Flood Insurance and Modernization Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss the amendment that is pending to kill the Sugar Program in the United States. My colleagues should know that the domestic sugar industry employs 140,000 people in this country. If there were ever a jobs-killer amendment, it is the amendment that is going to be offered to kill the U.S. Sugar Program.

In advancing that amendment, a series of claims have been made about the U.S. Sugar Program that I believe are false. First of all, it is said that the Sugar Program has a high cost for taxpayers. That is false. It is said that it keeps sugar prices artificially high. That is false. It is said that the Sugar Program drives the confectionary industry out of the United States. That is false. It is said that the Sugar Program impedes imports into the United States. That is false. It is also said that consumers will benefit from eliminating the Sugar Program. I believe that is false as well.

Let's take each of these arguments in turn. First is that it has a high taxpayer cost. Here is the cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office, of the Sugar Program for 2013 to 2022. The cost is zero. It is hard to get lower than zero. Maybe the square root of zero would be lower. But those who say there is a high cost to taxpayers are just wrong. It is false.

The second claim is that it keeps sugar prices artificially high--false again. This chart shows the average retail sugar price in major countries around the world. Here is the United States way down here, 59 cents. The global average is 67 cents. The developed country average is 73 cents. We are below the global average, and we are below the average of developed countries. So the claim that it keeps sugar prices high is false again.

The third claim is that the Sugar Program drives the confectionary industry out of the United States. Wrong again. Here is what is happening to the U.S. chocolate and nonchocolate confectionery production in the United States since 2004. Do you see the trend line? It is up. More production not less production.

These are facts, and facts are stubborn things. Let's go to the fourth claim, that this Sugar Program impedes imports. This is maybe the biggest whopper of all. Here are the facts: The United States, in the period from 2008 2009 through 2010 2011, is the biggest importer of sugar in the world. So this program is impeding imports into the United States? If it is, it is not doing a very good job of it because the United States is No. 1 in imports of sugar in the world.

Before we get to the final assertion, let's look at what other countries, poor countries that produce sugar are saying to us about our Sugar Program. The argument made on the Senate floor is we are hurting poor countries with our Sugar Program. Maybe we ought to listen to what those poor countries say. Here is their organization, the International Sugar Trade Coalition, that represents sugar producers in 17 developing nations in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. Here is what they say:

The U.S. sugar policy contained in the Farm Bill passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee is important to sugar producers in developing nations because it provides a guaranteed level of access to the United States sugar market at fair, predictable prices. Attempts to weaken this policy through amendments on the Senate floor would not only harm U.S. farmers but also poor growers from developing countries where sugar is a key economic driver.

These are the poor countries that produce sugar who are saying to us: Keep your Sugar Program because not only does it benefit you, but it benefits us.

Let me go further in their letter:

Ending the sugar program would reward only a handful of large food companies and agricultural superpowers like Brazil, while punishing some of the world's poorest economies.

It goes on to say:

This was what happened when the European Union radically altered its sugar policy, and thereby lowered standards of living in places like Guyana, Fiji and Mauritius where there is no agricultural alternative to sugarcane. Sadly, Saint Kitts and Nevis had to stop sugar production altogether after 300 years as a result of the EU's reforms.

Let's not make that same mistake.

Finally, on this notion that consumers are going to benefit by eliminating the Sugar Program--really? Let's look at the facts. The green line is the trendline on retail sugar prices. That trendline since 2010 is going up.

Here is what the wholesale price of sugar has been--flat. Do you see the disconnection? Wholesale prices flat, retail prices up. The fact is that sugar is such a small part of the cost of finished products that it has almost no bearing whatsoever on retail prices of a candy bar, the box of cereal, or any of the other things that sugar goes into.

The record is so clear on the facts that I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment being offered to kill the U.S. Sugar Program, to kill 140,000 good jobs in this country, to kill $19 billion of economic activity in this country. It would be a profound mistake not only for us but for the poor countries in the world that produce sugar, that are calling on us to keep our Sugar Program because not only is it important to U.S. farmers, it is important to their farmers as well.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 10 minutes be provided to Senator Udall of Colorado and then 5 minutes for Senator Gillibrand of New York.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source