2018: Schweikert Voted For Amending The Sugar Program, Including Ending The Feedstock Flexibility Program. In May 2018, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "adjust[ed] loan rates for the sugar program, would [have] terminate[d] the feedstock flexibility program, and would [have] establish[ed] tariff rate quotas for raw cane sugar and refined sugar." The underlying legislation was the House GOP's farm bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 137 to 278. [House Vote 193, 5/17/18; Congressional Quarterly, 5/17/18; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 605; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Eliminating Sugar Subsidies. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Eliminate The Federal Sugar Program As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for eliminating the sugar program. According to the Republican Study Committee, "Eliminate the Sugar Program [:] The federal government's sugar program is one of the worst examples of crony capitalism that drives up costs for consumers. The program consists of both price supports and production limits for domestic sugar producers as well as import restrictions and tariffs for imported sugar. Because of these restrictions, the price of domestic sugar is about twice that of the world market price. According to CBO, eliminating the sugar program would save $115 million over ten years. However, the savings would be much greater for American consumers." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Reduce Federal Subsidies For Sugar, With The Goal Of Reducing Its Price. In June 2013, Schweikert voted for an amendment that, according to the Congressional Research Service, would have made several significant changes to the federal sugar program. Specifically, it "would [have] lower[ed] price support levels to those in effect in FY2008, make a number of changes to require USDA to administer sugar marketing allotments and sugar import quotas in ways that would result in sugar being available 'at reasonable prices,' and repeal the sugar-for-ethanol program." The House rejected the proposed amendment to the House's version of the 2013 Farm Bill by a vote of 206 to 221. [House Vote 281, 6/20/13; CRS Report #R42551, 11/12/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 227; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1947]
Federal Sugar Program Keeps Domestic Sugar Prices Above A Guaranteed Level Using Loans, Marketing Quotas, Import Quotas And The Sugar-To-Ethanol Program, At No Cost To The Government. According to the Congressional Research Service, "The sugar program provides a price guarantee to the processors of sugarcane and sugar beets, and in turn, to the producers of both crops. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) also is directed to administer the program at no budgetary cost to the federal government by limiting the amount of sugar supplied for food use in the U.S. market. To achieve both objectives, USDA uses four tools---authorized by the 2008 farm bill and long-standing trade law---to keep domestic market prices above guaranteed levels. These are: price support loans at specified levels---the basis for the price guarantee, marketing allotments to limit the amount of sugar that each processor can sell, import quotas to restrict the amount of sugar allowed to enter the U.S. market, and a sugar-to-ethanol (feedstock flexibility) backstop---available if marketing allotments and import quotas fail to prevent a sugar surplus from developing (i.e., fail to keep market prices above guaranteed levels)." [CRS Report #R42845, 8/17/12]
Under Federal Sugar-To-Ethanol Program, Government Buys Up Sugar To Remove It From The Food Market And Sells It To Ethanol Producers. According to the Congressional Research Service, "If market prices fall below levels guaranteed by the sugar program, USDA must administer a sugar-for-ethanol program using domestic sugar intended for food use. Its objective is to permanently remove sugar from the market for human consumption by diverting it into a non-food use---ethanol. When the Secretary of Agriculture determines that activating this program is necessary to ensure that the sugar program operates at no cost, USDA will purchase surplus and other sugar acquired from processors, and then sell that sugar to bioenergy producers for processing into fuel grade ethanol and other biofuels. Competitive bids would be used by USDA to purchase sugar from processors, and also to sell that sugar to ethanol firms. USDA would implement this program only when purchases are required to avoid loan forfeitures." [CRS Report #R42845, 8/17/12]
Sugar-To-Ethanol Program Activated In August 2013 After U.S. Domestic Sugar Prices Fell Below Their Guaranteed Level. According to the Congressional Research Service, "With current sugar prices below effective support levels, [...] USDA on August 15, 2013, activated [the sugar-to-ethanol] program. It will solicit bids from processors to purchase sugar pledged as collateral for price support loans that come due on August 31. By early September, USDA is expected to announce that it will receive offers from bioenergy producers to purchase that sugar." [CRS Report #R42845, 8/17/12]
Amendment Opponents Said The Current Sugar Program Provides U.S. Consumers With The Safe Sugar They Want At A Reasonable Price, While Ensuring That Producers Are Not Impoverished. According to the Congressional Research Service, "Producers of sugar beets and sugarcane, and the beet refiners and raw sugar mills that process these crops into refined sugar and raw cane sugar, respectively, support extending the U.S. sugar policy as adopted in the 2008 farm bill. They argue that the program has succeeded in ensuring 'reliable supplies of high-quality, safe, responsibly-produced sugar at reasonable prices' for consumers, and that it provides producers with 'an economic safety net.' They emphasize that these objectives have been achieved at 'zero cost to American taxpayers.'" [CRS Report #R42551, 11/12/13]
Sugar Program Supporters Include American Sugar Alliance, The American Farm Bureau, The National Farmers Union And 17 Developing Countries That Have Special Access To The U.S. Sugar Market. According to the Congressional Research Service, "Sugar crop producers and processors are represented by the American Sugar Alliance (ASA). Two large general farm organizations support continuing the current sugar program. The American Farm Bureau Federation states that while other commodities will be faced with reduced government support in the next farm bill, 'the sugar program should be left intact as efforts to generate savings would require convoluted policy structures.' The National Farmers Union supports continuing the sugar program and 'encourages Congress to work with ... sugar producers to adopt a strong sugar program in future farm bills.' Also, a coalition of 17 developing countries that benefit from preferential quota access to the U.S. sugar market favors continuing current U.S. sugar policy, arguing that it 'provides a guaranteed level of access ... at fair, predictable prices'" (ellipses in original). [CRS Report #R42551, 11/12/13]
Amendment Supporters Argue The Current Sugar Program Forces U.S. Sugar Users And Consumers To Pay Artificially High Prices, Leading To Increased Offshoring And The Loss Of Thousands Of Lost U.S. Jobs. According to the Congressional Research Service, "Sugar users (i.e., manufacturers of sugar-containing food products and beverages) support making changes to the U.S. sugar program. In their view, the sugar program 'was made worse by the 2008 farm bill' and operates as 'a textbook example of the consequences of excessive government intrusion in the marketplace.' They argue that the program, 'by overly restricting the supply of sugar in the U.S. market,' has kept U.S. market sugar prices 'far above' world sugar prices. This development, they contend, has resulted in U.S. consumers and food manufacturers paying more for sugar than foreign users pay, and has encouraged the relocation of food processing jobs offshore, led to the elimination of thousands of U.S. jobs, and created a 'dramatic inequity of the benefits provided to sugar growers over other agricultural producers' supported by other commodity programs. Sugar users are primarily represented by the Coalition for Sugar Reform (CSR)." [CRS Report #R42551, 11/12/13]