OFFICIALS LEGISLATION INTEREST GROUPS PUBLIC STATEMENTS COMMITTEES VETOES

Expressing Sense of House Relating to Tariff-Rate Quotas for Raw and Refined Sugar

Floor Speech

Date: Oct. 11, 2013
Location: Washington, DC
Issues: Trade Agriculture and Food

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Illinois for their leadership on this issue.

A few months ago, we offered a reform amendment to the House farm bill that would have saved taxpayers money, kept American jobs at home, and ended special treatment to one farm commodity at the expense of all others.

This farm bill makes major policy changes that leave no commodity untouched, except one. The farm bill makes absolutely no change to the sugar program. In fact, the sugar program wasn't even given the scrutiny of a hearing as the Ag Committee was constructing the current farm bill.

Since 2008, manufacturers across the country have been struggling to run their operations due to the uncertainty created by the sugar program. In fact, for every job that proponents of this horrendous policy claim is maintained by the current sugar program, the Commerce Department estimates that the sugar program eliminated three jobs in food manufacturing.

Although I wish we could be here debating even greater reform, what we are debating today is quite modest.

This motion to instruct simply restores to the Secretary of Agriculture the flexibility to manage sugar imports, an authority the Secretary had prior to the 2008 farm bill. To be clear, this language will not allow a pound--a pound--more sugar to enter the U.S. unless the Secretary authorizes that it can come in upon a finding that is needed.

Many of you may be wondering why we are discussing sugar again. Since the House last debated the farm bill, the negative effects of the sugar program have only gotten worse. While proponents of the current sugar program claim it is ``no cost,'' nothing could be further from the truth. The sugar program has cost American taxpayers more than $250 million since July.

To put this in perspective, in less than 3 months this broken policy has cost American taxpayers $250 million, which is almost as much as the amount of money available for an entire year for The Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP, the USDA program that purchases commodities for food banks. It is nearly $50 million more than the Commodity Supplemental Food Program for our Nation's senior citizens.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source
arrow_upward