Judd Gregg: “This is the same as the underlying amendment, but it changes the amount that is required of processors to have recourse…”

“This is the same as the underlying amendment, but it changes the amount that is required of processors to have recourse on from a $10 million threshold to a $15 million threshold. After that, it is a more lenient amendment than the first, if we presume we are requiring people to pay back loans. It does not, I think, aggravate the situation and should not from the standpoint of my colleagues who feel differently on this amendment than I do. I offer it to protect my position in the batting order here. I make one additional point. There was a point made on the other side, and this is, really, ancillary to the overall debate but needs to be responded to. There was a point made on the other side that the Sugar Program as presently structured actually causes a net 'infloat' of the Treasury because this is an assessment process. However, if you take into effect in the calculation the cost to the Federal Government of having to buy sugar for products which it uses and food stamps and military feeding and child nutrition at the inflated rate we must pay because the Federal Government is a fairly large consumer--also as I mentioned, and I suspect ad nauseam for my colleagues, the price here is dramatically more than the price the market would be were this a market-oriented program versus price-control program.”