Glenn English: “Mr. Chairman, as I heard this debate, I felt the need to come down to the floor and participate because I think the…”

“Mr. Chairman, as I heard this debate, I felt the need to come down to the floor and participate because I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), which unfortunately we will not be considering today, addresses an issue that we are going to have to address as part of our trade policy, whether we enjoy doing it or not. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, the sugar program has harmed U.S. trade policy. The United States has had a goal and policy of knocking down barriers to fair and open trade, such as tariffs, quotas, and subsidies. This policy clearly benefits domestic agriculture and domestic manufacturing. Our trade representatives have taken a message to the world that subsidies and tariffs are bad, and we need to allow free trade to work and we need to allow markets to be opened up. The U.S. economy is essentially free of subsidies and high tariffs, yet, despite that high ground, when our trade representatives go forth and meet with their counterparts, our trade representatives are forced to passionately defend the sugar subsidy and tariff, defend the indefensible. Sugar protectionism in America harms our efforts to open up world markets to more important U.S. commodities and sell U.S. corn, wheat, livestock, cotton, rice, and other products overseas. It also hurts the competitiveness of American food products that are made with sugar.”