[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.

____________________