[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 77 (Wednesday, June 6, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1034]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          SUGAR PROGRAM REFORM

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 6, 2001

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for ending the sugar subsidy program. A program which some claim costs 
``absolutely nothing'' is actually costing the government millions, and 
consumers billions. This program triggers unemployment in the sugar 
refining industry and it is not how a farm program should work.
  In the 1996 Farm Bill, we committed ourselves to phasing out price 
supports for every commodity except sugar and peanuts. It is time to 
level the playing field and expose the sugar program for the sham that 
it is. The sugar support program is supposedly designed to operate at 
``no direct cost'' to the Federal Government. The Department of
  In fact, according to the USDA, last year the government bought more 
than 1 million tons of sugar for 435 million dollars, and it now pays 
1.4 million dollars monthly to store the sugar. In addition, the 
government gave some of the sugar back to the same industry that 
``forfeited'' it in the first place, in exchange for the processors 
getting the farmers to destroy some of their growing crops.
  As a result of the sugar program, domestic prices for raw sugar are 
typically twice world market prices, and sometimes more. Currently, 
sugar costs 9 cents a pound on the world market, but the government 
sets the domestic price for raw sugar at 18 cents a pound and 22.9 
cents for refined sugar beets. According to the General Accounting 
Office, this price difference means that consumers are paying 1.9 
billion dollars more than they need to for sugar and products 
containing sugar.
  Yet, maybe most importantly, hundreds of jobs have been lost in the 
refining industry just in the past few years due to this unwise sugar 
subsidy. Since the mid-1980's, 12 of the
  What is particularly infuriating about the situation is that these 
refinery jobs are good-paying jobs located in inner cities and areas 
where other employment opportunities are scarce. For example, the 
confectioners who want to use domestic sugar are instead having to send 
those jobs to Canada or Mexico where they can purchase affordable 
sugar, costing American workers they jobs. It is the families who work 
in these closing sugar refineries who suffer because of this sugar 
program.
  The Agriculture Committee is writing a new farm bill, and we can not 
afford to have the sugar lobby write the sugar policy. Until the Sugar 
Subsidy Program is phased out, costumers will pay more for products 
containing sugar. Taxpayers will continue to pay more to buy surplus 
sugar. Workers in the candy industry and the cane refining industry 
will continue to lose their jobs. The sugar program will continue to 
benefit a few, without solving the problems of family farmers. We must 
insist on real reform in the sugar program, and end the regulations 
that are costing Americans money and American jobs.
  In closing, I'd like to thank my colleague, Mr. Davis, for his 
leadership on this issue and allowing me to speak on this important 
reform.

                          ____________________