373. Letter From Senator Bill Bradley to Stephen Farrar of the National Security Council Staff1
I am aware that the “no cost” provision of the 1985 Farm Bill may require a significant reduction in the U.S. sugar import quota for 1987. I am concerned that such a reduction may have serious consequences for less developed sugar exporters, who depend on sugar exports for the hard currency so necessary for long-term economic growth.
The poorest LDCs are faced with exploding populations, inadequate industrial investment and a debt to foreign banks that numbs all hope of economic recovery. Many of these countries have new democratic governments. All are struggling to control their most threatening problem of poverty. We are in the midst of a worldwide referendum on the ability of democracy to cope with poverty and we cannot let it lose.
Many of these sugar-exporting LDC’s are our neighbors in the Caribbean and Latin America. These countries are politically and economically fragile—Honduras, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Panama, for example. The Philippines and the African nations such as Malawi and Mauritius also gain a needed economic boost by access to our sugar markets. For many of the sugar export-dependent LDC’s, there has been little opportunity to diversify and develop the basic infrastructure necessary for industrial development. Aside from foreign assistance, which the U.S. has steadily reduced, raw commodity exports remain the only viable source of foreign exchange revenues available to fund development and repay debt.
When the Farm Bill was debated in 1985, I proposed to lower the U.S. sugar price support level. A lower support price would have reduced domestic overproduction and subsidies which total to hundreds of thousands of dollars per sugar grower. By reducing domestic sugar output, this policy would have permitted a raising of import [Page 912] quotas for the benefit of these needy LDC’s and at no cost to the government. Additionally, the lower domestic prices would have helped U.S. consumers and industry, which pays the real bill for our agricultural programs. It amazes me that we can refer to our sugar policies as “no cost” when U.S. consumers spend $3.5 to $4.5 billion more than the world sugar price as a result. Unfortunately, my proposal was not adopted by the Senate. Consequently, our agricultural policies threaten the economic and political security of these young democracies and also penalize American consumers.
In view of the expected reduction in the 1987 quota, it is time for the Administration to reassess the policy underlying the quota to provide reasonable access to the U.S. sugar market for those LDC’s that are especially dependent upon sugar exports. I urge you, as a member of the Sugar Review Group, to consider fully the impact of our policies on those sensitive developing nations. We must act to prevent further erosion of their precarious economic and political condition.
Sincerely,
United States Senator
- Source: Reagan Library, Stephen Farrar Files, 1986–1987 file, Subject File, Sugar 1986; NLR–177–1B–12–15–3. No classification marking.↩