profit organizations to promote the use of biofuels. There is not one vehicle that runs 100 percent on biofuel that I know of at this point. And it does save money. If this program is eliminated of hundreds of thousands of dollars and millions of dollars per year, then that money should go back into the taxpayers' pockets, or at least pay the debt down.
We should use taxpayer dollars to create jobs like building the Keystone XL pipeline and like developing natural gas exploration that we have an abundant supply of. So let's stop borrowing money to promote a product where we pick the winners and losers. As I said earlier, that's up to the consumer. They can choose what best product to use.
But I just oppose the fact that hardworking, middle class taxpayer dollars are going for propaganda and advertising.
I yield back the balance of my time.