[Senate Hearing 112-281] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 112-281 FARM BILL ACCOUNTABILITY: THE IMPORTANCE OF MEASURING PERFORMANCE, WHILE ELIMINATING DUPLICATION AND WASTE ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ JUNE 23, 2011 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and ForestryAvailable via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ _____ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 71-630 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan, Chairwoman PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont PAT ROBERTS, Kansas TOM HARKIN, Iowa RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana KENT CONRAD, North Dakota THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi MAX BAUCUS, Montana MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia SHERROD BROWN, Ohio MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado JOHN THUNE, South Dakota KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota Christopher J. Adamo, Majority Staff Director Jonathan W. Coppess, Majority Chief Counsel Jessica L. Williams, Chief Clerk Michael J. Seyfert, Minority Staff Director Anne C. Hazlett, Minority Chief Counsel (ii) C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing(s): Farm Bill Accountability: The Importance of Measuring Performance, While Eliminating Duplication and Waste........... 1 ---------- Thursday, June 23, 2011 STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan, Chairwoman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry... 1 Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas......... 2 Conrad, Hon. Kent, U.S. Senator from the State of North Dakota... 4 Grassley, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa... 3 Panel I Concannon, Hon. Kevin, Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC............................................................. 11 Leonard, Hon. Joe, Jr., Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC......... 12 Scuse, Hon. Michael, Acting Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC................................................. 9 Sherman, Hon. Harris, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.... 10 Tonsager, Hon. Dallas, Under Secretary, Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC...................... 8 Panel II Blankenship, Brett, Blankenship Brothers, Washtucna, Washington.. 32 Fong, Phyllis, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC................................................. 30 Omar, Masouda, Manager of Business Finance Loan Production, Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, Denver, CO............. 34 ---------- APPENDIX Prepared Statements: Casey, Hon. Robert, Jr....................................... 44 Chambliss, Hon. Saxby........................................ 45 Thune, Hon. John............................................. 46 Blankenship, Brett........................................... 49 Fong, Phyllis................................................ 57 Omar, Masouda................................................ 74 Testimony was Submitted Collectively from USDA for the Following Witnessess: Hon. Kevin Concannon, Hon. Joe Leonard, Jr., Hon. Michael Scuse, Hon. Harris Sherman, Hon. Dallas Tonsager...................... 79 Document(s) Submitted for the Record: AcMoody Farms, Union City, Michigan,on behalf of the American Fruit and Vegetable Processoers and Growers Coalition, prepared statement...................................................... 102 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), prepared statement.. 105 Center for Agribusiness Excellence, Tarleton State University, prepared statement............................................. 119 Question and Answer: Stabenow, Hon. Debbie: Written questions to Hon. Kevin Concannon.................... 133 Written questions to Phyllis Fong............................ 157 Written questions to Hon. Joe Leonard........................ 162 Written questions to Hon. Michael Scuse...................... 243 Written questions to Hon. Harris Sherman..................... 259 Written questions to Hon. Dallas Tonsager.................... 278 Written questions to U.S. Department of Agriculture.......... 300 Baucus, Hon. Max: Written questions to Masouda Omar............................ 241 Written questions to Hon. Dallas Tonsager.................... 288 Brown, Hon. Sherrod: Written questions to Brett Blankenship....................... 130 Written questions to Hon. Kevin Concannon.................... 141 Written questions to Hon. Joe Leonard........................ 163 Written questions to Hon. Michael Scuse...................... 251 Written questions to Hon. Dallas Tonsager.................... 290 Casey, Hon. Robert, Jr.: Written questions to Hon. Kevin Concannon.................... 146 Chambliss, Hon. Saxby: Written questions to Hon. Kevin Concannon.................... 153 Written questions to Phyllis Fong............................ 160 Written questions to Hon. Harris Sherman..................... 271 Written questions to Hon. Dallas Tonsager.................... 294 Grassley, Hon. Charles: Written questions to Hon. Joe Leonard........................ 163 Written questions to Hon. Michael Scuse...................... 256 Klobuchar, Hon. Amy: Written questions to Hon. Kevin Concannon.................... 147 Lugar, Hon. Richard G.: Written questions to Hon. Kevin Concannon.................... 150 Written questions to Hon. Michael Scuse...................... 251 Nelson, Hon. E. Benjamin: Written questions to U.S. Department of Agriculture.......... 301 Thune, Hon. John: Written questions to Brett Blankenship....................... 132 Written questions to Hon. Kevin Concannon.................... 155 Written questions to Phyllis Fong............................ 160 Written questions to Hon. Joe Leonard........................ 163 Written questions to Masouda Omar............................ 241 Written questions to Hon. Michael Scuse...................... 257 Written questions to Hon. Harris Sherman..................... 277 Written questions to Hon. Dallas Tonsager.................... 297 Blankenship, Brett: Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........ 130 Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune........... 132 Concannon, Hon. Kevin Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 133 Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........ 141 Written response to questions from Hon. Robert Casey, Jr..... 146 Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar........ 147 Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand... 148 Written response to questions from Hon. Richard G. Lugar..... 150 Written response to questions from Hon. Saxby Chambliss...... 153 Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune........... 155 Fong, Phyllis: Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 157 Written response to questions from Hon. Saxby Chambliss...... 160 Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune........... 160 Leonard, Hon. Joe Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow (with attachments)............................................... 162 Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........ 163 Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley..... 163 Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune........... 163 Masouda Omar: Written response to questions from Hon. Max Baucus........... 241 Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune........... 241 Scuse, Hon. Michael Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow (with attachments)............................................... 243 Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........ 251 Written response to questions from Hon. Richard G. Lugar..... 251 Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley..... 256 Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune........... 257 Sherman, Hon. Harris Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 259 Written response to questions from Hon. Saxby Chambliss...... 271 Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune........... 277 Tonsager, Hon. Dallas Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 278 Written response to questions from Hon. Max Baucus........... 288 Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........ 290 Written response to questions from Hon. Saxby Chambliss...... 294 Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune........... 297 U.S. Department of Agriculture: Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 300 Written response to questions from Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson... 301 FARM BILL ACCOUNTABILITY: THE IMPORTANCE OF MEASURING PERFORMANCE, WHILE ELIMINATING DUPLICATION AND WASTE ---------- Thursday, June 23, 2011 United States Senate, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Washington, DC The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m., in Room G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Debbie Stabenow, Chairwoman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Stabenow, Conrad, Nelson, Brown, Klobuchar, Bennet, Gillibrand, Roberts, Cochran, Chambliss, Grassley, and Thune. STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, CHAIRWOMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY Chairwoman Stabenow. The meeting will come to order of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee and we welcome everyone today. We welcome all of our witnesses. We appreciate your efforts and the time to be here. We are focused this morning on accountability, making sure that taxpayers are getting their money's worth and that we are making sure that the USDA services are efficient and effective for the farmers, the ranchers, the families that they serve. In my state of Michigan with the economy as it has been, every dollar is hard-earned, and I am sure my colleagues can say the same in their states. Taxpayers have every right to expect that their money is being used wisely and effectively. We know, because of the recession, there are families who have paid taxes all of their lives, who never thought in their wildest dreams they would need help putting food on the table, who now need food assistance. And that is even more of a reason to make sure that we are stopping fraud and abuse and managing every dollar as responsibly as possible. So as we look at the Farm Bill, I believe we need to ask questions like, Are we getting the right results? Are we being cost-effective? Are we eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse? We have two great panels here today. We have the four Under Secretaries of the Department of Agriculture as well as the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights who will make up our first panel. We also have USDA's Inspector General and two individuals who will talk about their personal experiences working with the Department. I have asked our panels to be thinking about three things today as we look at accountability. The first is measuring performance and efficiency. How are we measuring whether programs are getting results and being cost- effective? Workers in my state get annual performance reviews and they have a right to apply the same standard or expect us to apply the same standard to our Government. We also need to be carefully looking at how we stop fraud and abuse. Last week we saw great work of the Inspector General cracking down on fraud related to the SNAP program in my home state of Michigan. As I indicated, so many families in Michigan never imagined they would be in a situation where they would need food help, and we, with dollars tight, cannot afford to have even one dollar go to fraud or even one person abusing the system. We put a number of requirements into the last Farm Bill and I am eager to see how those are working. The second issue is eliminating duplication. In Michigan, we have a proud history of making wheels, but we do not need to reinvent them. Where do we have programs that are overlapping or working at cross-purposes? Where do we have people wasting time and money doing work that somebody else is already doing? How can we bring that together and do it better? We need to be thinking about ways that we can streamline services. We are offering to make them not only more effective, but also cost- effective for taxpayers. And finally, we need to look at customer service. How well is the USDA providing services to our farmers, our ranchers, our foresters? I would like for us today to be thinking about how we can cut down on the red tape, the paperwork that our producers need to worry about and make USDA services more accessible and user-friendly for all of our constituents. We have two great witnesses today who will talk about their personal experiences working with the Department, and I am really looking forward to their perspective as well. So again, welcome to an important hearing as we begin to discuss and debate as we move forward on Farm Bill policy important for our country, important for jobs, and we welcome all of your input today. I would now turn to my colleague and friend, Senator Roberts. STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS Senator Roberts. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman. First of all, I want to thank you for these new digs. This is, of course, appropriate in regards to the mission and the goals and the efforts of the always powerful Senate Agriculture Committee and I thank you for this. We are going to have to talk to members of the Rules Committee, of which I am one, to make this a permanent hearing room. Madam Chairwoman, Senator Lugar could not be here today due to another commitment. He has asked me to submit comments from the American Fruit and Vegetable Processors and Growers Coalition in his absence, so I ask unanimous consent that these comments may be part of the record at this point. Chairwoman Stabenow. Without objection, so ordered. [The information can be found on page 102 in the appendix.] Senator Roberts. Madam Chairwoman, I know that Senator Grassley has an important committee meeting on the Senate Judiciary Committee. At this time, I am going to suggest that we recognize Senator Grassley and then obviously would move over to Senator Conrad. Welcome back, Senator Conrad. And then you can recognize me for any sterling words of truth that I may have to make. Chairwoman Stabenow. We will wait with bated breath for that moment. But thank you. And we do want to turn to Senator Grassley, who I know cares about these issues and has to leave. We welcome your opening statement. STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA Senator Grassley. I am Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee and so that is why I will not be able to be with you for the whole hearing, and I did ask for special exemption to make a statement because, number one, to thank the Chairwoman because she responded to a request that I asked her to include civil rights as an issue, along with other things. And I also think it is very important that I be here, being a farmer and the start of the Farm Bill. So thank you for your consideration. I am going to leave some questions for answer in writing, and I would like to have that be accomplished as well. The focus of today's hearing is timely as we consider what policies to set in the next Farm Bill. We have to make sure Farm Bill programs are implemented the way we intended. If they are not being properly administered, we need to fix the problems. And I want to thank all the Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries for being here today. Many farmers are probably eager to hear the Department's comments regarding crop insurance because crop insurance is very crucial to the operations of most farms today. The crop insurance program has had a reduction in funds, so it is more important than ever that we hear what the Department is doing to guarantee the program is effectively accomplishing the goals of risk management. I am also eager to hear from the Department what they are doing to ensure individuals applying for farm program payments who are truly, according to the legal language, being actively engaged in farming. I am also particularly pleased that Secretary Leonard is here and that the Chairwoman responded to my request to bring up issues of civil rights. I made this request back in March and I am very thankful that she is holding this hearing, including that issue. I will note, I also made the same request to two Chairs of the Agriculture Committee as well in the past, so this has been a very important issue for me. I am glad that Mr. Leonard is here today, and I want everybody to know that I believe that civil rights and discrimination issues facing the Department are a big concern that this Committee needs to monitor the issue regularly. I do hope that you will consider conducting a separate hearing on civil rights and discrimination some time. As for today's hearing, Mr. Leonard, I hope that you will shed some light on how the Department is handling some of the problems that I think are still plaguing us over the years, and a long time before you were involved. Specifically, I would like you to speak on what the Department is doing to address complaints made by employees. I continue to hear from USDA employees that they have to wait a long time to have their complaints heard and processed. I have also received reports about retaliatory behavior by managers after complaints are made. So that is a very important thing, that we address that issue. I am not passing judgment on the validity of any of the employees' particular claims. My concern is that their claims be considered in a timely and appropriate manner because that is what they deserve. I hope the Department will provide us with some idea on how that is turning out. I will leave my questions, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you for the privilege of addressing the Committee, even as a less senior member of the Committee. Chairwoman Stabenow. Well, thank you, Senator Grassley. You certainly are not a junior member when it comes to knowledge and experience on this Committee and we are very glad that you are a member of this Committee and will be part of writing the Farm Bill, as you have in the past. I should mention to my colleagues, we went down a road here of Senator Grassley needing to leave early and allowed him to make an opening statement. I believe Senator Conrad is in the same position. I am now opening this up, so I would ask the discretion from my colleagues. We certainly will not say no if someone wants to make a brief opening statement, but we do want to get to the witnesses. But I will turn to Senator Conrad who also is going to have to leave and is another senior member we are so lucky to have on this Committee. STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA Senator Conrad. