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.
Share
More from Tom Marino
I have yet to see an NTAS bulletin issued about the crisis on the Southwest border and the threat level that it accurately represents.
We certainly want our environment to be clean, and I am right out there with everybody on that, but we have to get these permits done to create jobs.
This amendment requires the Drug Enforcement Administration to compile a report on both the lawful and illicit sale of synthetic drug analogues over the internet. Unfortunately, the internet and the dark web have become sizable…
This amendment makes three impactful changes to SITSA. First, it changes and sets strict definitions of what constitutes a controlled substance analogue suitable for inclusion in schedule A. A substance proposed for inclusion in schedule A…





