The Davis-Kirk amendment to the 2007 farm bill would erase sugar policy measures that are designed to save taxpayers funds and prevent the U.S. sugar market from being overrun with subsidized foreign sugar. The economic impact in Minnesota alone of the U.S. sugar industry amounts to over $1.3 billion per year. Nationwide, over $10 billion is generated in economic impact from this industry. While I sympathize with Members who are experiencing job losses in their districts, I would urge them to consider why job loss is happening. It is not because of the price of sugar. Food manufacturers are paying less for sugar today than they paid when Jimmy Carter was in the White House. Now, the Davis-Kirk amendment would eliminate the market balancing provisions that we put in this bill.
Collin Peterson: “The Davis-Kirk amendment to the 2007 farm bill would erase sugar policy measures that are designed to save taxpayers…”
Editor's note · Context
Opposing the Davis-Kirk amendment to the 2007 farm bill regarding U.S. sugar policy.
Share
More from Collin Peterson
I don't believe there is a tax increase in this bill. I have looked at it. I am a CPA, and I think you can say it either way, but I don't believe it is a tax increase. The $60 billion did come out of baseline not because anybody cut it…
I take very much issue with your saying we are waiving PAYGO. We are not waiving PAYGO. We are not waiving PAYGO in this bill. We are meeting PAYGO requirements based on the 2007 baseline which is what we started the bill under. This is…
this is, as I said earlier, the exact bill that was voted on and passed by the House and the Senate. The gentleman is wrong. The provision that he is referring to was in both the House bill and the Senate bill, and it was also an original…
But I just want to make clear that in my opinion what we're doing here is not a tax increase. And frankly, what we ought to be doing is investigating why we have all these people on the payroll at the State Department and at the Treasury…





