Statement

Leland A. Strom, Board Member

Farm Credit Administration Board Meeting

November 14, 2013

In many areas of our country, rural America has seen a steady decline over the past two 

decades. Small towns have shuttered storefronts, people of all ages have limited access to 

good-paying jobs, and in many instances rural residents frequently drive long distances to 

receive adequate health care.

Recognizing the important role of the mission of the Farm Credit System, in 2005 the FCA 

Board authorized the first pilot program to gather information on the effectiveness of System 

investments in projects that help strengthen rural America. In 2008, FCA proposed a rule that 

would enable Farm Credit System institutions to more effectively serve the needs of rural 

communities by making rural community investments in accordance with the provisions of the 

Farm Credit Act. The proposed rule generated more than 10,000 comment letters. These letters 

voiced both support for and opposition to the rule. Many of the letters provided helpful

suggestions for the Agency to consider on ways to improve on the proposed rule.

During my years here at FCA, serving as both a Board member and Chairman/CEO, there has

been much discussion and analysis of this program. In 2009, I traveled on two separate 

occasions to view firsthand a number of these investment programs in some of the poorest and 

hardest-hit areas of rural America. I spoke directly with local residents and officials, and heard

how these projects could positively impact their local community. I also observed that when

community banks and Farm Credit System institutions work together, as they have in several of 

these projects, they can build excellent working relationships that serve to greatly enhance rural 

life.

With the vote today to conclude the pilot investment programs and withdraw the proposed rule 

on Rural Community Investments, I am concerned that institutions that have worked so hard

over these past eight years to establish working partnerships with USDA, banks, local 

communities and others, to make medical, nursing, and other essential rural facilities a reality, 

will lack the confidence of knowing what the future direction of the Agency will be going forward. 

In simply moving forward on a case-by-case basis, the institutions will not have the certainty,

clarity, or permanent guidance a rule would have provided. This could discourage System 

institutions from investing in people and processes to operate these types of programs. I am 

disappointed that after eight years of gathering information from the pilot program, we could not 

find common ground in an appropriately structured rule that would address the concerns of the 

various interested parties, while providing the framework for System institutions to go forward 

with the confidence of knowing there is a regulation in place. I believe more System institutions 

would devote resources to this program if there were the permanency of authority. As a result, 

many areas of rural America may not have access to this source of funding.

I would like to affirm my belief that the System has a role in providing capital to projects that 

support rural infrastructure and in doing so assists in the vibrancy of those rural communities 

that are so important to agricultural producers and all rural residents. I am hopeful that the 

Agency can implement the approval process as allowed for in FCA regulation 615.5140(e) in a 

timely fashion so that System institutions can continue to provide needed capital to support the 

infrastructure of rural communities, with the goal of having a long-term solution to allow the 

System to continue to fulfill its mission.