On the recordMay 17, 2018
I couldn't disagree more. The savings that are touted by the folks who are in favor of this amendment will not be shared with consumers. They will be kept by these multinational corporations and, yes, the small sugar users across this country. So prices will not go down. There are no tax dollars involved, despite the rhetoric to the contrary, except for 1 year out of 16, because this program worked. This program was not changed in 2014 because it works. It doesn't cost the taxpayers money, sugar prices are not distorted, and the manufacturers will not be able to support the one instance where they have lowered the cost of their product when sugar prices did in fact drop as a result of the unfair, unlevel playing field, unlevel competition around this world. If we could talk the rest of the world into going to a free market, to a level playing field, then I would agree completely with my colleagues who support this amendment. {time} 1545 We are not there. We are not even headed there. We need to defeat this amendment, protect those hardworking farmers out there across this country. Say ``no'' to Foxx. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
