On the recordMay 22, 2013
Mr. President, as we heard last summer and again throughout this week's debate, government subsidies are at the heart of both our agricultural and nutritional policies here in the United States. Subsidizing food costs in the form of payments for groceries is the core of our supplemental nutrition assistance program. Insurance premiums paid by our corn and soybean growers are directly subsidized in the farm bill on the floor today. And adverse market payments, what we once called direct payments, are available to crops such as peanuts and rice if the price for those commodities fall below a certain threshold. These government subsidies are used all across our country--from Iowa to North and South Carolina; and from Missouri down through Kansas, Arkansas, and Texas. Now we have heard from several members from these and other States the many opinions about the validity or usefulness of these subsidies. And I certainly have my own opinion about how the agricultural policy in the United States should be reformed and shaped. However, today, I stand to discuss a unique program--our country's Sugar Program. For those of you who are not familiar with the program, it consists of three components--a domestic allocation component, a tariff quota component, and a loan component. Now, aside from the loan component, uniquely, the Sugar Program in the United States does not require a direct government subsidy.…





