It was a busy summer for rural lawmakers, and it seemed like their farming constituents wanted to talk about one thing: the 2012 Farm Bill.

From town hall meeting to town hall meeting, the message from Capitol Hill was the same.  Times are tough at the federal treasury and farmers better prepare for some belt tightening in the new bill.

Of course, this atmosphere could help sugar policy, which operates at no cost to taxpayers, lawmakers acknowledged.

“We will face serious budget limitations,” Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) said during the annual International Sweetener Symposium held in August. “Sugar policy’s emphasis on operating at no cost should help ward off harmful change.”

“I think, without question, that because [sugar policy] is no cost it helps in the battle to come,” added Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND).

Conrad also pointed out that the farm safety net represents less than one-half of one percent of federal spending, and sugar’s share of that minimal expense is projected to remain $0 through 2020.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) was even more pointed in his support for sugar policy.

“I’ve said around the country, and I’ll say again today, ‘We have a no-cost [sugar] program that’s working exactly the way it should and is being administered correctly,’” he said in support of maintaining the existing policy.

Sugar policy alternatives that have been considered before would be costly to taxpayers and could jeopardize U.S. jobs by opening the floodgates to foreign sugar.  These options aren’t attractive to lawmakers, and according to a study released at the Symposium, the alternatives aren’t popular with the American public either.

When asked in a recent Harris Interactive poll, respondents overwhelmingly supported the current sugar policy that keeps jobs here and doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime.  Just 19% said one of three alternative policies (which included sending subsidy checks to sugar farmers; scrapping the policy in favor of imports; and a one-time buyout modeled after tobacco policy) would be better.

And nearly everyone agreed that having a homegrown supply of sugar was important, even if imports were cheaper.  That can’t happen without a strong sugar policy.

Other Symposium speakers, including a major agricultural lender, the country’s two largest farm organizations, and sugar producers in developing countries, joined lawmakers and the American public in support of sugar policy.

For a detailed look at what was said during the Symposium, check out the press releases below:

• Americans Support Domestic Sugar Industry, Strong Sugar Policy
• House Ag Committee Chairman Says Changes Unlikely to U.S. Sugar Policy
• Symposium Panelists Underscore Support for U.S. Sugar Policy
• Developing Countries Reiterate Support for Current U.S. Sugar Policy
• Strong Sugar, Trade Policies Essential to Rural Economies
• Sen. Chambliss: 2012 Farm Bill Must Have Strong Safety Net
• Sen. Conrad: Sugar Well Positioned for Future