[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7394-7395]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             SUGAR PROGRAM

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I am here today to speak to the importance of bringing 
much needed reform to the Federal Sugar Program. I understand that this 
is not something the Presiding Officer supports and that this is not 
something the Agriculture Committee addressed in the farm bill. I think 
it is important to try to address some of the misinformation that is 
out there.
  We have been hearing a lot of talk about the need to protect 
America's sugar farmers. What we haven't heard is that sugar remains 
the most tightly controlled commodity market in this country. We 
currently have what I believe is an outdated program that offers a 
sweet deal to a small group of sugar growers and processors at the 
expense of too many other American businesses and at the expense of 
American consumers.
  What the amendment that I have offered with a number of cosponsors 
will do is reform the Sugar Program to make U.S. manufacturers more 
competitive and to reduce prices for consumers. It will lower sugar 
price support levels, and it will reform the excessive restrictions on 
domestic supply and import quotas for sugars.
  These reforms would save taxpayers money. The Congressional Budget 
Office has estimated that this legislation would save $82 million over 
the next 10 years.
  I think it is important to keep in mind the amendment we have 
introduced does not eliminate the safety net for sugar producers. It 
simply makes some moderate commonsense reforms in the program. Sugar 
growers would still be supported by the Sugar Loan Program and 
protected by import restrictions and domestic market allotments. In 
fact, this amendment simply returns us to the same policies that sugar 
producers themselves supported as recently as 2007.
  Since 2008, sugar prices in the United States have soared to record 
highs and they have consistently reached levels that are about twice 
the world pricing of sugar. In fact, the Sugar Program has cost 
consumers and businesses as much as $14 billion over the last 4 years. 
This amendment would provide a smart, practical, and pragmatic fix to 
the policies that are currently in place, and it is a bipartisan 
proposal. There are 18 other Senators from both sides of the aisle who 
have joined on this amendment.
  Again, we have been hearing about jobs that would be lost in the 
sugar industry if we make these moderate reforms, but the reality is we 
are already losing and have lost too many valuable manufacturing jobs 
across this country as businesses close or move overseas in search of 
lower prices. We can see some of this illustrated on this chart. These 
are sugar-using jobs in the food industry, and there are more than 30 
times as many of these jobs as there are in sugar production and 
processing. So we can see sugar-using food and beverage jobs, which is 
the blue, compared to sugar farming, production, and processing, which 
is the red. That is 590,669 compared to 18,078. And where do these 
numbers come from? Well, in fact, they are from the U.S. Census and the 
Department of Commerce.

[[Page 7395]]

  Unfortunately, between 1997 and 2011, nearly 127,000 of these jobs, 
the manufacturing jobs, were lost in sugar-using industries. In fact, 
the U.S. Department of Commerce has estimated that for every one sugar-
growing job that is saved through high sugar prices, approximately 
three manufacturing jobs are lost. So again, let me put the numbers 
into perspective, as this chart does. There are less than 5,000 sugar 
growers and processors in the country. U.S. data shows there are about 
18,000 total jobs in the sugar industry, compared with almost 600,000 
jobs in the sugar-using industry.
  We have also been hearing this amendment would allow for an increase 
in foreign sugar into the U.S. market. This amendment maintains the 
current import quotas for each country. Let me repeat that: It 
maintains the current import quotas for each country. It allows the 
Secretary of Agriculture to modify these quotas if he or she determines 
it is necessary, just as they were able to do before 2008. The fact is 
this amendment would have no impact on sugar imports from Mexico 
because under the North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA, Mexico 
currently is the only country without a quota for sugar importation, 
and that is true whether we pass this amendment or not. That is true 
under the current system.
  So even if we don't pass reforms, the argument that Mexico is coming 
in and bringing sugar into the country is true, there is sugar coming 
in from Mexico, but the fact is that is the way it is under the current 
program. Currently, sugar is the only--let me repeat, the only--
commodity program that was not reformed in the committee-passed farm 
bill that is under consideration now.
  Let me be clear: I think the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry--Senator Stabenow and the committee--did a great job on that 
bill in most areas because they provided savings and they reformed the 
program. So it is particularly puzzling to me why they totally left the 
sugar subsidies out of the bill, that they did nothing to reform the 
Sugar Program.
  I don't think any program the Federal Government operates should be 
immune from updates and improvements. We need to act, and we need to 
act now, to reform the Sugar Program and to protect those workers who 
are in the food industry that use sugar, and protect consumers who are 
spending more money than they should for the cost of sugar.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the Senator from Maine Ms. Collins, and I be permitted to engage in a 
colloquy for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________