Earl Blumenauer: “one of the problems here is this is not, with all due respect, some sort of major massive pruning. We are talking about…”

“one of the problems here is this is not, with all due respect, some sort of major massive pruning. We are talking about a 6 percent reduction on how the American consumer and taxpayer is on the hook. That is not unilaterally disarming. That is not a massive overhaul. We need this modest step. I look forward to working with the chairman of the Ag Committee, although I hope he is not the chairman of the Ag Committee next session, but in whatever capacity I look forward to working with him to have that honest debate. The last time it went through the legislative process, the sugar provisions got worse, not better. It was more egregious. There were more things that were added to it to make it work against the consumer and the taxpayer. Only in Washington, D.C. would this be regarded as no-cost. That survey that has been talked about should have asked consumers: Do they like paying two to three times the world price of sugar? Do they like driving overseas thousands of confectionery jobs, making our trade imbalance worse? Do they like working against the ecological health of the everglades and then spending $7.5 billion of taxpayer money to start cleaning up some of the toxic residue of the sugar industry? And do they want to discriminate against poor countries like Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Mali that could benefit from freer trade in sugar? I urge support of the Blumenauer-Flake amendment. The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.…”