[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 7]
[House]
[Page 9002]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 SUGAR

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Later this week, there will be consideration of an amendment from Mr. 
Flake of Arizona and me dealing with the notorious sugar subsidy 
program, proposing a tiny reduction in it. For anyone who wants a 
lesson in how your government works, a review of the politics 
surrounding the sugar quota system is a textbook example of how the 
political process can distort reality and why. A Dear Colleague letter 
is circulating touting the benefits of a ``no cost to the taxpayer 
sugar program.'' This does not pass the straight face test anywhere in 
America but Washington, DC. The most junior intern working in any 
congressional office who is doing independent research can quickly 
verify that this is not a ``no cost program.'' There are huge costs to 
the taxpayer, the government and the environment.
  Straight off the top, this ``no cost program'' requires American 
consumers to pay almost $2 billion a year more for sugar and sugar-
related products. Only in Washington, DC would $2 billion be ``no 
cost.'' Then there is the loss to industries for whom paying two to 
three times the price of the world price of sugar makes a big 
difference. There used to be a thriving confectionery industry, 
manufacturing in Hershey, Pennsylvania; in New England, in Chicago. 
Many of these jobs have since disappeared, being driven across the 
border to Canada, Mexico or elsewhere where sugar prices are 
dramatically lower. Only the powerful sugar lobbyists and the people 
who listen to them would think that $2 billion a year that will be 
required to store and purchase surplus sugar over the next 10 years 
would be no cost.
  One of the most perverse effects of the sugar program has been to 
dramatically increase cane sugar production in the State of Florida. 
Over the last 50 years the amount of acreage surrounding the Everglades 
has increased 800 percent. All of this sugar production is in the 
Everglades. This expansion has devastating consequences. Pollution, 
polluted runoff, and changed water flow attributed to the sugar 
industry is a significant reason why we are paying seven to $8 billion 
as a down payment to clean up the Everglades and redo the plumbing. The 
sugar lobbyists in Washington, DC would lead you to believe that this 
is no cost.
  How can this be? How can people pretend to believe this claptrap? 
Well, an important reason this travesty continues is to be found in 
campaign contribution reports. This industry is only 1 percent of 
American agriculture, yet it spends 17 percent of the campaign 
contributions for agriculture and countless millions more lobbying and 
producing bogus surveys currently circulating on Capitol Hill.
  I suggest if Members want to do a favor for the environment, for the 
taxpayer, allow a junior intern to do your research to determine 
whether or not this has no cost. This research done by any college 
economics student, in any college political science class, or by the 
outstandingly bright young men and women who work for us as volunteers 
on Capitol Hill right now as interns can demonstrate to any Member's 
satisfaction that it is not worth the cost. It is time to approve the 
Blumenauer-Flake amendment.

                          ____________________