[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1257-H1258]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE SUGAR PROGRAM SHOULD BE PHASED OUT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 

[[Page H1258]]
  12, 1995, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] is recognized during 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to advocate the 
phaseout of the Government-run sugar program in this country. The 
Government-run sugar program is a cartel that the Government regulates 
that is very much antifree enterprise, it is anticonsumer, it is 
antienvironment, and it is anti- 
jobs in this country.
  We will have a chance later on this week during the farm bill 
reauthorization to vote on a 5-year phaseout of this program in the 
Federal Government. The day of big government is over, and this is a 
big government program that should be phased out.
  The sugar program in the country today is a big government program 
that keeps the price of sugar at twice the world price. As part of this 
reauthorization program on the farm bill, there are lots of good 
changes in the farm program in the country. Chairman Roberts and the 
committee have done a good job to reduce the role of the Federal 
Government in farm policy in this country.
  There are lots of changes in wheat, corn and such, but not in the 
sugar program. The sugar program is not being reformed in this 
reauthorization bill. The sugar program is a cartel where the Federal 
Government controls the total supply of sugar in the United States and 
as such keeps the price of sugar at twice the world price.
  The Federal Government tells every individual sugar farmer in the 
United States how many pounds of sugar he can sell today. It tells 
different countries of the world how many pounds of sugar they can sell 
in the United States. In fact, it is so bad when it tells Australia, 
for example, that has a free market in sugar, it tells Australia how 
many pounds of sugar to sell. Australia does not sell it to us at the 
world price. They sell it to everybody else at the world price of about 
12 cents a pound. But, no, no, the United States, we pay 24 cents a 
pound because we want to pay the U.S. price. It is a crazy big 
government program. Let me explain why it is a bad program.
  For the American consumer, it costs $1.4 billion a year. This is a 
General Accounting Office report, an independent study, that says it 
costs the American consumer $1.4 billion a year in additional cost on 
the price of sugar in the store, on the price of the soft drinks, on 
the price of candy, on the price of cereal, everything that uses sugar. 
Why should the American consumer get gouged like that? That is 
absolutely wrong.

  It is a corporate welfare program. It is corporate welfare because 42 
percent of the benefits of this program goes to 1 percent of the 
plantations in this country. There are 33 plantations in this country 
that get over a million dollar a year benefit from the program. There 
is no justification for this kind of corporate welfare program.
  As I have said before, it is the sugar daddy of all corporate 
welfare. We want to target corporate welfare, this is one program we 
should target. In my home State of Florida, 75 percent of the sugar is 
controlled by two plantations, 75 percent by two companies. That is 
corporate welfare. It is not the small farmer we are talking about as 
some people want to make you think.
  Environmentally this has been a bad program for Florida. In 1960, 
when I finished high school, we had 50,000 acres farmed for sugar in 
the State of Florida. Today we have 450,000 acres of sugar in the State 
of Florida. As we have increased the production of sugar every year in 
Florida, the quality of the Everglades and Florida Bay have been 
declining.
  There is a direct correlation to increased sugar production and the 
damage that is being done to the Florida Everglades. We need to stop 
that damage that is hurting our environment. It is hurting our economy 
in Florida. Just the jobs depending on the people in the Florida Keys 
are impacted by this, for example. So we need to do something about the 
damage that sugar is causing to the Florida Everglades.
  On jobs in general, the sugar program is causing a loss of jobs 
because refiners are closing. In the past 10 years we have had to 
reduce sugar refining capacity by 40 percent because under this bill 
there is a limited amount of sugar being allowed into this county. And 
the jobs of the manufacturers, Bob's Candy, the largest candy cane 
company in the United States, is losing jobs. They are the largest 
manufacturer of candy canes. Candy canes are now coming on cheaper from 
outside the United States because sugar is so expensive in the United 
States.
  In Canada the price of sugar is almost half the price it is in the 
United States. That is wrong. The proposal that is in the freedom to 
farm bill that Chairman Roberts will be bringing to the floor does not 
reform sugar. It keeps the cartel, it remains anticonsumer, anti- 
environment, antifree enterprise, and the price of sugar is not 
changed. So we are not seeing any change.
  Fortunately, and I hope the Committee on Rules will allow, I have a 
bipartisan proposal, an amendment that I will be offering with the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]. We have over 100 cosponsors. 
This is a 5-year phaseout. I hope my fellow colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle will join me in advocating a 5-year phaseout.

                          ____________________