U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

67–661 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

S. HRG. 106–756

NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

MARCH 8, 2000

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

PAUL COVERDELL, Georgia

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

J. ROBERT KERREY, Nebraska

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas

KEITH LUSE, Staff Director

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Chief Counsel

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk

MARK HALVERSON, Staff Director for the Minority

(II)

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

HEARING:

Wednesday, March 8, 2000, National Rural Development Council ..................... 1

APPENDIX:

Wednesday, March 8, 2000 ..................................................................................... 35

Document(s) submitted for the record:

Wednesday, March 8, 2000 ..................................................................................... 81

Wednesday, March 8, 2000

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS

Craig, Hon. Larry E., a U.S. Senator from Idaho, Chairman, Subcommittee

on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, of the Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry .................................................................. 1

Conrad, Hon. Kent, a U.S. Senator from North Dakota ...................................... 10

WITNESSES

Panel I

Conti, Eugene A., Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. ......................................................... 4

Fox, Dr. Claude, E., Administrator, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ............................... 7

Long-Thompson, Jill, Under Secretary for Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. ............................................................... 2

Panel II

Black, David, E., Deputy Secretary for Community Affairs and Development,

Pennsylvania Department of Community and economic Development ........... 23

Fluharty, Chuck, Director, Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI), Columbia, Mo. ................................................................................................................. 14

Graham, Bill, Mayor, City of Scottsburg, Scottsburg, IN ..................................... 16

Grant, Cornelius, Executive Director, North Dakota Rural Development Partnership, Bismarck, ND ........................................................................................ 21

Hudson, Tom, President, Tom Hudson Company, and Chair, Idaho Rural

Partnership, Moscow, ID ..................................................................................... 19

Landkamer, Colleen, Commissioner, First District, Blue Earth County, Mankato, MN ............................................................................................................... 26

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENTS:

Craig, Hon. Larry E. ........................................................................................ 36

Leahy, Hon. Patrick ......................................................................................... 37

Black, Dave, E. ................................................................................................. 72

Conti, Eugene A. ............................................................................................... 40

Fluharty, Chuck ................................................................................................ 53

Fox, E. Claude .................................................................................................. 45

Page

IV

PREPARED STATEMENTS—CONTINUED

Graham, Bill ..................................................................................................... 59

Grant, Cornelius ............................................................................................... 69

Hudson, Tom ..................................................................................................... 63

Landkamer, Colleen ......................................................................................... 76

Long-Thompson, Jill ......................................................................................... 38

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

List of PA Rural Development Council Presenters, Teleconference Sites,

submitted by David E. Black ....................................................................... 82

Serving Rural America, The Rural Transportation Initiative, submitted

by Colleen Landkamer .................................................................................. 94

U.S. Department of Transportation Rural Program Guide, submitted by

Colleen Landkamer ....................................................................................... 113

(1)

NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2000

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL

REVITALIZATION, OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:42 p.m., in room

SR–332, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E. Craig

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Craig and Conrad.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, A U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL REVITALIZATION, OF

THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

Senator CRAIG. Good afternoon, everyone. The Subcommittee on

Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization is called to order.

Thank you for your patience. I was running a bit late.

I also want to thank you all for being here today to discuss the

National Rural Development Partnership. Many of you are here in

Washington, DC. this week for the NRDP’s annual National Rural

Policies Conference. I am glad that we are able to coordinate this

hearing with your meeting.

As many of you know, the National Rural Development Partnership, better known as the Partnership, was established under the

Bush administration in 1990 by Executive Order 1272O. The Partnership is a nonpartisan interagency working group whose mission

is ‘‘to contribute to the vitality of the Nation by strengthening the

ability of rural Americans to participate in determining their futures.’’

We are here today to learn more about the National Rural Development Partnership. We will hear from individuals representing

Federal, State, county, local, and tribal governments, as well as the

private sector, about what has happened in the last decade since

the Partnership’s formation and where the Partnership is headed

in the future. Through this hearing, the Committee will learn how

the Partnership works and what, if anything, needs to be done to

improve it.