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you very much for holding this hearing. I think it is a critically important one in the circumstances we confront. Before I just briefly talk, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to a disaster that is unfolding in my state. In Minot, North Dakota, more than 11,000 people have been evacuated since yesterday, and we face the worst flood in recorded history in my state. We are now anticipating a flood that would be eight feet higher than the last flood of record in our state, and so, as soon as we are done voting here today, I will be going home, along with the rest of the delegation, to meet with our Governor and the emergency officials in charge of flood response. Senator Roberts. Would the Senator yield at this point? Senator Conrad. Yes, I would be happy to yield. Senator Roberts. I want to thank the Senator for his past efforts in behalf of his state. When you incur these-- I do not know what we have done to Mother Nature, but she sure has not been treating us very well. In Kansas, we are burning up in the western part of our state, and then we are seeing the first surge that you have already experienced. I do not know what it was today or this morning. I did not get a chance to check. But it is rolling down Iowa and now into Kansas at about 160 cubic feet per second. That is about, as you take a snapshot right there in time, that is the same amount of water as goes over the Niagra Falls. And you got the brunt of it starting up from the mountain snow pack and then the snow pack you have and then the incredible rain you had on top of that. I have given you a little bit of static in the past about play the lakes and other things, but this is a very serious thing. It is the worst flood, I think, the Corps has told me, since 1898. And so, I wish you well and all of the states that are involved here. At least we had a little bit of advanced information, but I do not know what you do with a flood that is eight-foot over the last flood. It is going to be an incredible situation. Madam Chairman, we are going to have to do something on this Committee in this regard, and for that matter, the Congress is as well. But at any rate, I empathize with the Senator and thank you. Senator Conrad. I thank the Senator very much for his comment. This is unprecedented. On Saturday morning, we were given reports that looked as though we had dodged the bullet. Within 48 hours, they increased the flood forecast in terms of the depth of water coming through Minot by 11 feet. And there is simply no way to respond. And at that point, it was evacuate people, build secondary defenses to try to protect critical infrastructure, and prepare for a long, slow slog because this is going to be unlike any flood in history in our state. The water is not going to come and go. The water is going to come and stay. The chief flood fighter for the Corps of Engineers told me they now anticipate that there will be high water in our state through the middle of July. So these are homes that are going to be under water for an extended period of time. My own cousin has had to move all of their furniture to their attic because they are going to have seven feet of water on their main floor. And that is a story repeated many times throughout this community. So I did want to say, Madam Chairman, with respect to this hearing, how important I believe it to be, because when we are borrowing as a nation 40 cents of every dollar we spend, no taxpayer can be wasted and no program can be abused. And I want to salute the Inspector General to have identified $256 million in potential savings, going after over-payments, going after recording errors. I look at the Food Stamp Program, the lowest error rate now ever. That is a significant accomplishment. When I look at what is happening in terms of our exports, exports doubling, a dramatic increase there. And I look in program after program. USDA has gotten the message. USDA has gotten the message, reducing travel, canceling bad loans, renegotiating the basic agreement on crop insurance. I am not going to go further, just to say, Madam Chair, I hope that where these negotiations are being conducted on our future budget, that people understand, Yes, Agriculture is ready to participate and have more savings, significant savings in the billions of dollars. But it is also true that there are some who are pushing an agenda that would absolutely cripple production agriculture which is one of the true bright spots we have in exports for the United States, a $28 billion increase over last year. So let us not kill the baby in the crib, and that message needs to go to the people who are negotiating with the Vice President. Let us not kill the baby in the crib. You could cripple production agriculture in this country, which is one of the real bright spots. I thank the Chair. Chairwoman Stabenow. Well, thank you very much. I could not agree more with your comments, Senator Conrad, and our whole Committee stands ready to help you and your state, as I know the Department does, and I know the Secretary does and we wish you well today. I am going to turn back to our Ranking Member who deferred to Senator Grassley and Senator Conrad because they have to leave early. Then after that, unless there is a burning desire to say something, we are going to move to the witnesses. And so, we start down the road of allowing a couple of members to give opening comments, but we do want to get to the witnesses, and I will turn this back to our Ranking Member. Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I would like to associate myself with the remarks by the distinguished Senator who is doing everything he can to be of help to his state during difficult times. That water will come down to the Missouri to the Mississippi and it will be clear into the end of August until we are able to see all that take place. Our Constitution created a unique relationship between Congress and the Administration and I want to thank all of our witnesses here for taking valuable time out of your schedule to come up and testify before us. We in Congress identify issues affecting the daily lives of our constituents, and when appropriate, we develop programs through legislation to address those issues. And in this Committee, much of that work is done in the Farm Bill. We grow attached to farm bills here. Perhaps it is because we spend so much time working together to find the right balance for a bill that is national in scope, and yet responsible to taxpayers. More especially it is because of the work that we do in this Committee has a direct impact on our constituents' ability to produce the food and the food and fiber necessary to keep our economy running and our people fed, and that also means a troubled and hungry world. After the agreements have been made and in the case of the last Farm Bill, the vetoes have been overridden, those programs we crafted are handed off to the USDA for implementation and these are the folks who do it. So today, I look forward to hearing how well the Administration is carrying out the laws passed by Congress, not only in the Farm Bill, but also in the Child Nutrition Bill. Are they delivering the programs effectively, efficiently, fairly, and as intended by this Committee? Madam Chairwoman, soon I am going to have to leave in order to testify before the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. I apologize to you for that, but I have introduced a bill that codifies the President's Executive Order of January 18, and they have asked me to walk them through it and I am going to do exactly that. I would like to tell the Committee and you that the bill follows the President's order to require agencies to review regulations and hold them up to a cost benefit yardstick just like these folks do. It sounds like a very good idea to me. If our businesses, large, medium and small, and our farmers and ranchers and growers are required to comply with regulations, our Government should at least be required to fully understand the impact of those regulations before imposing them. I am still taking co-sponsors if anybody is interested and if anybody would like to raise their hand, I would be happy to add them as a co-sponsor. I hope to return in time to ask questions, but if not, I will submit written questions for the record and I want to thank Secretary--well, he could be a Secretary some day, who knows--Senator Chambliss for standing in for me while I go to the DHS hearings. Thank you very much. Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator Roberts, and we will now proceed to the witnesses. Again, I had opened it up to a couple of our colleagues, but if there is not a burning comment to be made, we are going to proceed to the witnesses. All right. Let me first introduce and welcome Under Secretary of Rural Development, Dallas Tonsager. Mr. Tonsager grew up on a dairy farm in South Dakota where he eventually served as USDA State Director for Rural Development. Much of his career has been focused on economic opportunities for rural communities; worked as the team that reinvented the Rural Business Guarantee Loan Program in the late '90s. Prior to rejoining USDA, served on the Board of Directors for the Farm Credit Administration promoting rural investment. Welcome. Michael Scuse--I never get your name right, so I want to make sure I am doing this right. Mr. Scuse. Michael Scuse. Chairwoman Stabenow. Scuse. That is what I thought. I wanted to make sure I had this right. It is good to see you again. By the way, appreciate your efforts as it relates to the weather disasters and what has been happening. So Michael Scuse is the Acting Under Secretary of Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services. He comes from Delaware where he and his brother have had a successful grain operation for over 35 years. Mr. Scuse knows agriculture from both a local and national perspective, having been the Secretary of Agriculture in Delaware from 2001 to 2007, and Deputy Under Secretary for FFAS for the past two years. We also want to welcome Harris Sherman as Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, Mission Area, and we welcome you. Overseeing both the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Mr. Sherman has dedicated his career to protecting our country's natural resources. As a practicing lawyer, he specialized in environmental law, and more recently, has served as Executive Director of Colorado's Department of Natural Resources. Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, Kevin Concannon, welcome as well. He oversees, among other things, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Over a 25-year career in public service, Mr. Concannon has been the Director of State Health and Human Services in Maine, Oregon, and Iowa. And last, but certainly not least, we will hear from Dr. Joe Leonard, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the USDA where he oversees USDA's civil rights programs and ensure that programs are compliant with applicable Federal civil rights laws. Prior to joining USDA, he was the Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus, and before that, Executive Director of the Black Leadership Forum. We welcome each of you and we will now turn first to Under Secretary Tonsager for your testimony. Welcome. STATEMENT OF HON. DALLAS TONSAGER, UNDER SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Tonsager. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Please forgive me. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member Roberts. Members of the Committee, I am pleased to present you Rural Development's accomplishments and activities to ensure accountability of resources provided through the 2008 Farm Bill. As stewards of more than 40 Farm Bill programs, our mission is to help rural America grow and thrive as it captures the emerging opportunities of the 21st century. From creating jobs to funding facilities and infrastructure, and connecting them all through the deployment of new technology, the 2008 Farm Bill has equipped us with remarkable tools and maximizing these resources, Rural Development continues to review and modify goals, objectives, and performance measures. We pay close attention to outcomes and results that inspire businesses to incubate and grow. Rural Development is also engaged in a regulatory review process that is intended to streamline program requirements and practices. President Obama established a goal to deploy the next generation of high speed broadband services. Nearly seven million rural residents, 364,000 businesses and 32,000 anchor institutions will gain new or improved access to high speed Internet through broadband. The 2008 Farm Bill recognized that providing loans in both unserved and under-served areas may be necessary to bring broadband to the under-served. Because of over- building concerns that stem from the 2002 Farm Bill, broadband funding was limited to areas with three or few service providers. The 2008 Farm Bill also featured several energy programs designed to advance biomass and biofuel production, which holds the potential to create and save jobs and reduce the country's consumption of fossil fuels. Program delivery methods have been streamlined and revised to provide greater consistency to our stakeholders. For example, an example of refocusing and realigning and streamlining is a Comprehensive Loan Program initiative. CLP is an automation enhancement which retires legacy accounting systems and replaces them with updated accounting systems. We also are taking actions that will assist communities to invest in local and regional priorities. In rural America, communities have realized that working collaboratively creates opportunities and growth. Looking ahead, we are committed to working with Congress in a continued effort to streamline what is practical and to provide our customers easier access to our programs. The 2012 Farm Bill will be a great tool to help complement these efforts and we look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of the USDA can be found on page 79 in the appendix.] Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Mr. Scuse, welcome. STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL SCUSE, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY, FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Scuse. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member, members of the Committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. At the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, we are streamlining our programs, processes, and procedures to make them more accountable and more efficient and more effective. The Farm Service Agency continues to move forward with business and technology modernization initiatives that provide critical services to our nation's farmers and ranchers, while at the same time achieving cost efficiencies, improving security and accountability, and further reducing unnecessary burdens on our customers. FSA has implemented new systems to incorporate adjust gross income qualifications, program payment limitations, and direct attribution, and has incorporated actively engaged policy into program administration. FSA has launched the Midas Initiative to modernize price support, conservation, production assistance, and emergency assistance programs. Midas will improve the delivery of farm programs to our customers by modernizing information technology systems and business practices. Since its launch, Midas has already improved service delivery and reduced error rates. FSA mission area will further reduce burdens on program participants through the consolidation of required participant information. For an example, a developing pilot program called the Average Crop Reporting Streamlining Initiative will allow producers to report common information at their first point of contact with USDA, whether it is at the FSA service center or with an improved insurance provider, or even online at home. This effort will allow for common data to be reported on time, thereby reducing burdens on producers and ensuring data consistency across all of our USDA programs. