[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1075-E1076]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

                                 ______


                               speech of

                           HON. PATSY T. MINK

                               of hawaii

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 11, 1996

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3603) making 
     appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other 
     purposes:

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, 3 months ago we passed the Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, better known as the 
freedom to farm bill. The 1996 farm bill was touted as the best deal 
for consumers because it removed the Government from the operation of 
farm programs and opened the sugar market to domestic competition. The 
cap on raw sugar prices added in this bill breaks faith with this 
policy. It sabotages the lowest part of the triangle: The grower. 
Moreover, it hands unlimited profits to the refinery and it opens the 
doors to foreign sugar. It deliberately wastes the grower for more 
profits for the refinery.
  Under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 
Congress eliminated marketing allotments and allowed an additional 1.5 
million tons of imported sugar into the domestic market. We also 
requested America's sugar growers to pay an additional $288 million in 
market assessments to help pay for deficit reduction. These changes 
essentially took Government out of managing the sugar market. By 
placing a price cap, this amendment repeals the free market principle. 
The purpose of the cap is to ultimately eliminate our domestic sugar 
production, drive America's sugar growers out of business and allow 
foreign subsidized sugar to dominate the U.S. market. Instead of 
heeding our decision to save the domestic sugar program as evidenced by 
the defeat of the Miller-Schumer amendment in the farm bill, opponents 
are now seeking the same result by including a price cap for raw sugar 
in H.R. 3603.

  According to the USDA, the only way to meet the 21.15 price cap is by 
increasing the amount of imported sugar allowed into the United States, 
exactly what the mega users want. The lower priced sugar helps the 
users and the imported sugar helps the refineries. By allowing more 
imported sugar into the United States, the downward pressure on raw 
sugar prices will likely result in increased sugar forfeitures with 
greater costs to the American taxpayer.
  Since last November, the price margin between raw and refined sugar 
has increased significantly. Presently, Dominos refinery is asking 32 
cents for its refined sugar, while raw sugar prices are 22 cents--a 
difference of 10 cents. Refineries are enjoying high margins of profit 
because beet sugar producers are expected to harvest less yields for 
the next couple of years. The USDA has predicted that this price 
difference will remain the same or even increase. This 10 cent 
difference is on top of the 1 to 2 cent discount that processors 
already give to many sugar refiners. Judging from these numbers, the 
only ones to benefit from the price caps are the refineries and the 
users. It doesn't matter to them if there are no domestic growers left. 
I rise to warn this Nation of the loss of an important farm product. If 
these price caps are adopted, many of America's sugar growers will go 
out of business. In the State of Hawaii, the remaining sugar growers, 
with the exception of one owned by a refinery, will likely be forced 
out of business. Sugar continues to be an essential component of 
Hawaii's economy, surpassed only by tourism and defense. In 1994, the 
sugar industry generated $248 million for the State's economy and 
directly and indirectly employed 6,000 workers. There are 121,000 acres 
of sugar land in production today. If the price caps on raw sugar 
become law, our

[[Page E1076]]

sugar industry, except for the refinery owned plantation, will possibly 
close.
  A cap on raw sugar prices is contrary to the basic principles of the 
free market. Rather than allowing free competition in the domestic 
sugar industry, raw sugar price caps shackles the market with price 
controls to favor the user, without cost benefit to the consumer. I 
can't imagine this Congress knowingly voting for price controls at the 
grower level, but not at the refined sugar level. It makes no sense at 
all. A price cap on raw sugar is a death sentence against America's 
sugar growers and defies market principles espoused by all members of 
the majority party. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the 
bill.

                          ____________________