David Minge: “the sponsors of this amendment are arguing that a 1-cent-per-pound reduction in the loan rate is minimal and…”

“the sponsors of this amendment are arguing that a 1-cent-per-pound reduction in the loan rate is minimal and insignificant. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is the truth, plain and simple: The amendment is a $150 million heist from the pockets of thousands of struggling family farmers in 16 States. Unlike the sponsors and supporters of this amendment, I know many of those farmers, and they are fighting to survive. The truth is the amendment would reduce the 1985 raw sugar price level by 5.6 percent. Are the sponsors of this amendment willing to return to their 1985 salary levels and take an additional 5.6 percent reduction? Now that is a reality check. We have an economic crisis that is brewing in rural America. Farmers want and need more alternative crops to grow and add value locally. Sugar is an alternative crop that provides a flexible supply of sugar to consumers. We need to continue this program especially in the upper Midwest that is being hit by an agricultural recession.”