The rural and urban areas of our country face many of the same

problems, but they suffer different kinds of impacts. I represent the

dominantly rural State of Idaho. Our rural areas cover about 88-

percent of the State, but they are home to only about 36-percent

2

of the population. I regularly hear from individuals concerned

about the condition of rural America and the impacts of Federal decisions on our ruralness.

For example, management decisions by the Federal Government

on these lands directly impact the livelihood and daily activities of

many of the citizens who live in rural Idaho. However, the impacts

of Federal decisions on rural areas go far beyond those of land

management agencies.

I support programs that bring communities together to develop

solutions to their problems. I believe the Partnership can and does

do this. However, I have heard concerns that not all departments

and agencies participate in the Partnership, and that financial support is lacking in many instances.

With that in mind, I welcome all of our panels here today and

look forward to hearing their testimony. I would like to remind the

panels that their entire testimony will be a part of the record, and

so I would hope that they could hold their statements within the

5-minute range, as I have attempted mine. I will also tell you that

I think some of my colleagues will be joining me this afternoon.

It is also timely that we convene because, at a time when the

general economy of our country is very robust, much of rural America is not sharing in that kind of wealth. Whether it is the state

of agriculture today, or whether it is a logging community or a mining community, in my State many of those communities are experiencing as much as 14- to 16-percent unemployment, while statistically my State almost shows full employment.

This is the schism that exists today in an economy that is significantly different that the kind of economies we have had in the

past, and therefore our ability to effectively measure it and understand it does not demonstrate to us here in Washington those

kinds of statistics. I think that part of this hearing is reflective of

that concern. So let me ask our first panel, who are now seated,

to proceed.

It is a pleasure of mine to have Jill Long-Thompson, Under Secretary for Rural Development, United States Department of Agriculture. Jill and I once served in the House together; we were colleagues over there. Also, Eugene A. Conti, Assistant Secretary of

Transportation Policy, Department of Transportation, and Claude

E. Fox, Administrator, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. So, Jill, if you

would start, welcome to the Committee.

[The prepared statement of Senator Craig, can be found in the

appendix on page 36.]

STATEMENT OF JILL LONG-THOMPSON, UNDER SECRETARY

FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Ms. LONG-THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for

inviting me here today to discuss the National Rural Development

Partnership as well as the State Rural Development Councils. If it

is agreeable to you, I will submit my written testimony for the

record and talk briefly.

Senator CRAIG. Without objection.

3

Ms. LONG-THOMPSON. As you and I have discussed, in the 36

States where we have councils, they play a very important role in

coordinating and streamlining the efforts and the resources of

agencies and programs of Federal, State, and local governments, as

well as the private sector. And, as you mentioned very eloquently,

the initiative was born in 1990 and is the result of an executive

order of the President.

The reason that the executive order was issued was that then

Under Secretary Roland Valour. He developed this very framework

in response to the numerous complaints that he was receiving that

nowhere in the Federal Government was there the needed focus on

rural development, that there was considerable focus on production

agriculture and the agriculture sector of the world economy, and

particularly during the 1980s when we had very low commodity

prices.

By the time that he was holding this position in 1990, that economy had started to rebound. But all during that time local communities across the country were being very successful with individual

rural development initiatives, but their efforts were not very well

coordinated, and there was just no focus at the Federal level in a

way that could really help them to achieve their objectives efficiently and cost effectively.

So, out of that concern and his leadership, this initiative was

born. Now, to date, 10-years later we have 36 States that have

Rural Development Councils and we have a number of other States

that are seriously looking at forming councils. In fact, we have four

States that, right now, are just about ready to put councils into

place. The bulk of the funding, as you know, for the councils is Federal, although there has to be at least a 25-percent contribution

from the States in which the councils exist.

