[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 71 (Friday, June 9, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4170-H4171]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               SWEET NEWS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have sweet news. The General 
Accounting Office just released a report today on the United States 
Sugar Program. This is an update of the 1993 report, and the report 
says that the United States program supporting sugar prices increases 
user costs while benefiting producers.
  The bottom line in this 100-page document is that the sugar program 
in the United States costs the American consumer, the American economy, 
$2 billion a year. $2 billion a year.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the General Accounting Office. This is the 
independent, nonpartisan office here in Washington that works for 
Congress. The head of the agency has got a 15-year term. So there is no 
partisanship in this. This report was requested by Senator Diane 
Feinstein, the Democrat from California, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller), Democrat, and myself, a Republican from Florida.
  This is not a biased report coming from the Agriculture Department or 
the sugar growers, but the most authoritative source; and it shows that 
the sugar program costs $2 billion a year. The sugar program is bad for 
consumers, bad for the environment, and bad for jobs in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, let me briefly explain what the program is first. The 
program that the Federal Government runs makes the price of sugar about 
three times world price. The price of sugar in Canada is about a third 
of the price it is in United States. The price of sugar in Mexico is 
about a third of the price in the United States. The Federal Government 
maintains the price at about three times what the world price is for 
sugar.
  The way they do this is a complicated process of controlling imports 
and also a government loan program that means the Government will have 
to buy back sugar if the prices ever drop below this guaranteed price 
that the United States Government will offer.
  In 1996, we had a chance to reform this program. Unfortunately, we 
did not reform it. And what has happened is that the price is so high 
that everyone is growing more sugar. In the past 3 years, sugar 
production has gone up 25 percent in this country. What is happening 
now is that the Federal Government is having to buy sugar. The Federal 
Government has not had to buy sugar for 15 years.
  Last month, Secretary Glickman announced they were going to buy 
150,000 tons of sugar that the Government has no use for. They cannot 
give it away in the world because nobody wants it. The corn people will 
not let them use it for ethanol; so we are going to store it, and that 
is just the beginning.
  According to news reports, they are projecting $500 million worth of 
sugar that the Federal Government is going to buy and does not know 
what to do with. They cannot use it. They are going to store the stuff.
  Now, that is just real crazy Federal Government policy, and it is 
going to get worse because people are growing more sugar because it is 
so profitable to grow. What is bad about that is it is costing 
consumers. Sugar is part of all kinds of items, whether it is candy or 
ice cream, whether it is bread or baked goods. It is used for 
sweetening cranberry juice. Any product one can think of, sugar is a 
small part of the cost of that product. So it is going to cost all 
consumers.

[[Page H4171]]

  It is a very regressive type of program because low-income people pay 
so much more for their food products. It is bad for their environment. 
I come from Florida, and we have the beloved Florida Everglades. One of 
the problems that we have with the Everglades is the agriculture runoff 
from the huge sugar plantations in Florida that help destroy the 
Everglades, Florida Bay and the Florida Keys. What the sugar program 
does, it provides incentives to grow for sugar which means we have more 
runoff and more damage to the Everglades.
  One of the things that is crazy about the program is that we are 
going to spend $8 billion to save the Everglades. One of the methods of 
doing that is by buying a lot of land from the sugar growers to take it 
out of production. Mr. Speaker, we are paying an inflated price for the 
sugar land because we have a sugar program that make its more costly to 
buy that land.
  It is bad for jobs in this country. One company that we talk about is 
a candy company, Bob's Candy, in Georgia, makes candy canes. For three 
generations they have been making candy canes. Well, when sugar is a 
third of the price in Canada, they cannot afford to compete with 
Canadian and Mexican candy canes, so we are just going to drive them 
out of business.
  The cranberry growers up in Massachusetts are struggling because 
cranberries need sugar to sweeten them. The cranberry growers in Canada 
love it because they get to buy their sugar for a third of the price to 
sweeten their product, and they can underprice our cranberry growers.
  When the Federal Government tries to manage prices, it is bad 
economics. It does not make economic sense. We have a private 
enterprise system in this country that allows for competition. But the 
one program that we allow basically a monopolistic type of situation, 
because the Government sets the prices, is in sugar. So it is hurting 
jobs, it is hurting the environment, and as this GAO report says, the 
independent nonpartisan General Accounting Office, this is the 
authoritative source, says it is almost $2 billion a year. That is up 
from 1993 when the estimate was only $1.4 billion.
  So I hope we can start the process, and I have got legislation to do 
away with the sugar program. We will have an opportunity during the 
Agriculture Appropriations bill to address part of the problem and 
certainly next year when the authorization bill is up that hopefully we 
can get rid of this program and allow the marketplace to work in this 
country and give benefits to the American consumer.

                          ____________________