On the recordJune 20, 2013
I must take exception to some of the remarks I've heard here today. This amendment is absolutely necessary for this country, for the consumer. We are talking about saving consumers $3.5 billion a year and saving 20,000 manufacturing jobs. I must strenuously object to those who say the price of sugar is so low. Let me tell you what is going to happen. When the price of sugar drops below a certain level, the Federal Government will buy that excess sugar, then sell it to ethanol producers at a loss. The taxpayer and the consumer is royally abused twice. This is protectionism at its worse. We all know it. It is time to reform this program. This is not a zero-zero policy as the proponents claim. This is going to cost taxpayers $239 million over the next several years. That is according to CBO. $80 million of taxpayer-funded bailout could come later this year. This issue is about protecting manufacturing jobs, making sure that we have something closer to a market-based price. I represent Hershey, Pennsylvania. I just heard a statement saying, no sugar packets handed out to restaurants are free. Well, that cost is built into the meal that you eat. It is absurd. It is absolutely absurd. We are losing jobs to countries that have more market-based sugar policies. I urge strong support for the Pitts-Goodlatte-Davis-Blumenauer amendment.





