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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of uncomfortable being on this side of the aisle, but it is also, I guess, a recognition that this is truly a bipartisan effort, and I am really thrilled to be joining in it.

Imagine that when the farm bill was debated here, every single commodity program in the farm bill was amended, was reformed, with the exception of sugar. Now, why would that happen? Well, maybe it is because of some sweet-talking sugar lobbyists that made that happen.

But nonetheless, let's be clear about what this resolution doesn't do. It does not undermine the sugar program in this country. The sugar program that exists in terms of price support remains, the domestic marketing allotment for sugar remains, and it does not eliminate sugar import quotas.

What does it do? It basically says that the Secretary of Agriculture can make sure during the entire year, and not just 6 months, that the market supply is appropriate.

What do we know about research that has been done on the cost to consumers? It is said to cost consumers $3.5 billion. Now, this figure doesn't come from the candy manufacturers; this figure comes from a number of studies by the Government Accountability Office, by OECD, by the President's Council of Economic Advisers.

Now, what has happened since July? Since July, the taxpayers of this country have spent $250 million because they are guaranteed as sugar producers to 17 cents per pound. When they couldn't get 17 cents per pound, the U.S. had to buy the sugar and then try to sell it to ethanol producers.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to reform the system.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source