[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 88 (Tuesday, July 11, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1212-E1213]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. DAN MILLER

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 29, 1999

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4461) making 
     appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other 
     purposes:

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to offer four 
amendments to this agriculture appropriations bill to highlight the 
absurdity of the US sugar program.
  On Thursday, this Congress debated an amendment that would have 
limited the fleecing of taxpayers by the sugar program to $54 million. 
However, a point of order technically prevented a vote on that matter.
  I did not proceed with the other three amendments in the interest of 
comity to move the legislative business of the House. However, I also 
did not offer because it became apparent that the defenders of the 
sugar program do not want to clear debate on the merits of the US sugar 
policy, they want to muddy the waters about what this sugar program is 
doing to consumers.
  For example, as you look at the arguments of the defenders of the 
sugar program, they say that the price of sugar has gone down but the 
costs of soda has not. That is like saying the cost of sugar has gone 
down but the costs of cars have not. Sodas made in the United States do 
not use Sugar! Read, the label, they use high fructose corn sweeteners. 
They have not used sugar in the US for a while because the sugar prices 
are so high. They do use sugar in sodas in countries like Mexico. I am 
both deeply disappointed and slightly amused that the defenders of the 
sugar program continue to use ``soda'' in their arguments.
  Another area of their attack is that this General Accounting Office 
study which revealed a consumer cost of $1.9 billion is flawed. They 
say the USDA even thinks their analysis is flawed. Well let's look at 
the real facts. The GAO said they were going to do this study. They 
solicited input from the USDA for help in developing a model. USDA 
refused. The GAO got independent economic experts to come up with a 
sound consensus model to gauge the costs. They asked USDA for comment 
about it, USDA refused. Instead, what USDA has done, is engage in 20/20 
hindsight without helping the process. I am very frustrated by the 
blatant politics by the USDA and would hope they would be more helpful 
to future efforts. The GAO is a non-partisan fact finding agency. They 
carefully researched this program for months, they offered a chance to 
comment to interested parties including USDA and the sugar growers, 
they brought in outside academic experts and economists to review GAO's 
model. The fact remains that the GAO sent the economic model to USDA 
for review and USDA provided no substantive comments.
  What my opponents would have everyone believe is that the carefully 
researched and inclusive report on sugar by the non-partisan, unbiased 
GAO is somehow flawed. But they would have you believe that the USDA, 
whose mismanagement of the program has already cost taxpayers $54 
million this year and may costs up to $500 million by year's end, and 
the American Sugar Alliance whose members enjoy federal benefits of 
over $1 billion per year are the ones with the correct, unbiased 
opinion on the costs and impacts of the sugar program.
  Furthermore, GAO has already responded to the criticisms they did 
receive in the appendix of this same report, and I would submit that 
portion of the report containing GAO's response for the record.
  The negative environmental impacts of the federal sugar program are 
real, even though my colleagues on the other side of the debate choose 
to conveniently ignore this fact. Nowhere have these impacts been felt 
with such devastating effect as in my home state of Florida where 
federally subsidized sugar production has played a huge role in the 
destruction of the Everglades. I would like to submit for the record 
this letter from ``The Everglades Trust'' an environmental group 
concerned about the status and future of this American treasure. The 
Everglades Trust and other environmental groups recognize the sugar 
program's terrible environmental legacy and support efforts to reform 
the program.
  Finally, I am amazed that the defenders of the sugar program fail to 
state why we can have a free market for corn, for cars, for toothpicks, 
for televisions, etc. but we can't have a free market for sugar. Their 
``sky is falling'' logic only shows how desperate the big sugar growers 
are to preserve a program that costs consumers $1.9 billion a year, 
costs the taxpayers millions in direct spending, destroys the 
Everglades, sends US jobs overseas, and seriously undermines our free 
trade efforts.
  I remain confident that this body will wake up and end the stupid 
sugar program, and submit the following into the Record.

                                         The Everglades Trust,

                                    Islamorada, FL, June 28, 2000.
     Hon. Dan Miller,
     102 Cannon Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Miller: When the FY 2001 Agriculture 
     Appropriations legislation is considered by the House, we 
     understand you will offer one or more amendments which 
     involve the federal sugar program. We would strongly support 
     an amendment to stop sugar purchases to boost market prices. 
     By encouraging massive increases in sugar production in the 
     Everglades Agricultural Area, the sugar program has caused 
     immense damage to the Everglades. Boosting the already 
     excessive market price for sugar will serve to make sugar's 
     assault on the Everglades even worse. It is obvious, as the 
     GAO has documented, that the sugar program forces consumers 
     to pay far too much for sugar. To prop up sugar prices by 
     huge purchases of sugar by the government is an outrageous 
     use of Taxpayers' money and a continuation of the assault on 
     America's Everglades.
       Should you choose to offer an amendment to phase out or 
     reform the existing sugar price support program, we would 
     strongly endorse your effort. We believe the sugar program 
     must be changed from the harmful price fixing scheme it is 
     today. Congressman Miller, the sugar program has become a 
     ``welfare'' program, and it is time to put a stop to it. We 
     commend your courageous efforts to end a program which has 
     cost the consumer and Taxpayers billions of wasted dollars 
     and caused massive damage to the nation's Everglades.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Mary Barley,
                                  President, The Everglades Trust.


                              GAO Comments

       The following are GAO's comments on the American Sugar 
     Alliance's (ASA) written response to our draft report dated 
     May 5, 2000. Based on USDA and industry comments, we revised 
     our model's final estimates to more fully account for certain 
     transportation costs. As a result, cost and benefit estimates

[[Page E1213]]

     referenced in ASA's comments do not reflect those contained 
     in the final report.
       1. We disagree that the methodology used in our 1993 report 
     on the sugar program was flawed. Nonetheless, we developed a 
     more comprehensive economic model for our current analysis, 
     and while we acknowledge that no economic model completely 
     depicts reality, we are convinced that our current model is 
     methodologically sound and that the estimates yielded by our 
     model are reasonable. In developing the model, we took a 
     number of actions to ensure that it was methodologically 
     sound. First, we contracted with a well-known expert in 
     modeling the international trade of agricultural commodities 
     and with a prominent agricultural economist to work with us 
     in developing the model. In December 1999, we sent our 
     proposed model to four outside academicians specializing in 
     agricultural economics and international trade economics and 
     revised the model in response to their comments. We also sent 
     our proposed model to USDA for review at that time. However, 
     USDA did not provide any comments. Furthermore, we asked two 
     of the agricultural economists to review our final model and 
     results before we sent our draft report to USDA, ASA, and the 
     U.S. Cane Sugar Refiners' Association for comment.
       2. We disagree with ASA's assertion that our findings are 
     based on comparisons with a meaningless world price. In 
     estimating the costs and benefits of the sugar program, our 
     model compared baseline domestic and world sugar prices with 
     an estimate of the domestic and world prices that would have 
     been observed if the sugar program had been eliminated, other 
     things being equal. Regarding the extent to which cost 
     reductions would be passed through to consumers in the 
     absence of the sugar program, the report presents two 
     estimates showing how the benefits might be distributed based 
     on two different sets of pass-through assumptions. We did not 
     predict the extent to which cost reductions would be passed 
     through to final consumers. See comments 4 and 5.

     

                          ____________________