[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8675-8676]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                             SUGAR PROGRAM

  Mr. DORGAN. I noticed in the Washington Post this morning an 
editorial I wanted to comment on briefly. Those noted experts on 
agriculture and the farm program who write editorials for the 
Washington Post have written an editorial today entitled ``A Deal Too 
Sweet'' about the sugar program. I can just see them sitting out there 
in their Big Ben coveralls dumping sugar into their coffee, cogitating 
about America's sugar program and America's farm program. I want to 
suggest to them to look in a different direction.
  They see a program in this country where sugar prices are kept far 
too high, in their judgment. They believe the market for sugar would 
produce prices at just a fraction of what the sugar program currently 
provides sugar producers. I fear the Washington Post just does not 
understand the sugar program or the market.
  Most sugar in this world is traded contract to contract between 
countries. Very little is traded in the open market. What is traded in 
the open market is the surplus or the dumped sugar. This dumped sugar 
is traded at very low prices, but that does not reflect the cost of 
sugar that is traded between countries.
  For a number of reasons, the sugar program is not working as well as 
it had in the past. For a long period of time the sugar program 
provided both stable prices for consumers and also stable income, or 
stable support for sugar producers. Is this a worthwhile goal? I think 
it is.
  We have seen times in this country when the sugar prices spiked up, 
up, way up, which was a terrible disadvantage to America's consumers. 
We have seen circumstances as well where farm income has dipped way 
down. That was devastating to producers. At least with respect to this 
commodity, sugar, we developed a program that provides stability for 
both consumers and producers. This makes sense to me.
  The sugar program has not worked as well in recent months and years. 
The reason, in my judgment, is because the current underlying farm 
program has not worked. As prices have collapsed for most other 
commodities, and as we have pulled the rug out from under producers 
with a farm program called Freedom to Farm, we have had more acreage 
put into sugar production in this country.
  In addition to that, we have had molasses stuffed with sugar coming 
in from Canada, which is just another method of transporting sugar into 
this country in excess of the amount agreed to by our trade agreements. 
We have a significant threat from Mexico, despite what we thought was 
an agreement on sugar, so we have a whole series of threats to those 
who produce sugar--cane and beet--in this country.
  The Washington Post would make the case: Let's just get rid of the 
sugar program. Others will probably make the same case. It would be 
interesting to ask the following question, and perhaps get an answer 
from the Washington Post and others who believe this. The question 
would be: While sugar prices have fallen by a fourth since 1996, has 
anyone seen a reduction in the price of sugar at the grocery store? Let 
me repeat, prices to the producer have fallen by one-fourth; has anyone 
seen a reduction in the price of

[[Page 8676]]

sugar at the store? What about candy bars, cereal, ice cream, cookies?
  The answer is no. In fact, during that same period of time, while the 
price of sugar to the producer has fallen by a fourth, those prices--
candy, cereal, ice cream, cookies, and cake--are up 7 to 10 percent.
  The point is this. This program has worked and can work again if we 
have a decent farm bill. But it will not work in the long term unless 
we amend and change the Freedom to Farm legislation which is the 
underlying problem with all farm commodity prices.
  This is not the time, and we should not allow those who preach it to 
decide the sugar program ought to be repealed. The sugar program has 
worked, and it is good for sugar producers and consumers in this 
country.
  I wanted to make the case that those who editorialize about it, 
including this morning's editorial, in my judgment, are wrong. I 
respect their opinion, but I think they are wrong. It is, once again, a 
question not just for those who produce sugar--in my part of the 
country, there are family farmers who raise sugar beets--it is a 
question of do we want to have family farmers in this country's future.
  Some say family farmers are a little old diner that got left behind 
when the interstate came through. Yes, it is nostalgic, yesterday's 
news, let's just get on with big corporate farms. I do not believe 
that. I believe family farmers contribute to the value and culture of 
this country in a significant way. If we decide there is no virtue 
between the crevices of mathematics and concentration--if we decide 
family farms do not matter--this country will have lost something 
significant, in my opinion.
  One part of needed farm policy change, but an important part for 
those who produce sugar beets in our country, is the retention of a 
decent sugar program that provides some stability of income for 
producers. I hope my colleagues will understand this in the coming 
weeks and months as we begin discussing the farm program and related 
issues such as the sugar program.

                          ____________________