Rick Hill: “Mr. Chairman, I want to carry on the debate and discussion about the issue of sugar. I made note when the gentleman from…”

“Mr. Chairman, I want to carry on the debate and discussion about the issue of sugar. I made note when the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) was on the floor. He said when the agreement was reached in 1996, taxpayers were promised that this would not cost the taxpayers any money. I want to remind the people in this room that this program has not cost the taxpayers any money. Some people will point to the recent purchase of sugar that the administration has concluded for about $200 million. But I want to remind the Members in this Chamber that as part of this agreement in 1996, that the sugar producers agreed to pay over $288 million towards deficit reduction during the 7-year life of this program. So the taxpayers, even with the purchase of sugar, even if that sugar is never resold, still will be beneficiaries to the extent of $288 million. The people who are advocating the change in the sugar program mostly come from districts where there are candy manufacturers. They come to the floor and argue that consumers have been hurt by this sugar program. Let me tell the Members, sugar cane prices have gone down 17 percent since this program went into place, and sugar beet has gone down 26 percent. During that period of time, while the producers' share of the dollar has gone dramatically, the price of refined sugar has gone up 1.1 percent. Guess what, the price of candy, cookies, and ice cream have gone up 27 percent.”