Farm Bill
Citizens of these United States enjoy a reliable, high quality, economical food supply. For the farmer, the production of this abundance involves considerable risk from unpredictable conditions of nature and commodity markets. By the Farm Bill, citizens gratefully share that risk. Changes to the Farm Bill would be constructive in the following ways.
First, the Farm Bill is complicated by unrelated matters that prevent efficient management of farm issues. Food stamps make up the majority of expense in the Farm Bill. Food stamps, energy, rural development, child nutrition, and even telecommunications in the Farm Bill should be addressed separately. Agricultural issues should be set apart, allowing more direct attention to focus on the purposes of farm legislation.
Second, no change is required regarding sugar policy. In House Agriculture Committee testimony, the American Sugar Alliance is content with current conditions. Consumer prices remain low and this program imposes no cost on the government.
Third, reduce federal farm program spending by a change of support away from Direct Payments, based on crop production history, to a system tied to current production and current prices. Two proposed farm bills in Congress suggest versions of this approach. Resolution of important differences between the two bills regarding rice, soybeans and other commodities that are important to Louisiana agriculture must preserve the best interests of Louisiana farmers, consumers and taxpayers.
Lastly, it is unethical and undignified for a candidate or sitting member of Congress to ask for money from farmers or from any constituent who has livelihood at risk in any business before Congress. When I serve in Congress, I will prefer to speak with constituents directly. If they wish I will be pleased to accept their lobbyist on behalf of group members - but I will not require, expect or accept any campaign donations.
First, the Farm Bill is complicated by unrelated matters that prevent efficient management of farm issues. Food stamps make up the majority of expense in the Farm Bill. Food stamps, energy, rural development, child nutrition, and even telecommunications in the Farm Bill should be addressed separately. Agricultural issues should be set apart, allowing more direct attention to focus on the purposes of farm legislation.
Second, no change is required regarding sugar policy. In House Agriculture Committee testimony, the American Sugar Alliance is content with current conditions. Consumer prices remain low and this program imposes no cost on the government.
Third, reduce federal farm program spending by a change of support away from Direct Payments, based on crop production history, to a system tied to current production and current prices. Two proposed farm bills in Congress suggest versions of this approach. Resolution of important differences between the two bills regarding rice, soybeans and other commodities that are important to Louisiana agriculture must preserve the best interests of Louisiana farmers, consumers and taxpayers.
Lastly, it is unethical and undignified for a candidate or sitting member of Congress to ask for money from farmers or from any constituent who has livelihood at risk in any business before Congress. When I serve in Congress, I will prefer to speak with constituents directly. If they wish I will be pleased to accept their lobbyist on behalf of group members - but I will not require, expect or accept any campaign donations.