[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 14]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 19740-19741]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. EVA M. CLAYTON

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 5, 2001

  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, the reauthorization of this country's 
agricultural policy is an occasion that we should treat with great 
seriousness and thoughtfulness. If we do not, we turn our backs not 
only on our agricultural producers, but on all of rural America.
  Recent years have been devastating for our nation's farmers. Record 
low commodity prices, increased production overseas, and pressures from 
internal markets and agricultural consolidation have combined to 
depress farm income significantly. In recent years Congress has 
provided supplemental income assistance to American farmers. While this 
has prevented mass bankruptcy among our farmers, it has done little to 
provide them with income stability or to give them an assurance that in 
future years the market will better serve them.
  The Farm Security Act, H.R. 2646, provides American farmers with a 
secure safety net. With this safety net firmly in place, some of our 
farmers can plant secure in the knowledge that, while the markets may 
fail them, America will not. The Farm Security Act sends the important 
message to our farmers that, because you have supported us for so long, 
so too will we support you. I support the Farm Security Act because it 
provides the measures necessary to ensure that agriculture can play the 
same important role in the 21st century that it did in the 20th.
  However, the reauthorization of our farm policy must not be about 
only agricultural production, but about the long-term viability of our 
rural communities. The Agriculture Committee has been vested with 
responsibility for all of rural America. It is therefore appropriate 
that the Farm Bill should include significant components that speak to 
the specific non-farm struggles of rural America. While it is true that 
the farm economy must be strong for rural America to prosper, the farm 
economy alone is not enough to prevent the ``great hollowing'' out of 
rural America currently taking place.
  The Farm Security Act, by including $2 billion dollars for rural 
development, recognizes the entire mosaic of our rural communities and 
takes steps to provide for their long-term health. I am especially 
pleased that the Farm Security Act provides significant rural 
development funds for water infrastructure and for

[[Page 19741]]

rural strategic planning grants. Without a sound public and municipal 
infrastructure, our rural communities can have no economic base. 
Without funds for long-term planning and implementation, even the 
soundest of public infrastructures goes to waste. These two matters fit 
together for the benefit of our rural communities. I support the Farm 
Security Act, in part, because of the investment that it provides in 
these areas.
  Finally, I am supportive of this Farm Bill because it recognizes the 
important connections between American agricultural producers and 
struggling working Americans who work so hard to put food on the table. 
This bill makes important investments in the Food Stamp Program that 
will make the program more user friendly both for those who utilize the 
Food Stamp Program and for those who administer it. I am especially 
proud of the measures that this bill takes to support working families 
who struggle in the low-wage sector of the economy. No longer is it 
enough just to have a job. In too many cases, a job isn't a ticket out 
of poverty but simply the maintenance of it. We must do more to support 
those working families who abide by the rules by ensuring that their 
children will not go to bed hungry.
  This is not to say that I do not have reservations with the bill, 
some of them serious. In fact there are a number of areas where I 
believe that we can and should improve upon the bill reported out by 
the House of Representatives on Friday, October 5.
  First, we must do more to pay attention to the needs of small, 
middle-income, and disadvantaged farmers. It is no secret that US farm 
policy has long favored large producers who are both politically and 
economically connected to the agricultural community. However, this 
trend has grown even more pronounced in the years since passage of the 
``Freedom to Farm'' bill in 1996. A recent report from the General 
Accounting Office found that the vast majority of US farm payments go 
to large producers of a small segment of commodities that are grown 
primarily in the nation's heartland. This must change. A farm bill 
should benefit all producers, large and small, in California, in 
Nebraska, and in North Carolina.
  We have done an especially poor job of providing assistance to low 
and medium-income farmers, producers of specialty crops, and 
disadvantaged and minority farmers. As the Farm Bill moves forward, we 
must do more to treat all farmers equitably. Such an effort should 
involve increased outreach to small and minority farmers and equitable 
distribution of farm payments, geographically, by farm size, and by 
commodity type. If we do not accomplish this, we are negligent in our 
responsibility to producers of all sizes and types.
  Finally, I would like to express my disappointment that this bill 
does not do more for the minority-serving colleges and research 
institutions. The minority-serving institutions have long played a 
positive role in advancing the interests of not only the minority 
agricultural community, but of American agriculture as a whole. The 
minority-serving institutions, even more than other institutions, are 
strategically placed to ensure that the American agricultural community 
enters the 21st century a diverse and vibrant one.
  However, the minority-serving institutions have long suffered from 
lack of resources and historic inequities in research and development 
funding. As a result, these institutions have fared poorly in 
competitively awarded research grants. For example, a cursory 
examination of the grants awarded under the National Research 
Initiative reveals that, fiscal year 1999, the 1890s obtained just one 
half of one percent of total funding. Clearly, this situation warrants 
closer examination and amelioration.
  This Farm Bill does nothing to change that situation and I will 
continue to work to see that it does. The current bifurcation between 
the mainstream land-grant institutions and the minority-serving 
institutions is unacceptable and it must change.
  The burden now lies squarely with the Senate to draft their version 
of the Farm Bill. I look forward to their efforts and to working with 
them to achieve a final product which is not only fair to American 
farmers, but to all of the other myriad interests that this Congress 
must represent with the Farm Bill.

                          ____________________