{ "id": "R42551", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R42551", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 435678, "date": "2014-03-21", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T20:33:49.606693", "title": "Sugar Provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79)", "summary": "The 2014 farm bill (Agricultural Act of 2014, P.L. 113-79) continues the sugar and the sugar-to-ethanol programs without change for another five years (i.e., through FY2019). The sugar program provides a minimum price guarantee to sugar crop processors and is structured to operate at no cost to the federal government using two tools: marketing allotments that limit the amount that sugar processors can sell, and import quotas that restrict the quantity of foreign sugar allowed to enter the U.S. market. The sugar-to-ethanol program is intended to be used if marketing allotments and the administration of import quotas do not succeed in keeping market prices for sugar above minimum guaranteed levels. If activated, it ensures that stocks of sugar are not carried over to the following marketing year so as to continue to depress prices.\nDuring farm bill debate, Members of Congress engaged in vigorous debate on future sugar policy on behalf of both sides. Sugar producers/processors and food manufacturers also waged aggressive media campaigns to influence the outcome of amendments offered during floor debate. Producers of sugar beets and sugarcane, and the processors of these crops into sugar, favored retaining the current program without change. They highlighted the jobs and economic activity created by the domestic sugar sector. Food manufacturers that use sugar in their products sought flexibilities in how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers the program, with an eye toward paying lower prices as a result. In advocating changes, they pointed to the higher wholesale refined sugar prices paid since the 2008 farm bill provisions took effect (twice the level compared to the previous 2002 farm bill period), and to the jobs that their firms create.\nThe enacted provisions reflect those agreed to by the House and Senate Agriculture Committees in reporting out their respective farm bills. During the period that Congress considered this latest farm bill (2012-2014), opponents of the sugar program offered five floor amendments to change both committees\u2019 reported provisions and to instruct House conferees. All were defeated. In the 112th Congress, S.Amdt. 2393 to S. 3240 would have phased out the program within three years. S.Amdt. 2433 to S. 3240 would have reverted most program authorities to those in effect prior to the 2008 farm bill changes and repealed the sugar-to-ethanol program. In the 113th Congress, S.Amdt. 925 to S. 954 and H.Amdt. 227 to H.R. 1947 would have lowered price support levels to those in effect in FY2008, and made a number of changes to require USDA to administer sugar marketing allotments and sugar import quotas so that sugar would be available \u201cat reasonable prices.\u201d It also would have repealed the sugar-for-ethanol program. These amendments were nearly identical to the freestanding Sugar Reform Act (S. 345 and H.R. 693). \nIn scoring the farm bill, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that if current sugar policy continued, a 10-year total of $188 million in outlays would occur for FY2014-FY2023, all of it associated with the sugar-to-ethanol program. CBO scored the Sugar Reform Act as reducing these outlays by $82 million over this period. Separately, USDA actions taken in late FY2013 to reduce sugar supplies and activate the sugar-to-ethanol program to prop up market prices did not boost prices sufficiently above program-guaranteed levels. Consequently, these, together with subsequent USDA actions to dispose of sugar pledged as collateral for loans by processors and then forfeited, resulted in $259 million in federal outlays associated with the 2012 sugar crops.\nAlthough existing sugar policy remains intact in the 2014 farm bill, the debate between sugar program supporters and opponents, which largely revolves around the level of domestic sugar prices, is expected to continue. Sugar growers and processors seek the highest price possible, with backstops in place to ensure they receive the benefits of the current price guarantee. Users of sugar in manufactured food products want as low a price as possible within the basic structure of the current program.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42551", "sha1": "2da78d190731a9fea6b62380c5cb24aaa5e3fc2d", "filename": "files/20140321_R42551_2da78d190731a9fea6b62380c5cb24aaa5e3fc2d.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42551", "sha1": "0a053cc6e8eb7dde698ad43f8437444c00bd2110", "filename": "files/20140321_R42551_0a053cc6e8eb7dde698ad43f8437444c00bd2110.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 641, "name": "Farm Bill and Agricultural Policy" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc813517/", "id": "R42551_2013Jan14", "date": "2013-01-14", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Sugar Program Proposals for the Next Farm Bill", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20130114_R42551_2715d8ece7954b69c2bcdd49ee4b3ff6514cd82f.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20130114_R42551_2715d8ece7954b69c2bcdd49ee4b3ff6514cd82f.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc812081/", "id": "R42551_2012Jun19", "date": "2012-06-19", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Sugar Program Proposals for the 2012 Farm Bill", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20120619_R42551_02e24578c488f9a50618417ee2f18136edef69ad.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20120619_R42551_02e24578c488f9a50618417ee2f18136edef69ad.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Agricultural Policy" ] }