Mr. Chairman, this is not a minimal issue at all. I hope Members will listen, because again I want to reiterate, a contract was made with agriculture in 1996 that will be ending in the year 2002, that all subsidies on all crops will be eliminated. In the face of that contract, why are we singling out sugar growers? This is not an attack on sugar companies. This is an attack on people who grow sugar, who work in the fields. Why should we distinguish them from soybeans or wheat or corn, if that happens to be your crop? I say, 'Wrong.' We made a contract, let us stick with it. ... Therefore, we are jeopardizing many, many sugar growers. Why do that? Do not pass this amendment. Stay with the contract the Congress made with farmers and with agriculture until the year 2002.
Robert Smith: “Mr. Chairman, this is not a minimal issue at all. I hope Members will listen, because again I want to reiterate, a…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing concerns about proposed amendments affecting sugar growers during a discussion on agricultural contracts.
Share
More from Robert Smith
I say to the American people, what few may be up this morning watching these proceedings, that this is probably our last best chance to pass prescription drugs in the 107th Congress, and I think it is critical we do so. I am optimistic we…
Frankly, I do not believe we planned this economy. I think Congresses and Presidents are given too much credit and blame for the free-market system. I think the people at home could care less about all the fingerpointing. In my view, now…
I rise today to honor the founding of Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America. Ninety years ago on the holiday of Purim, Henrietta Szold founded Hadassah, a volunteer women's humanitarian organization that is 300,000 members…
I agree with the Senator. We are in a war on terrorism in this world. It is entirely appropriate to focus on the war on terrorism at home. President Bush has proposed a more seamless process by which we backstop as a Federal Government…