When I first took this position—now, there was little standardization in the relationship between the Federal Government, including the Department of Agriculture, and the State Rural Development Councils. Each council existed as the result of the formation in its State, but the relationship with USDA was based on individual cooperative agreements between USDA and that State,

which we still have. But the funding levels for each of the councils

varied depending upon the cooperative agreement that was reached

between USDA and that State, and there was also a disparity; in

some States, the executive directors of the councils were Federal

employees, and in some cases they were not.

So one of the things that we have worked to do since my coming

on board is to have some kind of standardization, so that the councils get equitable treatment from the Federal Government. And, as

a result of that, we have tried to better standardize the cooperative

agreements. All of the directors are now in a contract relationship

with the Federal Government.

At the same time that we have worked to do that, we have had

a major restructuring, as you know, in the Department of Agriculture, and I think it has actually enhanced the potential for the

Rural Development Councils to be successful at tying together the

initiatives at the various levels and in the private sector. Our, what

were formerly our State Directors for Farmer’s Home Administration are now Rural Development State Directors, and they are, as

4

you know, appointed by the President of the United States, and

they work very closely with the Rural Development Council Directors in the 36 States where we have the councils.

Since the restructuring in the Department of Agriculture, some

of the burden of responsibilities for the Rural Development Councils has changed, as a result of us now having State directors that

have the responsibility of rural development. But I think that has

enhanced the potential for working together, and I think we have

seen a number of successes as a result of that.

Also I would like to say that in addition to the relationship that

exists, the individuals who are involved in the Rural Development

Councils in the 36 States that have them are really outstanding individuals. I could have a bit of a bias. The Chair for the National

Executive Committee is Mayor Bill Graham from Scottsburg, Indiana, who has an outstanding reputation in the State of Indiana for

the work that he does in rural development.

But we do have, I just think, a very strong network across the

country. The challenge for us is, in these times of reduced budgets,

coming up with the funding. Since we do not have any direct authority over the councils themselves, it is difficult to find the

money when other money that we have is allocated for a specific

purpose.

In this particular fiscal year, in Rural Development at USDA, we

had to put in place a 21-percent cut in our administrative budget,

and we mirrored, or duplicated, mirrored that with the Rural Development Councils. Well, the Rural Development Councils have

pretty small budgets, so a 21-percent cut can be quite significant.

So it appears to me that if we are going to continue to have a

good, successful working relationship, and if they are going to continue to be effective, and if we are going to be successful in expanding them to the 50 States, there needs to be some kind of legislative foundation for the initiative, and we also need to figure out

some way that there can be consistent funding. The way we fund

now is to just look for the money, and as my colleagues will tell

you, a lot of the time we are writing letters back and forth, placing

phone calls, strong-arming each other, saying ‘‘How are we going

to come up for the funding for this initiative?’’ It is a real challenge. But, by being an executive order, and by us having no authority, and by them having no accountability to us, it really is

quite a challenge.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Long-Thompson can be found in

the appendix on page 38.]

Senator CRAIG. Well, Jill, thank you very much. We will go

through the full panel before I ask any of you to respond to questions, if that is all right.

Now, Eugene Conti, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, Department of Transportation. Secretary. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF EUGENE A. CONTI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

FOR TRANSPORTATION POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

Mr. CONTI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you, also,

for asking us to be here today to talk about a subject we are all

very interested in and committed to.

5

One of the first jobs Secretary Slater asked me to take on is to

coordinate our department’s efforts in rural areas, so I have been

aware of and involved with the National Rural Development Partnership since my appointment. As you also may know, Secretary

Slater grew up in a very rural area in Arkansas, so he is very sensitive to these issues and reminds me very often, and makes sure

that I am doing a good job here.

The Partnership provides DOT with a valuable channel for communication with a broad spectrum of local rural officials and activists who help shape and implement transportation programs related to those local community economic development efforts. I want

to emphasize that we believe transportation is a key, in most cases,

to local economic development. We are really aware of no other

mechanism, other than the councils, that gives us such direct and

ongoing access to those local officials who can help us as we seek

to respond to some of the transportation challenges we face.

