On the recordJune 13, 2012
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.…





