[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 55 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E650]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            THE DRIVE AWAY FROM ETHANOL WELFARE ACT OF 1996

                                 ______


                            HON. RANDY TATE

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 25, 1996

  Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to eliminate the 
ethanol tax subsidy.
  In the November 1994 elections, the American people voted for a 
Congress that would balance the budget, scrutinize every cent that 
Federal Government spends and examine every Federal program, including 
corporate welfare. For far too long American taxpayers have subsidized 
one of the most egregious examples of corporate welfare--the ethanol 
industry.
  Some people have asked me why should I care about the ethanol tax 
subsidy. Let me tell you why.
  In November 1995, Congressman Bill Archer of Texas, chairman of the 
House Ways and Means Committee, moved the Balanced Budget Act, through 
his committee. That bill included a provision to eliminate the ethanol 
tax subsidy. However, before the full House could even consider that 
historic legislation that provision was stripped out. A vote was not 
even allowed.
  My constituents were outraged. My congressional offices were besieged 
by upset phone callers. At first, I wasn't exactly sure why they felt 
so betrayed. Frankly, I didn't know much about the ethanol industry.
  I discovered that between the years of 1983 and 1994, the State of 
Washington lost $164 million in Federal highway money which means that 
Washington State motorists spent an additional $97.71 per driver on car 
maintenance and repairs in 1993.
  In my State, the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency recently 
called for the lifting of the winter-time oxygenated fuel program. 
Their reasoning was that Puget Sound drivers were paying as much as $25 
million a year in reduced gas mileage, clogged fuel filters and fuel 
injection systems and slightly higher increases at the pump. The Air 
Control Agency went on to find that the exhaust from cars is much 
cleaner and any environmental benefit from ethanol is negligible.
  While working people and their families in my State paid Federal gas 
taxes, the safety of their everyday driving was being compromised 
because there was not enough money to repair roads and bridges. And, 
Federal highway money was being used to subsidize ethanol production 
which, in turn, was artificially inflating the price of beef, milk, and 
pop that families were paying at the corner store in my State.
  What I learned was that Americans are paying Federal gas taxes 
designated for highway construction and bridge repair and those same 
hard-earned dollars are paving the ethanol industry's road to the bank 
with gold.
  Today, I am introducing the Drive Away From Ethanol Welfare Act of 
1996. It has 53 original cosponsors and enjoys the support of Chairman 
Bud Shuster, Chairman Bob Livingston, and Chairman Bill Clinger. It is 
a very bipartisan bill because the ranking member of the House Ways and 
Means Committee, Sam Gibbons, was my first original cosponsor.
  The Drive Away From Ethanol Welfare Act ensures the elimination of 
this ridiculous tax break in the year 2000. It reduces the tax subsidy 
immediately by 3 cents. In the interim, no ethanol producer will have 
an investment stranded.
  The Drive Away From Ethanol Welfare Act eliminates the cashflow 
provision that has made the industry profitable for two decades. Ether 
will no longer be eligible, immediately.
   Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to 
take a stand against an egregious case of corporate welfare.

                          ____________________