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service annually assesses and aligns overseas offices to be serve agricultural export interests and minimize cost. FAS's presence in regions and countries with high operating costs have been reduced and allocated to countries where growing middle classes and trade agreements present the very best opportunities. Our leaner FAS overseas presence remains as effective as ever, contributing to a record level of agricultural exports in the calendar year 2010 of $115.8 billion. FAS also improved the performance and efficiency of its foreign market development programs by implementing a 21st century Web-based system that simplifies the application process, reduces grant award time, and enhances program evaluation. Madam Chairwoman, members of the Committee, I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you very much. Chairman Stabenow. Thank you. Mr. Sherman, welcome. STATEMENT OF HON. HARRIS SHERMAN, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and members of the Committee. I am pleased to give you a brief snapshot of a few of the recent NRCS and Forest Service efforts to improve program effectiveness and to eliminate duplication and waste. Our goal is to position both of these agencies as leaders in 21st century conservation and management. First, how are we improving delivery of our conservation programs? Our conservation programs cannot work without a strong partnership with farmers, ranchers, and private forestry owners, so we need to make participation in USDA's conservation programs easier and less complex. To that end, NRCS recently initiated a five-year Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative. We call it CDSI. This initiative will integrate our scientific and business tools to significantly reduce the amount of time our technical experts are spending in the office, and increase the time that they are spending in the field. This will be accomplished by deploying nimble and mobile wireless 21st century technology to support our work with producers. We estimate that full implementation of CDSI will allow our field technical staff to spend as much as 75 percent of their time in the field working directly with clients, compared to the 20 to 40 percent that is currently taking place. And perhaps most importantly, CDSI will revolutionize the way our customers interact with us and participate in our programs. NRCS and our clients will finalize in the field conservation planning, document the expected environmental benefits, and accelerate payments to the producers, and allow 24/7 access so that customers can check their plans and contracts at their convenience. Second, it is important that we measure our performance and we improve efficiency. Conservation programs, like all other Federal programs, are facing significant budget constraints, so we must better focus our conservation investments and clearly demonstrate the resulting benefits. One of our key tools to accomplish this is the Conservation Effects Assessment Projects, CEAPs, which are designed to estimate the effects of conservation practices on the landscape. The CEAP crop assessment combines comprehensive surveys and detailed soil information with edge of field and in-stream modeling to produce scientifically-based estimates of the effects that conservation is having on crop land. The first two of 14 regional CEAP crop land reports for the Upper Mississippi River Basin and the Chesapeake Bay have reported on great progress farmers are making in reducing sediment and nutrient losses. While at the same time it has revealed the need for a more comprehensive nutrient management program and continued targeting of our financial and technical resources. The Forest Service is also involved in a variety of ways to prioritize resources and work with states and local governments to improve the health of our nation's forests. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have about these and other ongoing efforts. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Mr. Concannon, we welcome you as well. STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN CONCANNON, UNDER SECRETARY, FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Concannon. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member, Senator Roberts, and members of the Committee for this opportunity for me to testify before you today. May I begin by expressing my appreciation to all of you for the bipartisan approach this Committee has taken over the years in working with USDA and, specifically, with the Food and Nutrition Service to address program integrity. And as members are undoubtedly are aware, we are living through a period of time in this country where these nutrition programs have never been as urgently needed as they are today. Americans deserve excellence from their Government, and we understand that at USDA, when it comes to accountability. We know that the mission of the Nutrition Assistance Programs, which serve millions of Americans, is inseparable from the responsible stewardship of Federal funds. Waste and abuse draw away resources from the low-income children, individuals and families who need them the most. And our ability to continue to serve these families requires public confidence that benefits are used appropriately and go only to those who qualify. Most notably, last week Secretary Vilsack announced that SNAP's national payment error rate fell to 3.81 percent in the fiscal year 2010. This is the fourth consecutive year of record low error rates and the continuation of a decade-long improvement trend. And this is a success story for which all of us, Congress, the USDA, our state partners which administer SNAP, share both the responsibility and the credit. But beyond payment accuracy, accountability also entails a commitment to ensure that benefits are used properly. The sale, purchase, or exchange of SNAP benefits for cash, what we refer to as trafficking, is illegal and punishable by criminal prosecution. Over the last 15 years, FNS has aggressively sought to reduce trafficking in SNAP from what extended over a period of years during the era of paper coupons, roughly 4 percent trafficking was typical during that period of time, to its current level of 1 percent of the SNAP Program. But we have not rested on the success of this reduction. All available resources, from state of the art data mining technology, to undercover investigations, to criminal prosecutions are used to ensure that recipients and retailers alike, who misuse benefits, are held accountable. In conclusion, we recognize that effective accountability in the Nutrition Assistance Programs takes long-term sustained effort working closely with our program partners. My team and I are seeking every opportunity to build on our success with new strategies to tackle the challenges that remain before us. I believe we can improve performance and accountability without compromising service to those in need. I look forward to working with you in this regard. Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Dr. Leonard, welcome. STATEMENT OF HON. JOE LEONARD, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Leonard. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member Roberts, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to bring testimony today on the progress of civil rights activities at the Department of Agriculture. Let me state that since my confirmation in April 2009 as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights has made progress in creating a new era of civil rights at USDA. I entered the Department on the heels of the 2008 GAO report and the 2008 Farm Bill report, and used them both as a blueprint on how the office should function in order to succeed. GAO has historically audited the civil rights functions within USDA. In 2010, after responding to an informal GAO audit, our office was not listed on the high risk list and our implementation efforts were rated as in progress by GAO. As you may be aware, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights was reorganized in 2009 to streamline its operations and to conform to the 2008 Farm Bill. That reorganization allows us to focus on our mission, to provide leadership and direction for the fair and equitable treatment of all USDA employees and customers while ensuring the delivery of quality programs and enforcement of civil rights laws. We have been consistently processing complaints with a focus on not letting the statute of limitations expire for program discrimination complaints. To address recommendations of the GAO report, we have increased our staffing in the program investigation and adjudication to levels not seen in over a decade, and our program investigators are now conducting on-site investigations versus the telephonic interviews that were standard in the past. From 2001 to 2008, there was only one program complaint finding of discrimination issued by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights. In 2010, there were three findings, and to date, in 2011, there are five. Our employment numbers are something the Secretary can be proud of. The number of EEO complaints filed by USDA employees has dropped significantly since 2007, and the number of merit findings of discrimination has increased. The efforts of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights to ensure USDA employees are aware of their rights is evidenced in these numbers. In fiscal year 7, there were 562 complaints that were filed and there were three findings of discrimination. In fiscal year 0, there were 461 complaints that were filed with 22 findings of discrimination. And for fiscal year 1, as of yesterday, there are 343 complaints that have been filed to date and we project there will be between 450 and 475 for the year, and we have 17 findings of discrimination and project there will be between 25 and 30. This is a short synopsis regarding the essential functions of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights. Thank you for the opportunity to come before you and describe how this Administration is addressing USDA civil rights progress and the importance of it measuring performance while eliminating duplication and waste. Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much to each of you. Let me start the questioning with Under Secretary Concannon. We, again, appreciate your being here, and as was indicated last week, the Inspector General's office announced it had successfully pursued 80 convictions in the SNAP fraud cases and returned about $8 million of taxpayer money in the last six months. Going forward, could you talk about what more we need to do in terms of looking at the next Farm Bill and the ratio of dollars we have invested in terms of enforcement and money back? And then the final thing I would ask is, could you speak about what the Administration is doing to encourage states to be more active in pursuing fraud, especially discussing some of the authorities that the states have as well to be able to crack down? Mr. Concannon. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for that question. First of all, I should thank the Committee for the enhanced authorities that the Agriculture Committee granted through the 2008 Farm Bill to the USDA and the Food and Nutrition Service for imposing penalties for traffickers, and we are in the midst of internally working on proposals in that very regard. I want to mention that as I stated in my opening remarks, we are very encouraged by the fact that we now have record low numbers of improper payments. That incorporates either over payment or under payments to recipients. But I think the Chairwoman's question focuses more on the issues of trafficking. Since we have moved to the electronic benefit cards, or plastic cards, happily, I can speak to my state experience in this regard. It has had a dramatic effect on reducing trafficking. But nonetheless--and that number now runs about 1 percent, but even that 1 percent concerns me greatly because it is 1 percent of a larger number now. The numbers of persons in the United States depending on the SNAP program now are in excess of 44.5 million Americans, reflecting largely, by intent, what is going on in the American economy. So we need to be particularly vigilant on making sure that we are doing all we can to both identify trafficking, but also to pursue traffickers. When I was in the state of Ohio earlier this week, there was a report that appeared in one of the newspapers of again a network of traffickers in one area of the state. I should point out that what we are doing, in terms of trafficking, is we are particularly deploying not only undercover investigators--last year, the Food and Nutrition Service was involved in 5,000 undercover investigations across the country. There are now 233,000 licensed vendors in the SNAP program. Again, that number has increased tremendously. About 85 percent of the benefits go through supermarkets, and about 15 percent of the benefits go through smaller stores. And invariably, when trafficking occurs, it is the rarest occurrence that may involve a supermarket. It is much more typically a small store. What we are using, both post-2007 GAO report, that directed or urged FNS to take more aggressive steps around trafficking, we have enhanced our electronic data mining and we now have daily streamed information to us. When people process benefits, whether it is in Mississippi or in Miami or up in the state of Maine, we have electronic monitors that are tracking for trends. We also have high at-risk identified areas where there have been historic problems. And we are working closely not only with the Office of the Inspector General, but with state law enforcement agencies across the country as well as FNS itself. I am very troubled when it occurs because I know it is an improper use of a benefit that has been stated earlier by the Chair. Taxpayers have worked hard to provide these benefits to us. I believe that represents the greatest threat to this program in terms of public confidence when the public experiences or learns of a trafficking issue. So we are deploying our resources that way, but also, in response to the Chair's question, just as recently as this week, I sent a letter to every state commissioner of health and human services, something I did myself for many years, urging them to pay particular attention to this issue of trafficking. The Food and Nutrition Service, the Federal Government, we particularly track redemptions processed through vendors across the country. That is the monitoring side we are responsible for. State agencies across the country are more directly responsible for the individual consumers in their respective states. And I urged, in that letter, based on again these recent stories first out in the state of Washington and then more recently in several other locations, that states need to redirect their attention to issues of trafficking. As I mentioned right at the outset of this response, we are examining the opportunities that the 2008 Farm Bill gave to us as to what we can do to strengthen the penalties that are involved for vendors, because for trafficking, you cannot do it solely. You have got to have somebody conspiring with you. Chairwoman Stabenow. And we look forward to working with you on that. In the interest of time, I am going to have to move to my colleagues, but we are very anxious to follow up with you as it relates to the issues around penalties and so on, as well as what can we be doing and what you are doing in terms of states' ability to address individuals and so on. Mr. Concannon. Thank you. Chairwoman Stabenow. So we thank you very much. I have a lot of other questions, but in the interest of time, I am going to turn now to Senator Chambliss. Senator Chambliss. Thanks very much, Madam Chair. Under Secretary Tonsager, you recently announced that Rural Development will use REAP funds to install blender pumps at gas stations, and I have got a couple of concerns about the announcement. First, as you might recall, this proposal was considered during the 2008 Farm Bill process and was rejected during our conference with the House. The REAP program was not designed