Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act--Motion to Proceed--Resumed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to support and underscore the points just made by Senator Enzi in support of the U.S. Sugar Program, which, as he indicated, has operated successfully at no cost to the American taxpayers, consumers, or food manufacturers.

As you know, the sugar beet industry is very important to my State of Idaho, bringing in approximately $1.1 billion in revenue every year. History has shown that grocers and food manufacturers do not pass their savings from lower ingredient prices along to consumers.

For example, from the summer of 2010 until now, producer prices for sugar have dropped nearly 20 percent. In fact, the U.S. Sugar Program remains crucial because other nations are implementing trade-distorting subsidies for their otherwise uncompetitive sugar industries. The world sugar price, as is so often debated in these Halls, suffers from government-backed dumping that protects sugar producers overseas to the detriment of American sugar producers--hence, the need for the U.S. Sugar Program.

Consumers in the rest of the world pay, on average, 14 percent more for sugar--in the developed world, 24 percent more--than American consumers pay. In America, sugar is a readily available and affordable product.

Critics of U.S. sugar policy make the argument that the program causes disastrous shortages in U.S. sugar supply, which flies in the face of reality. U.S. farmers and producers have proven themselves, time and again, to be the most efficient in the world, but they cannot be left alone to face a trade market undermined by foreign government manipulation.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and the latest numbers released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture underline that. The USDA now estimates that there is enough sugar surplus to give every man, woman, and child in this country nearly 12 pounds of sugar on top of what they already consume. This is enough surplus sugar to fill the Capitol Dome 55 times.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose any attempts at repealing this program. At risk would be 142,000 American jobs generated by the U.S. sugar-producing industry. Many of these jobs would be lost to subsidized foreign producers who are generally less efficient and less reliable and produce sugar far less safely and responsibly than American sugar producers.

I support Idaho's sugar beet growers as well as sugar growers throughout the country. I am committed to ensuring that they have access to the tools they need to produce an affordable and abundant sugar supply.

The bottom line is not only is this program not a cost to the U.S. taxpayer, it generates revenue to help us reduce our deficit. These are the kinds of programs we need to protect American producers.

I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose the Shaheen amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source