FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001 -- (Extensions of Remarks - October 12,
2001)
[Page: E1887]
---
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 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
[Page: E1888]
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.
END