for this purpose and is already over-subscribed. So what we are doing now is adding a new competitor to an already over- strapped, over-subscribed program. My second concern is that the Department of Energy is already using the Clean Cities Program to fund ethanol infrastructure including E85 fueling stations. In fact, the Stimulus Act provided several projects to agricultural associations for that very same purpose. Did USDA understand that REAP would be duplicative of existing U.S. Government programs for funding ethanol infrastructure and if so, why did we proceed with the final rule on REAP knowing that other programs are already delivering funds for blended pumps, and how will the agency ensure that other important goals and purposes of the REAP program are not crowded out by grants for blended pumps? Mr. Tonsager. We did closely review to make sure that it was an eligible purpose, and we have a clear understanding from our general counsel that it is an eligible purpose to be using REAP for that purpose. REAP has proven to be extraordinarily of interest to people. It has been used for a number of energy- related products and has been done so successfully. We stepped forward with this because we believe that it is enormously important, as the evolution of the ethanol industry and the biofuels industry goes forward, to make sure that there is the opportunity for consumers to use biofuels in as many places as possible. So we have reached out not just on biofuels, but also to make sure the program is used widely across America. In recent years, it has been generally concentrated in the northern plains in the Midwest, so we are trying to move the program very broadly. We do understand that there was other agencies that have the funds that could be used for biofuels projects, but there was only recently a clarification by the Department of Energy to the states regarding the use of that program. That only occurred a few months ago when the opportunity was expressed clearly to the state energy offices that they could use the program. And we also encouraged the groups that we have worked with to seek out those funds as well. There has, unfortunately, been a limited number of E85 pumps made available across the country. There has been some demonstrations by states. My home state of South Dakota, for example, has committed some resources to the use of E85 pumps, and we focused on that a good bit as a model about how we might help expand the availability of those pumps. So in short, sir, we believe it is an eligible purpose. We think that it is important. We made a decision to go forward with the use of the program for that purpose. Senator Chambliss. Well, I would simply respond to your answer by saying that if there is a market for E85, the private sector ought to be where the funding comes from to meet that demand because that is where the profits are going to go. And it does concern me greatly that we are going to be crowding out some other very worthwhile programs in REAP to spend money on something that the private sector should take care of. Next, Mr. Tonsager again, in 2005, USDA's Inspector General completed its first review of the Broadband Loan program and generally found USDA was awarding grants and loans even though applications were incomplete, applicants had previously defaulted on government loans, and that grant funds were being used for inappropriate purposes. Specifically, the IG found USDA had not maintained a focus on rural communities lacking pre-existing service. For example, IG found that out of $485 million in grants and loans, $103 million to 64 communities near large cities. The IG also found that USDA was using a significant portion of the program to support competitive service in areas with pre-existing broadband access, rather than expanding service to areas without service. The IG also found that 159 of the 240 communities associated with the loans already had service. In 2009, IG revisited the broadband programs and found that USDA had not taken corrective action on eight of its 14 recommendations. From 2005 to 2009, USDA continued to make loans to providers near very large cities or in areas with pre-existing service. I understand that USDA has recently released an interim final rule that will address some of these problems. Why, almost ten years after these problems were identified and millions of dollars had been spent, in such a reckless manner? If USDA cannot address waste within their own agency, how can the taxpayers have faith in President Obama's newly created Rural Council chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture? In regards to the President's Rural Council, how does USDA plan to implement, coordinate, and involve stakeholders in the decision-making process? So I am very concerned about this and I would appreciate your comments. Mr. Tonsager. We agree there were significant problems with this and we have aggressively pursued addressing those problems. We believe the new rule will help significantly with that. During the period of the Recovery Act when we were implementing the broadband process, we used that as an opportunity to learn from the shortcomings of the previous program. We do believe that the Recovery Act money, while contentious, we believe we have made significant progress there and we took those lessons to learn them. There will be and are plans for a significant outreach to stakeholders. I believe there is a stakeholders meeting scheduled soon to begin that process. The Rural Council, which we are extremely excited about, bringing a new focus on rural America and the programs that USDA helps provide, particularly the programs that I have the opportunity to oversee. I think there is great opportunity in that. We believe we have acted to address most of the issues associated with the standing program and we believe the rule will help respond to that. Senator Chambliss. Well, this has been a very controversial program, particularly as we went through the last Farm Bill, and I am sure, as we come to next year, it is going to continue to be in the public eye. And while I look forward to the next IG report, I hope that that report comes forward with significant improvements being made and the people in rural areas who need broadband, just like people in more populated areas, are getting the kind of service that the Farm Bill intended for them to get. So we will look forward to that. Mr. Tonsager. Yes, thank you. Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Brown. Senator Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of comments. Secretary Concannon, thank you for your testimony and for your recent visit, I think, this week to Columbus and to the Mid-Ohio Food Bank. You pointed out rightly that demands for all kinds of food assistance, from food banks to emergency funding for food, or SNAP, are unprecedented and the demand has grown. You understand, of course, as your testimony and as your visit there, the difference between making ends meet and coming up short and why the work that all of you do at USDA, but you particularly, why that work matters so much. I want to emphasize what you had said about the national error rate reported for SNAP. Combining states' over- payments and under- payments to program participants has declined some 56 percent in the last 10 years from 9-plus to 4-plus percent. I also appreciate what you said about trafficking being the biggest threat to this program. You mentioned an article from an Ohio newspaper, the Dayton Daily News, pointed out a variety of things that are of concern. We also know there are newspapers, as there was today, the Wall Street Journal, newspapers have never much liked the whole idea of food stamps and helping citizens who have less privilege than the people that sit on that editorial board have, and may or may not have grown up with, but have now. We expect those kind of criticisms, but as you pointed out, trafficking is, in fact, the biggest threat to this program and it is so important that you double-down, if you will. I want to move on to Mr. Tonsager because I have a couple specific questions for him, but I just would like to outline some questions to you that you could impart, in response to Chairwoman Stabenow, get to us in writing about what you are doing, how the USDA is keeping track of how it counts and how it keeps track of fraud and abuse, what you are doing to ensure program integrity, what can be done to further improve management and administration of these programs, how do these EBT cards work. If I have your card, can I use it and what are the penalties if I--what are the steps of how that would happen, how often are they replaced, do they have to be decertified, do you have tools, do you have sufficient tools to track and prosecute fraud? If we are going to have the number of inspectors, have a relatively low number of inspectors, as I think the Wall Street Journal editorial today pointed out, I believe that is where I read it, is that enough to go after the fraud in this program? So I know you understand all that, but I would like to see some specific answers. Mr. Tonsager, my questions for you, USDA Rural Development is so, so important, but I frequently hear two things in criticism. In Washington, I hear how USDA rural development programs are duplicative or inefficient or not that different from what EDA and HUD do. In Ohio, I hear that the application process can be so cumbersome that far too many people and too many entities in rural Ohio have just given up on using existing loan and grant programs under USDA that USDA RD administers. So my question, and I am a strong supporter and want to continue to be of these rural development programs, discuss what you are doing to reduce that duplication, to answer those questions that I hear in this town, and what you are doing to make the system more modern, efficient, and accessible for people in Ohio and Michigan and Nebraska and Mississippi and Georgia and South Dakota when groups or individuals are applying to be part of this. Mr. Tonsager. Sure. Thank you, Senator, and we do appreciate your support. I would just like to offer a few general thoughts to try and offer our perspective. The USDA Rural Development really was created to be a mini version of the entire Federal Government in a lot of ways, specifically for rural America. We have a very broad tool set, some 40 programs to do that, and the reason I think it exists this way is because we have that focus on rural. You know, 80 percent of the landmass, of course, United States is rural, and it takes, I think, the access for people to get to that program by having this special rural emphasis on it. We do recognize that many of our programs are very similar to other programs throughout the Federal Government, and we try very specifically to work with them. We have an agreement with SBA, for example. We believe their tool for business lending works better than ours, in many cases in rural areas, so we emphasize that to people. Quite often, our loan guarantee program works well for larger loans, maybe not so much for the smaller kinds of loans. But I would also like to say that in an efficiency context, we have a $150 billion loan portfolio at this time with less than a 2 percent delinquency rate overall on that, and we think that is important. Our proposed budget by the Administration was $2.4 billion this year. We make that into $36 billion. Our largest programs are at zero budget cost. So we have to work very hard with people in making sure projects work well. And that is a success story for everybody when you do that. It takes a lot of work and sometimes it becomes complex, especially on larger loan projects. So we think that having our rural field structure is important. We recognize that there are people that are challenged by our process and we have some work to do. We believe our new consolidated loan program, over the long term, is going to really make that much more efficient because it will make the forms less duplication so you do not fill out the same thing three or four times as we go forward. So I believe we can continue to address some of the challenging parts of our process, and we know that those challenges exist. But we believe we are efficient and effective because it is a very large amount of leveraging we are doing, and we think we have to keep the performance of those programs in a very high quality state in order to come to you all to ask for the money and the authorities to do it. But we will continue to look very hard at those processes and we do believe we are making some steps to address those. And we take it as our goal, when we look at every other Federal program, if we cannot do it, we will go after their money to get it into rural areas. So we do recognize there is some duplication. We think the field structure we have to help get access is important. And we take it as our responsibility, if we cannot figure out how to do it, we are going to go after somebody else to help try and figure out how to do a project. Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Cochran. Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, let me join you and the other members of the Committee in welcoming this distinguished panel to our Committee. We appreciate the work you do to administer the agriculture programs, not only those designed to help improve conservation programs, to safeguard natural resources, and the production of food and fiber in our country. My observation is, over the years, that we have made substantial progress in a lot of areas that have long been concerns of the general public and taxpayers as well. There have also been a lot of attention focused on integrity of the programs, the honesty and integrity of those who apply for and receive benefits of one kind or another, farm payments, program payments, crop insurance back when the Government basically ran the crop insurance, and food and nutrition assistance programs. I think a lot of progress has been made in all of these areas. I was particularly impressed with Mr. Concannon's comments about the challenges that his office has faced and how they are going about identifying fraud and abuse and eliminating it. I sensed an attitude of ``can-do.'' It is not something to apologize for, but to do something about it. I think that is what I hear from the testimony that we have heard this morning, and that is encouraging. I do not have any particular specific complaints just to cite in my questions of you, but I think the Chairwoman ought to be commended, too, for the oversight of the Department. This hearing is a good example of that and I think we can all benefit from it. The Food Stamp program has been under a close inspection process for a long time, but some of the other programs in nutrition areas I wonder about. I know there are a lot of mistakes made, probably some of them innocent mistakes, but there are school lunch program activities which have been found to have been abusive and errors made, intentional or not. I do not know. But I wonder if there is a program at the Department to ensure that payments are going to eligible participants in those programs, whether at schools, other organizations that dispense a lot of benefits to program participants. Citing eligibility is one question. I know Under Secretary Michael Scuse may be the person to answer that. In your area of responsibility, what programs are there underway and what are the steps taken by the leadership at the Department to see that they are producing benefits in recapturing wrongfully paid or mistaken paid benefits to those who are not entitled to them? Mr. Scuse. Well, thank you, Senator. I appreciate the opportunity to answer that question because as you are well- aware, there has been criticism over the years about some of the Farm Service Agency and Risk Management Agency programs and payment eligibility. We take it quite seriously at the Farm Service Agency and USDA to make sure that program participants that are entitled to money actually receive that funding. There are several things that we do at the Farm Service Agency. All of our producers who are receiving payments must fill out a form to give the IRS permission to view their tax returns to make sure that they are within the adjusted gross income levels for participation in the Farm Service Agency programs. There is another form, CCC Form 902, that our producers also have to sign to be active to verify that they are actively engaged in agriculture and in production through management, through providing land, equipment, capital, and some other areas as well. And that form is reviewed by the accounting committee and if there are discrepancies, it is elevated to the state and to the Federal level. Through the Risk Management Agency, the CIMS project, the Comprehensive Information Management System, we have been doing data mining to make sure that the program is being run properly, that those producers that should be receiving payments, crop insurance payments, actually do. In the last ten years, Senator, we have been able to have a cost avoidance of $840 million. So we have put things into place to make sure that there are no improper payments. One improper payment is one too many, and we will continue to do the very best job that we can to make sure that we take care of any improper payments being made. Senator Cochran. Thank you. I appreciate your response to that question. One specific program was brought to my attention in farm payment programs. There had been an inordinate number of people paid who had died, and there were no records to reflect that at the Department of Agriculture. The information that I was given said that from 1999 through 2005, USDA paid $1.1 billion in farm payments in the names of 172,801 deceased individuals. Of this total, 40 percent went to those who had been dead for three or more years; 19 percent to those who had been dead for seven or more years. That is kind of shocking. What is the response that you could make to that to let us know what is being done to ensure that we are not making payments to deceased individuals? Chairwoman Stabenow. And I am going to ask that you do that quickly at this point, because we have a time limit. But please answer that important question. Mr. Scuse. Yes, Madam Chair. We have an agreement with the Social Security Administration. The Farm Service Agency does quarterly re-review those deceased individuals to make sure that they are, in fact, entitled to payments. If you sign up and participate in a program and you pass away during the course of that year, Senator, you still or your estate is still entitled to that program. But we are looking to make sure that yes, in fact, those people are entitled to that payment. Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator Bennet was next, but I do not see him here and so we will turn to Senator Nelson. Senator Nelson. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and again, as my colleagues have congratulated you, I want to congratulate you on setting this hearing on extremely important issues and giving us the opportunity to meet with Department officials on accountability on program delivery. We spend an awful lot of time talking about what programs we would like to have. Probably not nearly enough time on accountability. So this gives us a chance to do that. It gives us a chance to focus on performance, management programs, and to get a better sense of how real the impact of improper payments, fraud, and abuse of programs can be. Certainly everybody agrees that better accountability should be sought for in every Government program, and I hope this hearing will highlight the positive studies and strides that have been made by the departments with the agencies with those reforms put in place with the 2008 Farm Bill and highlight areas were additional accountability and efficiency can be found to help reduce costs and ensure producers can count on an adequate safety net for the current and the future programs. I have one question. I know my colleague from North Dakota has been in and discussed, to some degree, the flooding in the Midwest, and it is with that in mind that I want to ask the panel about the coordination between agencies. And among the agencies, with the flooding ongoing in Nebraska and all along the Missouri waterway, I wanted to focus on the coordination between the various agencies providing relief to Nebraska farmers and producers impacted by flooding with both the Missouri and the Platte Rivers in Nebraska. I have to say I was very pleased with Secretary Vilsack's visit to Nebraska with me a week ago to meet with those that were impacted by the flood firsthand, and assure USDA's support to those impacted by the devastation. I am hopeful that the Under Secretaries could discuss their individual efforts in coordinating their resources between agencies and ensuring that Nebraska farmers and those living in rural communities impacted by the floods can count on timely and efficient assistance throughout the flooding, and perhaps more importantly, rebuilding their livelihood after the flood waters recede. We asked the other day Director Fugate, Administrator Fugate of FEMA, will the flood be over and will we know when it is over? Because we are talking about sustained high water for a long period of time. Perhaps we could start with you, Mr. Tonsager, to what you are looking to do. Yours is a part of making certain that the quality of life issues and structural economic development issues are being addressed out there. Maybe we could start with you. Mr. Tonsager. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Scuse and I did recently make a trip through the flood areas of the South, through Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, and Mississippi. To be concise, my agency has a clear process to follow up with FEMA. We generally do not serve in the lead role, but we want to fill in the gaps behind FEMA. And so, we are very studious about following their process as they are the lead agency. But we do get into financing homes, dealing with water and sewer systems that have been inundated and trying to assist those. We do work with businesses who have been through the inundation to try and help refinance in those cases. So we do have some tool sets that help us manage those communities that have been inundated and we try and want to be helpful with them. Senator Nelson. Thank you. Yes, and then your colleague there? Mr. Scuse. Thank you, Senator. We have been having meetings throughout the Mississippi River area now for several months. The Farm Service Agency, the Risk Management Agency has been working very closely together to make sure that our producers are getting the assistance that they, in fact, need. During the course of these meetings, we encourage them to visit the Farm Service Agency as quickly as possible to look at the emergency loan program and emergency conservation program. We have also been encouraging our producers to visit with their crop insurance agent to make sure that they can start that process as quickly as possible. We have been touring the areas. Acting Deputy Under Secretary Karis Gutter is in Missouri yesterday and today looking at some of the flooded areas. We have been providing fact sheets to all of our farmers and ranchers to let them know what programs are available, and we will be continuing working together with the Army Corps of Engineers as well as Under Secretary Honsaker and NRCS as well. Senator Nelson. Mr. Sherman, and then we can wrap that up. Mr. Sherman. Yes. Let me just briefly supplement what has been said. NRCS has an Emergency Watershed Protection program, so part of what we do is to provide immediate emergency relief, and we have provided, I believe, something like $600,000 to 11 different states that have been affected by this, and we have additional resources that can be allocated. But let me just say that part of our work is to assess flood damage. Part of our work is to remove obstructions to watersheds. Part of it is to ensure the stability of certain structures. And we have a very active SNOTEL program that monitors the amount of snow pack in the mountains which ultimately can get to the Mississippi and the Missouri River Basins. So all of these programs are important. We work carefully with the Corps, with the Bureau of Reclamation, with EPA, and other Federal agencies. Senator Nelson. We appreciate the fact that you do work together. I was taken by that sitting with Secretary Vilsack who made it clear that internally within the agency, a lot of effort was being made to coordinate and make certain that there was no underlay or overlap of effort, but that everything was being done that could reasonably be done. Given the fact that this high waters are going to go on for another six weeks or longer, I hope that fatigue does not set in within your agency. Certainly it is being felt by an awful lot of those who are directed affected, but I hope you will avoid fatigue within your agency. It is not going to be easy. It is not a typical flood. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Thune. Senator Thune. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Senator Roberts. I want to thank you both for holding today's hearing. I think this is an important subject given the current fiscal and budget and deficit crisis the nation is facing, and obviously reducing and eliminating waste, fraud, and duplication of services and abuse, not only at USDA, but across the entire Federal Government would make a significant dent in reducing Federal spending. I want to say, Madam Chairwoman, that as we focus today on measuring performance in eliminating duplication and waste, I believe the Federal Government needs to take a close look at our nation's agricultural producers as examples of efficient, effective, and streamlined operations and learn how they conduct their businesses and operations and follow their example. When faced with rising operating input costs, farmers began utilizing equipment and modifying their operations to make certain seeds are planted at consistent depths and distances to maximize their growth potential. Today's equipment can also place fertilizer, chemicals, and other inputs precisely where they need to be without overlap. I would just say, Madam Chairwoman, that our farmers have learned how to make every seed and every drop of fuel, chemicals, fertilizer provide the maximum benefit possible, and that is certainly something that the Federal Government must likewise do, and that is increase its efficiencies and cost- effectiveness of its operations as well. So I think our farmers are a great example to us about how we need to be going about the process of becoming more efficient. I have a question for Mr. Tonsager I would like to ask in particular dealing with an issue in my state. And if we have time, a couple other questions I would like to ask for the record. But, Mr. Tonsager, as you know, there is a project in South Dakota called Mni Waste which is a water system that received a nearly $10 million grant and a $3.6 million loan from USDA Rural Development to build a new raw water intake line. This is the first phase of what would be a three-phase project to complete a new water treatment plan and a water line on the Cheyenne River Reservation. Despite the dire need for water on the Reservation, USDA Rural Development has indicated that only small amounts of funding are going to be possible for this project going forward. Allowing this project to languish not only means increased cost for the Federal Government to finance this project as construction costs rise and existing parts of the system fall into disrepair before they are even put into use, but there also will be increased health care costs through the Indian Health Service and there will be increased payouts in unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other safety net programs as housing projects, livestock taps, and other economic development projects are put on hold. Could you just explain how giving these small amounts of funding to this project which helped provide water to the poorest county in the nation is, over the long term, a fiscally prudent move? Mr. Tonsager. It, of course, is a challenging area that is faced with a desperate problem that has a long history and that we have explored carefully. Of course, as you well know, the restraints on our resources are a major challenge for us and we face challenges like this in several of the high poverty areas across the country, including places like the Navajo Reservation or other reservations across the country where you have very widely-dispersed groups of people. It saddens us that we cannot proceed more quickly with the project. I think the near term solutions would be to work with the other Federal agencies, and we do get into the discussion about duplications that we have. But we will look closely at the other Federal funding sources and see if we can bring stronger encouragement with them to participate with us in the continued funding of this project. And hopefully, we can then possibly make some more faster progress with them under those circumstances. Senator Thune. I hope you can do that. As you know, it is an area of dire need and the consequences of waiting are going to be, as I mentioned, pretty profound for the people on the Reservation. Let me just ask you, in terms of the hurdles that you encounter. If you look at trying to become more efficient and do away with duplication, what would you say are the biggest hurdles that Rural Development has had to overcome in administering, for example, the 2008 Farm Bill programs that are assigned to your portfolio at Rural Development? Mr. Tonsager. Probably the sheer volume of the number of new programs, and we, of course, see those as opportunities, but we have an enormous number of regulations to get through. We took biofuels, for example, or the associated 9000 Series programs. We put out NOFAS immediately with those in order to implement them fairly quickly, then tried to learn from that experience. So I think the challenges were to follow the appropriate process, to get input, so we did want to get them going quickly. We did notices in order to get funds out the door quickly, tried to learn from that, and then do the programs. We believe we have pretty much fully implemented all of the Farm Bill authorities. Did not go as fast as we would like, but boy, there was a lot of ground to cover. Senator Thune. How is NEPA compliance affected RD's program administration delivery? Mr. Tonsager. It has taken work certainly. We, of course, have an obligation to not only build and finance, but to try to make sure it is a quality of life process. So we have environmental processes associated with every one of our programs. Typically NEPA comes into place when we come with very large programs that have very significant impacts. So it becomes more of a step to make sure that the compliance is there, and we accept NEPA and work closely with it because we do want to assure that qualitative component. Senator Thune. Thank you. My time is expired. Thanks, Madam Chair. Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Our distinguished Ranking Member has returned and I will turn to Senator Roberts. Senator Roberts. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Concannon, the SNAP program conducts employment training to help in the job search for SNAP participants who may be out of work. The U.S. Department of Labor's Work Force Investment Act programs also provide employment and training to over 1.6 million participants. Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, program spends $2.4 billion in work activities which include education and training. GAO recently reported that there are 47--47 Federal employment and training programs at an annual cost of $18 billion. In an effort to avoid duplicity in Government programs, can you tell me, is there any reason why SNAP should continue to have its own employment and training program? Is there any way you could merge some of your efforts in regards to the 47 other programs? Mr. Concannon. Thank you very much, Senator. Well, if I might mention right at the outset, work is a very integral part of the SNAP program and has been going back to 1970 or '71. All 53 SNAP programs across the country, all the states and the territories, operate employment and training programs. It is part of the effort of the program to make people more self- sufficient. I can say from my state experience, we work very closely with Department of Labor, or one-stop shopping centers, as they are referred to, one-stop centers at the state level. The advantage on the employment and training program focus to the SNAP program is it is particularly-- that person comes through the front door applying for assistance. We know that they are in a compromised income situation by virtue of that. So the program is very tailored at that particular population, but we certainly would be happy to work on ways to make it even more integrated into the other range of labor programs. Senator Roberts. Thank you, sir. Mr. Sherman, are we creating programs such as CSP that are too complicated for the agency to implement? I am concerned about the level of improper payments. If producers are providing incorrect information, that is one thing. But if agency staff is having difficulty implementing the programs we create, is this an accountability problem with the agency or complexity in the design of the program? Is this our fault up here? What changes have been made in the Conservation Stewardship Program from the 2008 Farm Bill? Mr. Sherman. Thank you for the question, Senator. I think we have made some very positive progress concerning the Conservation Stewardship Program. As you know, we did have a variety of issues and problems with the Conservation Security Program, and I think Congress wisely decided to phase out that program by 2012 and to bring into focus the Conservation Stewardship Program. The Conservation Stewardship Program, I believe, is working well. NRCS is actively involved in verifying all aspects of their program, as opposed to a self-verification system that we