[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 22, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1474-E1475]
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. THOMAS J. MANTON

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 17, 1997

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill, H.R. 2160:

  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by Messrs. Schumer and Miller.
  Mr. Chairman, while I understand and appreciate the proponent's 
interests in pursuing this amendment, I believe their concerns are 
misplaced and their proposed remedy misguided. I have worked closely 
with my friend and colleague from New York, Mr. Schumer, on a number of 
important issues over the years, and I do not question his motives; 
however, I regret that we are once again at odds over this emotional 
agricultural matter.
  Mr. Chairman, only last year, the Congress enacted major, far-
reaching agricultural reform legislation. In that measure, we 
dramatically changed our Nation's long-standing policies affecting 
farming and agricultural markets, including sugar production--which, I 
believe, is the only program crop to lose the Government guarantee of a 
minimum price. I supported these efforts to reform and modernize the 
sugar price support program and believe these changes have benefitted 
all segments of the industry. These reforms represented an important 
first step.
  However, we simply have not allowed enough time to pass to ensure we 
achieved our goals in revising the sugar program and determine whether 
these changes were sufficient. I would also remind my colleagues that 
this House defeated a similar amendment during the farm bill debate.
  Mr. Chairman, for this reason alone, I believe it is unfair and 
unwise to make such a drastic change in the U.S. sugar program as 
proposed in the amendment at this time.
  We will hear today that this is an issue of fairness and the free-
market system; consumers will be pitted against farmers, producers 
against refiners and manufacturers. I believe these arguments are 
overly simplistic, picking and choosing statistics which best represent 
the proponents' arguments, and the distinctions they promote do an 
injustice to the sugar producers of our great Nation, be they farmers 
of sugarcane, sugarbeet, or corn.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not deny that there are some very real differences 
between the proponents and opponents on the issue before us, and I 
doubt any amount of debate is likely to change the position of the 
amendment's authors. However, I have learned over my years in Congress, 
and as a New York City councilman, that no issue is one-sided, nor is 
there often only one all-inclusive right answer to a problem. 
Reasonable people can, and often do, disagree.
  I believe the issue before us here today falls into that category. We 
differ on what the impacts of a particular program may or may not be, 
and how best to address these issues. But, I do not believe either side 
has a claim to the so-called high ground.
  And, with all due respect to the amendment's proponents, I do not 
take a back seat to their concern for the American consumer. I 
represent a congressional district, a part of New York City, where the 
1990 median family income was only around $30,000 a year. In the areas 
of Queens and the Bronx which I have the pleasure to represent, the 
cost of living is a very real issue with everyday impacts on the hard-
working families of the 9th Congressional District of New York.
  The proponents argue that their's is the only way to protect the 
consumer, to potentially lower the cost of sugar and products 
containing agricultural sweeteners by a few cents or, more likely, 
fractions of a cent. This is all well and good, if they can ensure the 
savings they propose will indeed be passed along to the American 
consumer. A prospect which they can not guarantee.
  But, cost aside, the proponents can also not be sure their amendment, 
if approved, would not seriously disrupt the supply and availability of 
sugar throughout our country.
  Mr. Chairman, my constituents do not benefit if they have the 
potential of saving a penny or two on a product but can no longer 
obtain that commodity or the product is no longer available in a 
sufficient and steady supply to meet their needs.
  I have often commented in meetings I have had over the years that I 
am unaware of any farms in my urban district, except for one lone 
victory garden started during World War II. But, I am sure of one 
thing, and that is that each and every one of my constituents eats and 
needs a secure, steady supply of produce and food products at a 
reasonable price. As such, I will continue to support those programs 
which I believe ensure just that, and oppose those measures which I 
believe will not.
  I will note here, also, that New York State does play a role in 
domestic sugar production, with numerous farms that grow corn which is 
utilized in sweetener production.
  Mr. Chairman, my strong, historic support of agriculture programs, 
including sugar, and the associated refining and processing 
infrastructure, is based upon this--perhaps simplistic--premise: That 
the United States must continue to ensure all its people are provided 
the best, most secure, and stable source of food products possible. 
And, I believe this goal is best accomplished by reducing our 
dependence on foreign sources of agriculture products through the 
encouragement and promotion of a strong domestic agriculture system, 
and challenging unfair, anti-competitive foreign sources of food.
  While we are usually on the same side of most food related issues, 
from time to time, I part paths with this Nation's food processors. As 
is the case here, I side with the producers

[[Page E1475]]

and not the refiners and processors. I do not fault them for their 
support of this amendment and the desired changes they seek in the 
sugar program, and I know we will work together on future issues of 
mutual concern.
  I believe the virtual elimination of this program as now proposed 
would place the U.S. sugar industry as a whole, and the American 
consumer in particular, at the mercy of the inconsistent and heavily 
subsidized world sugar market.
  Unlike my colleagues who support the amendment, I simply do not 
believe the American consumer is likely to realize a significant, if 
any, benefit should the amendment prevail. But, I am concerned that the 
domestic producers of sugar could suffer from reduced prices and would 
be made particularly vulnerable to foreign sources of sugar.
  While refiners may pass along their savings, I seriously doubt many 
processors are likely to reciprocate. While the cumulative amounts 
being bandied about today are significant, and represent real money 
regardless of one's social standing, the bottom-line is that we are 
talking about pennies or fractions of pennies on a commodity basis.
  Quite frankly, I do not even know how one would calculate the savings 
that say a manufacturer should pass along for their finished product 
that now may cost them a fraction of a cent less to produce. Are we 
likely to see cans of soda from a machine selling for 59 cents instead 
of 60 cents?
  At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to some very basic 
statistics which I believe make clear the short-sightedness of the 
amendment.
  The current sugar program operates at no cost to the Federal 
Government, and a special marketing tax on sugar farmers is earmarked 
for deficit reduction;
  U.S. consumers pay an average of 25-28 cents less for sugar than do 
shoppers in other developed countries;
  From 1990 to 1995, the retail price of sugar actually decreased 
approximately 7 percent;
  U.S. retail sugar prices are approximately 32 percent below the 
average of other developed countries and the third lowest in the 
developed world;
  New York consumers pay 5 percent less for sugar than the average 
consumer worldwide;
  Close to a billion dollars are generated each year by the U.S. sugar 
industry in the State of New York alone; and, finally,
  More than 5,690 jobs in New York State rely on the sugar industry.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and cast 
a vote in favor of a strong, fair and balanced domestic sugar program 
and product to the American farmer.

                          ____________________