Charles W. Stenholm: “Mr. Chairman, let us summarize why this amendment should be strongly opposed. Why MAP? Why a Market Access Program? It…”

“Mr. Chairman, let us summarize why this amendment should be strongly opposed. Why MAP? Why a Market Access Program? It is to help meet foreign competition. The European Union and other foreign competitors continue to enjoy a 10-to-1 advantage over the U.S. in terms of export subsidies. The European Union and other foreign competitors are moving aggressively in providing other forms of assistance to maintain and expand their share of the world market at the expense of U.S. farmers and ranchers. The naivete of Members of this body who believe that somehow, some way, unilaterally disarming our farmers is going to allow them to compete in an international marketplace that is controlled by other governments continues to amaze me. Without U.S. policies and programs to help counter such subsidized competition, American farmers and ranchers will continue to be at a substantial disadvantage. In contrast to the high subsidies in Europe, the 1996 farm bill reduced income support to producers in this country over 7 years, making farm income and the economic well-being of American agriculture even more dependent on continued access to foreign markets. Now we hear again an effort to take away the remaining tools. The MAP represents a successful public-private partnership.”