As you mentioned and others know, rural America faces very serious transportation challenges. Residents of rural areas and small

towns often suffer from isolation and reduced access to transportation alternatives. The National Rural Development Partnership

brings together the organizations, the State and local representatives, business interests and residents to help deal with these critical issues.

The Partnership collaborated with us when we put together our

Rural Transportation Initiative, which Secretary Slater announced

in May of 1999. The Initiative is a comprehensive approach to help

America’s rural communities fully enjoy the benefits of the Nation’s

growing economy and improvements in transportation safety and

mobility. The Partnership acted as a sounding board for policy and

program ideas for the Initiative and helped us disseminate its

products, a brochure and a program guide, to rural stakeholders,

copies of which have been provided to the Subcommittee.

The Department has been an active member of the Partnership

since its inception, and continues to receive important support and

guidance from the Partnership. As a result of the increased crossprogram cooperation and collaboration generated by the councils,

DOT focuses its limited program resources more effectively and

provides services more efficiently.

We used the Partnership in developing our surface transportation reauthorization proposal, and will continue to use it as we

carry out TEA–21 programs involving rural interests, including focusing on a very critical issue, which is greater involvement of local

rural officials in Statewide planning processes. As you know, our

transportation planning process emphasizes getting local participation. It is a very structured process, and in a lot of the States it

is difficult to do the Statewide process unless you reach out to rural

officials. So, we are emphasizing that all States need to do a good

job of reaching out and involving local officials in that process.

In Illinois, for example, the Rural Development Council’s Transportation Committee completed a 2-year Statewide rural public

transportation study that identified barriers to more effective

transportation services all across rural Illinois. the Committee will

meet with the Illinois DOT to review the report’s recommendations

and discuss implementation opportunities.

6

As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Chairman, the Idaho Rural Partnership has also supported the involvement of rural officials in the

Statewide planning process. The Idaho Partnership’s executive director was the facilitator for the Idaho Transportation Planning

Task Force, which brought together the Idaho Department of

Transportation, the Association of Idaho Cities, the Idaho Association of Counties, and the Idaho Association of Highway Districts to

resolve differences concerning local transportation planning. The

task force successfully developed a consultation process that balances the needs of all the parties involved, and makes sure that everyone is involved in that decision making process.

In Connecticut we have another good example. In 1996 the Connecticut Rural Development Council co-sponsored a successful public forum, ‘‘Designing Roads and Bridges to Preserve Community

Character,’’ which brought together the Connecticut DOT, Federal

Highway Administration, U.S. DOT, local government, State and

congressional representatives, historic preservationists and environmentalists, all to discuss how to make those programs work better, to develop alternative design guidelines, and again, to consult

very heavily with local community groups about these issues.

Tourism is also a vital part of the Nation’s economy, and transportation plays in that, and particularly in rural areas can be very

much a boost to the local economy. The department is trying to improve coordination and cooperation between transportation and

tourism practitioners on the Federal, State and local level. The National Partnership has been an important player in that effort.

For instance, in Utah, the Rural Development Council facilitated

the public information gathering process for the National Park

Service as they developed a draft management plan for Zion National Park and Zion National Canyon. The South Western Utah

Planning Authorities Council process facilitated discussions about

transportation needs for the Park and worked with the National

Park Service to develop a consolidated transportation hub and visitors center which will open this year in May.

In conclusion, let me just say that the Department has been a

strong and consistent supporter of the Partnership. We believe that

the Partnership is a valuable resource not only to our department,

but also to rural America. We strongly support its role in bringing

together partners from the public and private sectors to help rural

communities improve their economies and quality of life.

That concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, and I

have submitted a written statement for the record. Thank you very

much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conti can be found in the appendix on page 40.]

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Now, let me turn to Claude Fox, Administrator, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and

Human Services. Administrator Fox, welcome before the Committee.

