James Hill: “I do represent a number of family farmers who are trying to make a living trying to produce sugar in Montana. Mr.…”

“I do represent a number of family farmers who are trying to make a living trying to produce sugar in Montana. Mr. Chairman, we made a commitment to those producers in the agriculture reform measure. What we said to them was we wanted to increase the predictability and stability on the family farm, and we said that this program would increase trade and increase imports and increase competition. That is what has happened as a consequence of the sugar program. We have done that with no cost to the Treasury. There is no corporate welfare and no subsidy. What this is really about is that the sugar consumers, who are large candy companies, what they want to do is get the benefit of the subsidy of foreign markets. There really is no free market. There is no market in sugar, at least no market that reflects the cost of production. Our producers can compete with the producers anywhere in the world, but they cannot compete with subsidies that come from foreign markets. What this debate really is about, this debate is not about helping the average American consumer of sugar. This is about helping those large companies who want to enjoy the benefit of the subsidy of foreign governments.”