previously had. So the improper payments that occurred under the Conservation Security Program have stopped. We are recovering monies that we lost in that program. And I think under the Conservation Stewardship Program, it is being handled very effectively. Senator Roberts. Thank you, sir. Mr. Scuse, we have heard a lot of frustration from our producers about ACRE and SURE. Specifically we hear complaints that the programs do not allow for the timely delivery of assistance, that they use a multitude of data points, they are generally confusing for the producer. The ACRE payment calculation alone requires a producer to go through 23 steps. That is about 22 more than necessary. And the testimony that Mr. Blankenship will state, he spends 25 percent of his management time trying to work through the requirements for these various Government programs. So here you have a very successful producer who is going to indicate that one-fourth of his time is simply plowing through all of the programs requirements. Have you had similar frustrations in implementing the programs that our farmers have had using them, short of just going back to the drawing board, which some of us might like to do? Short of that, are there things you think the USDA or Congress can do to make these programs more streamlined, efficient, and user-friendly? Mr. Scuse. Thank you, Senator. I think the last Farm Bill took a giant step forward in helping our farmers and ranchers across the United States with the livestock programs that were put into place for losses, and ACRE and SURE are taking another step to enhance coverage that they may have on crop insurance and provide that additional protection. These three programs, they are complex, there is no doubt about it. There have been issues from the agricultural community about SURE. SURE pays you that payment one year after the loss. And that has been an issue that I have heard as I have traveled around the United States. But again, that was a program designed by Congress that we have implemented. ACRE is a complex program, no doubt about it. As you are well-aware, technology is an issue for the Farm Service Agency when you are dealing with systems that date back to the 1980s. So the technology issue has been one that has affected some of the program implementation. Some of these complicated programs, with SURE for an example, we have had to do manual calculations because of the lack of technology. So if there is one thing that I believe that we need going forward, it is to continue down that path to better technology to help our office staff. Senator Roberts. As a follow-up--and my time has expired, Madam Chairwoman--but you are basically saying you need better technology across the board to keep up with this and that that would help a bunch, as opposed to a program that has 23 steps for a farmer to comply. If you have any suggestions on how we can streamline these programs, change these programs, it would be extremely helpful. You just heard the testimony here from a lot of members here about the flood, the historic flood we are going through, and the SURE program and--I mean, there are times when you have bad situations almost every year up in the northern states. And then you go to the SURE program and you do not get paid until a year later. That really is a problem. Now, you focused on the technology to help you get through this, but is there anything from the ability of us to take a hard look at the structure of the program that could better streamline it? Mr. Scuse. Senator---- Senator Roberts. And if you have those suggestions, you do not have to go into them now, but you could certainly submit them for the record. Mr. Scuse. Madam Chair? Chairwoman Stabenow. If you are brief. Yes, thank you. We definitely want to go into this more extensively with you. Mr. Scuse. Yes, Senator. We here in Washington at USDA, as well as all over county offices across the United States, would welcome simplified programs, programs that are easier to understand and easier to manage, simpler programs, as well as the technology. We would be more than willing to work with you in coming up with programs that can be easily managed. We welcome that opportunity, Senator. Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Klobuchar. Senator Klobuchar. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and thank you for holding this important hearing. As a former prosecutor, I saw time and again how good meaning programs can sometimes be abused if the wrong people get a hold of money, so I appreciate all the work that you are doing with the oversight, as well as the leadership of Secretary Vilsack and all of you to work on this accountability issue. One of the things that I was most curious about is just what kind of programs do you think lend themselves most--I guess I would ask this of you, Mr. Scuse. What are the factors that make programs more open to abuse? What additional oversight rules should we consider as we look at any programmatic changes to the Farm Bill? Mr. Scuse. Well, thank you. The sheer complexity and size of the programs. Again, I think it goes back to the previous question. Programs that are easily understood and easily administered are the ones that we would have the best ability to do oversight on. And again, the technology is a major factor for our offices in the field. We need to have the proper tools that will allow us to do reviews at the local level. So I think, Senator, those two things would be a big help for us going forward. Senator Klobuchar. Well, in speaking of technology, the Farm Service Agency and the Risk Management Agency require farmers to provide data at different times using different definitions for the same land. As you work to harmonize the data requirements from these two agencies, how are you ensuring that the newest GPS field data can be seamlessly incorporated into this new system? Mr. Scuse. Thank you, Senator. We have started a project just ten months ago--it is still in its infancy-- that we hope to have a pilot project going in 2012, with full implementation in 2013 whereby we are using common information, common data, and common terminology, for one of the first times at USDA, between NRCS, FSA, RMA, and NAS to make sure that the technology is all compatible, as well as our terminology is compatible. We right now are looking at bringing together the dates where we do our certification between RMA and the Farm Service Agency, to bring those dates as closely possible together, and in some cases, make them one and the same to eliminate some of the confusion to our producers out there on when they need to certify their crops. So we are taking those steps. Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Mr. Sherman, the conservation program, the CSP program, has been especially important in my state. However, I know, even though we have had great anecdotal in our state, it is sometimes hard to accurately estimate the positive impacts of these efforts. How do you know if the significant investments that I believe we should make and are making, how do you know that the investments in voluntary conservation are actually working? Mr. Sherman. I had mentioned in my opening statement the ongoing Conservation Assessment Effects Program that we have, the so-called CAEPs, where we are taking a very careful look at the efficacy of these programs. And we are going out into the fields, we are doing modeling to see what the benefits are. And we are seeing really quite remarkable benefits. For example, the no till or reduced till efforts in the Chesapeake and the Upper Mississippi, approximately 85 to 90 percent of the crop lands there are now engaged in these practices, and we are seeing significant reductions in sediment contributions to streams and rivers, reductions in nitrogen, reductions in phosphorous. So we are documenting this very carefully, and as we document it, we are becoming more skillful in learning how we change practices to focus on this. So, for example, when we target areas where the most significant problems are and we come in and we focus on those areas, that is where we get the greatest benefits. And where we apply a suite of conservation practices, as opposed to an individual conservation practice, we get greater and greater benefits. So we are constantly evaluating this, amending how we apply conservation practices, and I think we are seeing some very strong and good results. Senator Klobuchar. Very good. My last question. Mr. Sherman, you also discussed the efforts within the Forest Service to improve the integrity of environmental reviews and reducing the cost of litigation that the Government faces. How do you believe that this initiative will work to help focus resources on conservation goals and not courtroom legal battles? Mr. Sherman. We are very focused with the Forest Service on working with our partners in the field, that is with communities, with stakeholders, and so forth through collaborative efforts. So hopefully, we can arrive at a consensus on what is the best way to do restoration. We are also very focused on improving the ways in which we conduct our need for reviews. We have projects now with the Council on Environmental Quality to explore how could we do more focused NEPA work, how can we have shorter environmental assessments, how can we take programmatic EISs and apply them in a way that we can work efficiently on forest restoration projects? All of these things are helpful and our hope is that we can take money that we are spending on environmental reviews and on litigation and shift that over to on-the-ground successful work in the forests. Senator Klobuchar. On the trees and not the legal fees? Mr. Sherman. Exactly. Well said. Senator Klobuchar. A little rhyme for you. I thought you would like that. Mr. Sherman. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar. Well, anyway, give my greetings to Secretary Vilsack, tell him we have been working very hard to try to work out this biofuels issue. It is incredibly important to the Midwest and also to the deficit reduction, because if we can work it out, it could be a win-win to everyone. I am going to tell him you guys did not get the memo about seersucker suit days. [Laughter.] Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator Klobuchar, and thank you for your leadership, and I share your desire to be able to work this out in a way that makes sense for rural America and for jobs. As we close this panel, there are many more questions that we have that we are going to be submitting to each of you, questions regarding areas of where we can consolidate programs. We have very important programs that meet very important needs for farmers, for communities, for families. But, for instance, we have some 20 different conservation programs. Do we need 20? Can we create efficiencies? Can we do things better in terms of streamlining? And I know that is something that you are focused on, but we want to know more about that. Rural development, 40 different programs. Do we need 40? Can we bring them together? Can we create more efficiencies? I would suggest that we can, and yet meet some things that are incredibly important. Every community outside the major cities of Michigan is impacted and needs an effective rural development program. But we will be following up with you in each of these areas as we look at what is being done to combine the acreage reporting and data. We know that as you are working on making sure that farmers only have to report once, what else can we do, as you have talked about, Mr. Scuse, so that--those are the kinds of things that we are going to be deeply involved in with each of you and, of course, Mr. Concannon, we will continue to work with you on that, and Dr. Leonard as well. We have very specific questions that we will be asking you to respond to. In this time of stretching every dollar, being as efficient as possible, cutting out the paperwork, making things work, we will look forward as we move forward on the Farm Bill and as we explore each area, you will be back, of course, with us, which we appreciate as we go in- depth into each of the areas you are involved in. But this is important work and I want to commend the Department in the areas of improvement we have seen based on your work and based on the reforms in the 2008 Farm Bill and the Secretary's leadership, and we very much appreciate the direction in which we are going. We think we can do more and we are looking forward to working with you as we do, in fact, continue to push ahead on ways that we can streamline and create more efficiencies and effectiveness in the programs. So thank you very much for being with us. We will ask our next panel to come forward. Well, good morning and thank you very much for your patience and for joining us today. Senator Roberts will be coming back to join us, as I believe other colleagues will as well. So let me introduce our three distinguished members of the panel. I am pleased to introduce today first Phyllis Fong who is the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Agriculture where she promotes USDA efficiency and effectiveness and tackles waste, fraud, and abuse, and we appreciate your leadership in this important area. Prior to her post at USDA, she served as Inspector General for the U.S. Small Business Administration and was also elected the first Chair of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. Brett Blankenship, welcome. Farms over 10,000 acres of spring and winter wheat in Washington. He is the President of the Washington Association of Wheat Growers and was a former President of the Washington Grain Alliance. And we are so pleased to have you here today. And Ms. Masouda--I am going to make sure I am doing this right--Masouda--am I correct? Masouda Omar? Ms. Omar. That is correct. Chairwoman Stabenow. Okay, thank you. Is the Manager of Business Finance Loan Production at the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority in Denver. She works with small businesses on a daily basis underwriting loan requests and marketing business finance products to a wide variety of partners statewide, and we very much appreciate your expertise and experience in being here today with us as well. We will start with Ms. Fong. Welcome. STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS FONG, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC Ms. Fong. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee. We appreciate the opportunity to be here today to testify about our oversight work to help the effectiveness and delivery of USDA programs. You have my full written statement so I will just offer some brief comments on our work as it relates to the subject of the hearing. And very briefly, we believe that our audits and investigations help USDA, first of all, strengthen communication and coordination in its programs; secondly, address improper payments; and third, increase program control and integrity. As you all know, the IG's mission is to help USDA deliver its programs as effectively as possible, and the way we do this is by performing audits to determine if a program is functioning as intended, if payments are reaching the right people, and if funds are achieving their intended purpose. We also conduct investigations of people who may be abusing the programs, and these investigations can result in fines, imprisonment, or agency administrative actions. So let me spend a moment on communication and coordination and the need for stronger coordination between USDA programs. Several agencies within the Department provide payments to producers for programs that may have interlocking or complementary missions, for example, insurance payments for crop losses and disaster assistance payments as well. And we believe in our work that it is critical that RMA, FSA, and RCS work together to create a cohesive integrated system of program administration and data. This type of coordination is equally important in areas where USDA must work with other Federal, state, and local agencies, and with foreign countries, for example, in the areas of food safety inspection and global trade export programs. My statement gives examples of this in the areas of suspension and debarment, the Food Emergency Response Network, and the Invasive Species Program. Turning to the topic of improper payments, our work in this area is intended to save taxpayers money by ensuring that programs deliver the correct benefits in the right amounts to the right people. We have released a number of reports this past year that talk about different aspects of these issues. We have looked at FNS's report on improper payment rates in the SNAP program. We have also looked at NRCS's Conservation Security Program and RD's Single Family Housing Guarantee Program. And in all of those programs, we found that the Department had made progress, but could also make further progress. And finally, our investigations of fraud in USDA programs had identified many instances where individuals improperly received payments to which they are not entitled, and my testimony gives examples of that in the SNAP, Child and Adult Food Care, and WIC programs. So finally, let me say a few words about program control and integrity. Our work in this area is designed to help USDA managers strengthen program administration. Examples of this kind of work include our review of the BCAP program. We did an audit of loan collateral in FSA's Direct Loan Program, and we currently have work ongoing in the Civil Rights Program. Our investigations in this area can address issues of employee integrity and also cases involving false claims made by those doing business with USDA. So in conclusion, our office remains committed to helping USDA provide and deliver programs as effectively as possible. We look forward to working with this Committee on areas of mutual interest, particularly as you start to develop a new Farm Bill, and we would be very pleased to provide you with any assistance that we can based on our audit and investigative work. So thank you, and we welcome your questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Fong can be found on page 57 in the appendix.] Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Mr. Blankenship, welcome again. STATEMENT OF BRETT BLANKENSHIP, BLANKENSHIP BROTHERS, WASHTUCNA, WASHINGTON Mr. Blankenship. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I will also honor Ranking Member Roberts who is here in spirit, and members of the Committee as well. Thank you. As you introduced me, my name is Brett Blankenship. I am a farmer from Washtucna, Washington where I produce soft white winter wheat and dark northern spring and spring barley in a partnership with my brother, our wives, and my sister. As a matter of perspective, this places me in the center of the winter wheat growing region of the state of Washington, and the gateway to the famous Palous Region, which boasts of the highest dryland wheat yields in the world. As a state, we are averaging roughly six to five bushels per acre on approximately 2.3 million acres of wheat, and this places our state approximately fourth in wheat production in the United States. As we move forward toward serious consideration of the next Farm Bill, there are two other major components that are often left out of discussions like this. Yes, I am an American farmer, and I rely on the safety net aspects of the Farm Bill to produce crops. But I am also an American taxpayer and I also shop for groceries just like everyone else. So I commend you, Madam Chairwoman, for looking at the top of efficiency, just as we do on our farms. I will focus the remaining comments on my interactions with USDA, and perhaps offer some ideas that might help improve those. As background, my partnership operates in two counties, and I seem to be fortunate. We manage our interactions with USDA through one field office in the county seat of where I reside, and it has always been that way. I have had other growers complain that multiple counties offer them a lot of difficulty, but on my farm, we have been able to consolidate in one office and it has worked very well for us. I also interact with the NRCS office locally and, of course, our crop insurance provider. I am a participant in the ACRE program, Conservation Reserve Program, Conservation Security Program, and, of course, I carry CRC crop insurance. I was also able to participate in the SURE Program in 2008 and before--ancient history-- participated in the DCP program as well. As Senator Roberts alluded to, the management time taken to coordinate all this often takes 25 percent of our time--not our time, but our management time. And I participate in various government and quasi-government programs and it is frustrating to have so many rules and procedures to comply with, but to complicate matters further, often these agencies seem to have trouble talking to each other or coordinating with each even when they are closer together in some of the buildings, as I am to the panel right now. My most common interaction is with FSA, and it is the easiest office to deal with and the personnel seems to be incredibly well-trained and familiar with the actual impact of changes to program eligibility, payment limit compliance, and they have been very helpful. They seem to have a culture of Congress has appropriated these programs, authorized these programs. It is our job to provide the service to deliver them to you in the best efficient manner possible. We also work with NRCS where staff seems to have a different culture or not as well trained on payment questions or eligibility requirements, and certainly not familiar with FSA programs. NRCS has had a different focus in the past delivering conservation on the ground. FSA has had their focus on administration of the programs. But with different program work and different time frames, this has the tendency to create some problems. I do not have much direct interaction with RMA, but our agents do and they often seem confused with changes in insurance programs. There also seems to be confusion in the proper way to report acreage and yields in a format that transfers easily to SURE eligibility. We also, of course, work with bankers who largely do not have a good understanding of farm programs, other than the knowledge that those programs cover their risks as they loan us operating money. And to me, that is an important point in the Farm Bill debate, is the safety net programs help us secure operating capital to minimize our risks. All in all, I would say we make ten separate trips of several hours each to our FSA office for sign-ups, certification of acreage, CRP status checks, SURE eligibility questions, and returning paperwork once it is properly collected. As an aside, I will also add that that does not count if I am called in for an audit, as Ms. Fong alluded to. We often have so-called random audits, and unfortunately, I seem to get in a random audit almost every year. I do not know how it can be random if my name comes up. But that has been one of my frustrations. Even the county executive will say, Were you not just in here? So it has been an unusual situation. So it is no surprise in a rapidly changing agricultural economy that we adopt the new technology out in the field quite readily. We have adopted computers, data sheets, and readily adhere to GPS systems to increase our accuracy, and field mapping. And it would be wonderful to be able to coordinate that better with the agencies that we interact with, rather than adding things manually. But my FSA office has eliminated a large amount of frustration, declaring planted acreage and compliance issues because of the GPS maps that they have implemented in Washington, and that has increased our accuracy and we are able to use that with ACRE, CRP, CSPN crop insurance. However, it took several seasons to work out some of the kinks. One of the frustrations that can often be traced to the SURE program, but it is very difficult to explain why those numbers do not seem to line up and why they cannot be corrected, because if someone somewhere along the way does not fill a form out properly, it throws a wrench into the machinery. The two major conservation programs which we participate in are the Conservation Reserve and the CSP handled by the different USDA agencies with dramatically different administration experience. Personally, I appreciate the way CRP is administered because the agency with the strength in administration, Farm Service Agency, relies on the agency with their expertise in conservation, NRCS for technical advice and compliance, but it is administered with FSA. That has worked very well for us. Since the implementation of ACRE and SURE, there have been several comments about overlap or duplication. I have not found that to be the case, not on our farm, because we depend on the three different facets of the farm safety net for different areas of risk. But often, the interactions and paperwork can create the frustration. But finally, I would like to just say generally, it would be my personal opinion that rules for all Federal programs in this nature ought to be the same, and if the program is there to support my business's activity, then no matter what agency is administering it, the rules ought to apply the same. So you can see that the business of being in agriculture anymore is not just about cultivating or tending or harvesting a crop. It is also protecting the enormous risk and we depend on the programs you help us implement to do that. So thank you for the opportunity to address you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Blankenship can be found on page 49 in the appendix.] Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Ms. Omar, welcome. STATEMENT OF MASOUDA OMAR, MANAGER OF BUSINESS FINANCE LOAN PRODUCTION, COLORADO HOUSING AND FINANCE AUTHORITY, DENVER, COLORADO Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chairwoman Stabenow and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. It is a privilege to come before you to discuss several of rural development programs authorized in the Farm Bill, and how Colorado Housing and Finance Authority has utilized these programs to support economic development in our state. Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, also known as CHFA, is a quasi-governmental entity created by the Colorado General Assembly in 1973 to increase the availability of affordable housing in the state. In 1982, the Colorado General Assembly expanded CHFA's mission to include business finance for the purpose of providing access to capital for economic development across Colorado. So it is CHFA's economic development mission that I will direct my comments to today. CHFA works in partnership with local and regional economic development agencies as well as large and small lenders in the state to finance business activities. We primarily support real estate and equipment purchases for existing businesses to expand or improve their operations, and we do this by offering fully-amortized, fixed-rate mortgages with lower down payments requirements to allow that business to preserve cash and grow their operations. Since 1982, CHFA's business finance efforts have provided nearly $900 million in capital to over 2,200 businesses supporting over 37,000 jobs. Historically, over 50 percent of our small business loan production has occurred in rural areas of Colorado. So among CHFA's partners is the USDA Office of Rural Development. CHFA has utilized Rural Development programs to support our work in Colorado's non-metro areas. During this time, we have financed a number of small businesses and non- profit organizations using Rural Development's Business and Industry Loan Guarantee, and the Community Facilities Loan Guarantee, and the Intermediary Re-Lending Program. As part of CHFA's partnership with Rural Development, we rely heavily on the expertise of their regional offices. There are seven regional offices in Colorado, six of which are located in rural communities. These offices provide an essential service by acting as an intermediary between CHFA and the local businesses. They are also instrumental in ensuring smooth delivery of RD's programs statewide. Our work with the regional office really starts from the initial stages of structuring that financing, and even after that loan has closed, to help maintain a strong relationship with the borrower as we service these loans. In CHFA's experience, we have found that establishing trust with the rural customers is critical to ensuring a successful outcome. Rural communities take pride in conducting business with someone from the area who is known and reliable, and even though CHFA is a local entity with offices in Denver and Grand Junction, the day-to-day relationship that Rural Development regional offices provide is invaluable to us. Rural Development local offices serve as a one-stop shop that connect rural communities with resources that generate economic opportunities. They take on the responsibility of being familiar with other resources, ensuring that they serve as a conduit for the business to access help, even if it means going outside of RD's programs. CHFA's first experience in using Rural Development programs was through the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan. The Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan allows CHFA to directly originate loans for small businesses. Similar to the SBA program, the Business and Industry is a loan guarantee. However, it is distinct from SBA in that it allows non- traditional lenders such as CHFA to participate. It is also a larger loan size than SBA's programs. An example of how CHFA was able to use this unique feature of the Business and Industry program, is the Durango and Silverton narrow gauge railroad. Using the Business and Industry program, CHFA was able to provide the railroad with a $16.5 million loan and long- term financing to replace short-term variable rate debt that was coming due. The $16.5 million loan would have exceeded SBA's maximum loan size. However, CHFA's ability to assist the railroad was an important economic development opportunity for our state. The railroad is a popular tourist attraction in southwest Colorado, attracting over 200,000 visitors to the Four Corners area. It provides jobs to over 200 people and is responsible for nearly $100 million in economic impact to the area. Small businesses such as the Durango and Silverton are the backbone of Colorado's economy. Tourism accounts for 25 percent of the economy in the Four Corners area, and the railroad is estimated to impact 16 percent of the total employment in those two communities. Another program that I will briefly mention is the Community Facilities Guarantee which, as you are aware, is similar to the Business and Industry Guarantee program, but it is used to finance non-profit organizations. To our knowledge, USDA is the only agency that guarantees loans to non-profits, which is critical to ensuring that these organizations have access to capital. Oftentimes, non-profits, due to a higher risk profile, have difficulties getting financing through traditional outlets, which is why the support through the Communities Facilities Program offers solutions to help lenders extend credit. Young Tracks Preschool and Child Care Center is an example of a project that CHFA financed using the Community Facility guarantee. This non-profit is located in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, a community of less than 10,000 people whose primary industry is tourism. Young Tracks was referred to CHFA by a local bank who was unable to provide the financing, so CHFA partnered with USDA who not only provided a community facility's loan guarantee, but also funded a direct loan together which provided the necessary dollars to build this new facility. Once the permanent financing was arranged, the local bank was also able to come in and reach a greater level of comfort and provided the borrower with an interim loan to fund the construction costs. And this facility has greatly enhanced Young Tracks' ability to serve the community. It has allowed them to add a new infant care program that was previously not available, as well as expanded classroom capacity for their programs. And still today, they are the only infant/toddler care program open to the public for a 27-mile radius. There are nearly 100 children enrolled there in their services and their clients are primarily low and moderate income households. In the interest of time, I am not going to go into some of the other remarks. You do have a written copy of my testimony, but the other program that I will briefly mention is the Intermediary Re-Lending Program, or the IRP program, that also benefits rural communities where lenders such as CHFA can borrow funds from USDA at a low interest rate and turn around and re-lend it to very remote areas of Colorado. And we have used these funds to provide low-interest rate loans to communities with greatest need based on their level of out migration, unemployment, and poverty rates. So as you can see, Rural Development programs are valuable to Colorado; as such, ensuring their ongoing and efficient delivery is critical. So thank you again, Chairwoman Stabenow and members of the Committee for allowing me to speak with you today. I applaud your leadership as you continue your work to support our nation's rural communities, and I look forward to answering any questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Omar can be found on page 74 in the appendix.] Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, and thank you to all of you. Mr. Blankenship, let me ask first, again talking about paperwork, I think paperwork is always a very significant frustration for farmers who have a lot of work to do and do not need to be spending all their time, as you talked about, filling out a lot of forms. So when you look at the greatest need for streamlining and really cleaning up the bureaucracy and the red tape and dealing with USDA agencies, you spoke about a number of things, but what do you think is the most important area for us to focus on from your perspective? Mr. Blankenship. I would like to see some kind of standardization of the information that is needed that could be used in the various different portals among the agencies. It is the duplication, and, unfortunately, the culture we have created in enforcement or trying to make sure that the right folks are getting the right payments, rather than delivering the service. Sometimes employees have viewed themselves as the great defenders of the Federal treasury, and somehow we need to find that sweet spot of delivering the service and being responsible and accountable as well. Chairwoman Stabenow. What is your experience in dealing with the technological capabilities of the Department? We have heard a lot today on our first panel about improvements in a number of areas because of technology. Do you see that, in your end? What is the interaction in terms of the use of technology, or what could be done better as including technology? Mr. Blankenship. My experience is things have gotten a lot better. I remember going through programs sign-up before, as a much younger person, and we would have to haul out all the maps and count all the acres of the fields and measure them manually. And it literally took all day. And we have recently added the GPS maps at the local office, and now that that is reasonably standardized, we know how many acres are out there now, as long as no changes have happened. It would be nicer to be able to submit a lot of that electronically. That would be, of course, the next step. Without going into greater detail, that would be a good start, standardization. Chairwoman Stabenow. Great. Thank you very much. This is an area of great interest, I think, to us. Ms. Fong, last week your office issued a report detailing its fraud prevention efforts in programs under your jurisdiction, including the food assistance programs, and there were some impressive numbers in terms of what has happened in the last six months. We have heard 516 arrests for $47.8 million given back to taxpayers. And, in fact, in Michigan, I want to congratulate you, the OIG, working with the Lansing Police Department, just identified a major fraud case at a storefront, J&K General Store, and thanks to the record- keeping technology and the data analysis, you were able to work in a way to recover half a million dollars. And so, we appreciate that. I have now seen that up close, what you are doing, and how effective it is. But I am wondering, as we look at what was given to you in the 2008 Farm Bill in terms of new authorities and investments and so on, if you could talk a little bit more about what has happened in terms of improving efforts to combat fraud and abuse, and what we can continue to do to keep a good record going. Ms. Fong. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your comments and we appreciate your support on all of the work that we are doing across the board, especially in the SNAP program. And as you pointed out, we work very closely with FNS and with the state and local jurisdictions to find instances where there are problems and to go after them. We believe that that relationship is so essential, to have very close working relationships with the Department of Justice, state and local enforcement, and FNS as well, because we all approach these issues from our own perspectives, and they tend to reinforce each other. And to address your question about the Farm Bill of '08, we have been working with FNS. There are a number of provisions in there to strengthen the SNAP program. We realize that they have just issued a proposed rulemaking that will change some of the definitions of trafficking and will give us the ability to really pursue some of the instances that involve retailers as well as individual recipients. So we think those provisions are very helpful. Chairwoman Stabenow. And just as a quick follow-up and a clarification and a comment in your testimony. If an individual is caught trafficking SNAP benefits, what happens to their ability to get future benefits from any Federal Government program? Ms. Fong. Well, that is a very good question. Generally, when an individual is found to have improperly trafficked or improperly used their benefits, they would be subject to prosecution by state and local authorities, and if they are convicted, then their eligibility, I think, would be very much impaired, shall we say. Chairwoman Stabenow. True, in my experience, at least in situations we have been involved with, they would just be eliminated from eligibility. Is that your understanding? Ms. Fong. That is my understanding, that a conviction of criminal conduct would make them ineligible. Chairwoman Stabenow. Okay. I would certainly hope so. Ms. Fong. Yes, exactly. Chairwoman Stabenow. If there is a concern there, please let us know. But that is my understanding. Please follow up and make sure, because that is my understanding, and I am assuming unless otherwise if that is the case, if you could let us know. I would like to turn now to our Ranking Member, Senator Roberts. Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Blankenship, there is an awful lot of information out there on the Web. My staff is in a continual re-education effort to try to get me up to speed. I know it is out there. I just cannot find it. Are you able to find a lot of the forms, the information that you need online? It may be online, but are you able to get in a situation where you think you can rapidly find these things? Are you simply utilizing the online forms and resources that people talk about that are available. Are they available? Mr. Blankenship. They may be available, Senator, if you can wade through the pages to get to them. But we have found it just as easy, since my business partner lives not too far from the service agency office, we have just found it easier just to go in and then you have the same one there looking for---- Senator Roberts. So basically you ask Mabel, Will you help me? Mr. Blankenship. That seems to work the best for us. Senator Roberts. I see. I wish you could do it online, but I empathize with your situation. I just have another question here. You note in your testimony that Farm Bill programs help producers obtain their operating capital from the banking community. That is an obvious statement. Are there specific programs that are more important to banks than other programs, in your view? Do banks ask you what level of crop insurance you purchase or how much you will receive in direct payments. Something that has been discussed a lot around here. Do they ask you if you have signed up for ACRE? What do they ask you? Mr. Blankenship. When I submit my financing budget and my plan for the year, they know what line to look for, for either the direct payment or the ACRE payment, as the case may be. I am in ACRE, so they are looking for that line, and it is very important to them. The next question is, since they know I am a policy guy, they ask me, Where do you think the next Farm Bill is going? And then the third question is, Do you have CRC? Senator Roberts. I think you are right. The next Farm Bill is going. That was very clever of you to turn that right back on us, and I wish we knew. Both the Chairwoman and I, we have no other higher priority than to try to do the best we can to preserve that safety net that that bank asks you. Otherwise, you are not going to get your loan that you depend on. What about crop insurance? You did not mention that one. Mr. Blankenship. I am a participant in CRC. They certainly want me to participate in that, to preserve their exposure, and my assumptions in financial receipts, CRC does help me cover that risk. Senator Roberts. So you have got some crop insurance and direct payments and ACRE? Mr. Blankenship. Yes. Senator Roberts. Those are the big three? Mr. Blankenship. Yes. Senator Roberts. I appreciate that. Thank you. Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Bennet. Senator Bennet. Madam Chair, thank you for holding this important hearing, and also thank you for having two Coloradans testify and three Coloradans visit. Harris Sherman, who testified on the first panel, who used to be our Director of Natural Resources in Colorado and has been dedicated to our natural resources in particular, fighting the Bark Beetle infestation that we have had. It has been very, very important to the state. And Masouda Omar and Steve Johnson, who are here, the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority who have done such great work at the local level, and I appreciate your recognition of the quality of folks in Colorado by having everybody here. Ms. Omar, not the purpose of this testimony, but you mentioned the Durango-Silverton Railroad, and I drive by that regularly. And I often think, Madam Chair, about the people that built that railroad and the people that built the road next to that railroad. I blew two tires out on the minivan the last time I was on it because of a rock slide. Still very treacherous. But the cooperation between the private sector and the Federal Government that made those things possible, that allowed one generation to build something that even now is making a huge economic contribution to our state, I think their memory is something that we would do well to think about as we have the debates that we are having here and trying to drive this country forward and build for the next generation. But to come to the purpose of today's hearing, I wanted to ask Ms. Omar a couple of questions. Thanks for coming all the way out here. There was discussion earlier today in reference to a GAO study that identified significant duplications in Federal economic development programs. I wondered whether, from your vantage point, you see duplication? And also, if you could talk a little bit more about your interactions with the SBA versus USDA and how we should think about that? Ms. Omar. Thank you, Senator Bennet. Yes, my experiences with USDA is primarily with the Community Facilities, the Business and Industry, and then the IRP program. And I can tell you that those programs are very distinct and serve very different purposes than the SBA program. The Community Facility program is the only--to my knowledge, it is the only loan guarantee for non-profits, and when you have a local non-profit in a rural community, access to capital is very difficult. And so these programs serve a very important purpose. If anything, in terms of improvements to programs, we would like to be able to see Federal programs working together, greater collaboration, and one program that I will briefly mention is the New Markets Tax Credit Program, which is a tax credit program that was designed back in 2000. And we have some tax credits available in rural areas, and it would be nice to be able to combine a USDA guarantee or a loan through the New Market Tax Credit structure to be able to finance projects in rural communities and very high distressed communities within rural areas of our state. Senator Bennet. Thank you. I also wanted to follow up on the Ranking Member's questions about paperwork with you. You have been working for years with Rural Development programs, and I know you are familiar with the paperwork. I have heard from Coloradans, more than I could possibly represent well today, who are so frustrated with the paperwork process for everything, from water to business programs. I wanted to ask you, if you were going through the USDA RD avocation process for the first time, would it be self- explanatory to you, do you think? Ms. Omar. You know, that is a great question. Yes. We have worked with--we have done a number of transactions with, as you know, with USDA, and obviously the first time, when you are working on a new program or working trying to put together a guarantee program, we do look to work closely with the local office and help guide us through the process, and they have been very helpful. The programs or the projects that we have financed, they tend to be larger transactions that do require additional due diligence. So the way I communicate those expectations to my borrowers is that oftentimes, when you are buying that piece of real estate, it is the largest investment that company is making in their business. And so, we do want to do a little bit of additional due diligence, make sure that that asset is a quality asset that is being put on their balance sheet. But again, in our experience, the USDA staff has been available to walk us through the process, answer any questions that we might have. Like I said, this is typical with other programs that we work with. There is just a little bit more due diligence involved. Senator Bennet. I would like to see how we might be able to streamline some of that because there is a recurrent theme that we hear. But I will be after you for your ideas about that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator Bennet. This is exactly why we wanted to hold the hearing today, is to be able to begin to have that discussion about how we can streamline and consolidate and do effectively what needs to be done, and there are very important things done through the Department of Agriculture for communities, for farmers, for families, for ranchers, foresters. But there are a lot of ways in which we can streamline and do a better job. So that is the reason for the hearing and we very much appreciate it. As we come to the close, let me just indicate again that we have held the hearing today to make sure that there is accountability in the administration of Farm Bill programs. We need to be confident that we are sound stewards of limited taxpayer dollars and that we are cracking down on any fraud and abuse that is in these important programs. So we are going to be asking a lot of questions as we go forward, and to each of our witnesses today, we are going to be asking you to continue to be involved with us as we focus on all of these areas. Have we provided the right tools and invested in an effort to catch those who would abuse the systems and, in fact, are we catching them? How can we continue to do that? Are we cutting down on inefficiencies and waste that lead to mistakes or cause frustration by those who use the programs? What can we do to consolidate? What can we do to be more effective and efficient? I think today it is important to note that the hearing has demonstrated that fraud and abuse are not rampant or out of control, but we also know that we need to stay focused and that we need to look for continual improvement, and that is really the job of this Committee. We have provided the tools to catch those who would commit fraud, and small investments appear to be having major benefits as we look to address those issues, all of which are saving taxpayer dollars. I think it would also serve as an important reminder to those who are focused on cutting budgets and spending, that misguided cuts can lead to more waste, fraud, and abuse and damage the agencies' ability to crackdown on those who abuse the programs, and bring them to justice. In other words, unwise cuts can lead to more wasteful spending. And so, I think we need to be very smart about how we are doing things going forward, and that is something we take very seriously. And finally, I think we have areas where we clearly can work to cut down on duplication and unnecessary complexity in a whole range of areas so that programs are easier to understand, administer, and use, while also improving our ability to ensure better accountability. I think it would be our Ranking Member's and mine goal, some day to see one form. Our farmers would have to fill out one form to be able to know what they qualify for and what their options are and so on. We will work towards that goal, certainly. So we look forward to working with the Department and with all of our colleagues, with all of you. We appreciate, Ms. Fong, your efforts, and I continue to applaud and encourage you in your very important efforts. Mr. Blankenship, we hope that we are going to be able to address some of those issues that you have raised that are frustration to you as you work to be successful for your family on your family farm, and we congratulate you for being here. Ms. Omar, the same for you. What is done with Rural Development programs is incredibly important and we want to see what we can do to more effectively give you the tools, or at least streamline the process for you to be able to meet the needs of communities, both in Colorado, but all over the country. So thank you very much to everyone. The meeting is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] ======================================================================= A P P E N D I X JUNE 23, 2011 =======================================================================
======================================================================= DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD JUNE 23, 2011 =======================================================================
======================================================================= QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS JUNE 23, 2011 =======================================================================
![]()