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
My last point was you can make these arguments against any expenditure. The point is, we can't leave the States high and dry as we try to stimulate the economy. This is about real people needing jobs and health care. It is a win- win for…
I am angry to say that we are no closer to having a prescription drug program for our seniors. When the Senate debated the addition of a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program in July, there was clear agreement that such a…
I think there are a couple of steps that I would recommend. First, agencies must be forced to consider the indirect costs of the regulations on small businesses.
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…





