Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. 2012

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WELCH. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I do it with great deference and respect to my leader, the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee.

But here's the issue. One, at what point do we have taxpayers given relief from these $6 billion subsidies to an industry? The ethanol industry gets 45 cents a gallon. They get the benefit of 54 cents as a protective tariff against the import of, among others, Brazilian ethanol, and then they get a mandate requiring that they put ethanol in their vehicles. Now, as Mr. Flake mentioned, that's a trifecta: subsidy, protective tariff, and a mandate. No other industry has that level of Federal taxpayer and legislative benefit. We just don't have it.

Second, this is helping parts of rural America. I listened carefully to what Mr. Peterson said, but it is causing significant difficulties in my State for our dairy farmers who purchase grain. One of the rising costs for them is the cost of grain, and one of the factors in that are these tariff barriers and mandates that are pushing up their costs. So it's making life on the dairy farm pretty tough.

Now, the final thing is that folks who use small engines like chainsaws or weed whackers or lawn mowers or boats where they don't run that engine continuously as we do our cars are complaining--and mechanics are backing them up--that the ethanol is doing real damage to those engines.

So it's time, I think, for this Congress to step back and give the taxpayer some relief. Ethanol, if it's going to sink or swim, it should be doing it on its own merits at this point.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source