7

STATEMENT OF CLAUDE EARL FOX, M.D., ADMINISTRATOR,

HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Dr. FOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HHS appreciates the opportunity both to be here and to support rural health as well as this

Partnership, and you also have my prepared statement.

Senator CRAIG. Yes.

Dr. FOX. If I could just make a few opening comments, I was

born in a rural hospital, I grew up in a rural community. I received

my medical education in a rural State. My first practice was in a

rural community. I also chaired the Alabama task force chartered

by the Alabama Legislature to look at rural health. And the Agency

that I oversee within Health and Human Services actually administers the rural health policy for the department, so we have the

responsibility for the entire department to look at the policy issues

across the department, including HCFA and elsewhere.

As I am sure you know, health is important for a lot of reasons,

not the least of which is the economic benefits to the community,

and health is often the largest employer, or second largest employer only to education. HHS is absolutely committed to this partnership, and I think we have and will continue to demonstrate

ways. One, the most visible way, is we put almost $500,000 a year

into this partnership, and we plan to continue to do so. The second

is that the current Chair of the National Council is Dianne

McSwain, who is with HHS. And, third, we have the active participation of a number of departments and agencies within HHS, including my own Office of Rural Health Policy.

Let me say personally, I think for the value of the council and

why it needs to continue to exist, one of my dilemmas, having come

from local and State government in rural communities, is to try to

think about how, as we put different Federal assets into the community, how do we make sure that the whole is better or greater

than the sum of the parts? And I think often we put things into

the communities without the right hand knowing what the left

hand does.

I think one of the values of this council is for us to be able to

talk across agencies. It is not because of ill will, but we just sometimes don’t have an opportunity to do it. This offers the chance, on

issues like the Children’s Health Insurance Program, to talk about

how we can coordinate on outreach, and we have done that across

Federal partners. It offers us the opportunity, on issues like TANF

and the implications for TANF for rural communities, to talk about

what we can do to make sure that we protect rural communities

wherever possible. It offers the opportunity, for the Critical Access

Hospital Program that we oversee, in trying to help rural hospitals

survive, to make sure all the Federal partners are working together

wherever possible.

It is for those and other reasons that we think the Partnership

provides both a forum and venue for Federally, those of us here,

to talk, but also to make sure that we hear and we do reality

checks with rural communities through these local councils. We

think this Partnership is very valuable. Again, we will continue our

participation, and I look forward to any questions you might have

today. Thank you.

8

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fox can be found in the appendix

on page 45.]

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Fox, thank you very much. while I may direct my questions specifically to one of the three of you, all three

of you are certainly invited to make comment, if you feel it appropriate and it fits your agency, your knowledge of the Partnership,

and the issues at hand.

Secretary Long, in your statement you note that the lack of consistency in funding and the lack of legislative foundation providing

policy guidance and direction has been problematic from the very

beginning of the initiative. Will you expand on this? And, with

these thoughts in mind, would you support a line item for the partnership within USDA and other departments’ budgets? Or how do

you propose to deal with the lack of consistent funding? Also, what

do you believe needs to be done legislatively to provide more direction and guidance while maintaining the flexibility necessary to

meet the diverse needs of rural communities?

You gentlemen may certainly wish to comment on that also.

Ms. LONG-THOMPSON. Well, I think that the structure of this initiative, which is a great idea with great objectives and has had success in 36 States, they are very valuable to rural communities, but

with the current structure I think a line item in the appropriations

bill would be a mistake. And I think it would be a mistake for one

primary reason, that being, since the councils are not under the authority of any agency or department in the Federal Government, I

think that would be the first place that appropriators would look

to cut funding in times of working very hard to balance the budget.

We have a difficult time, as you know, coming up with the salaries and expenses levels that are needed to administer the program

levels that we have. Just in the time that I have been here, as you

know, we have increased our program level significantly and at the

same time we have considerably fewer number of employees for

oversight. So I think it would become a very vulnerable line item

and would probably be eliminated within a very short period of

time, if not the very first year.

I think that structurally, and I don’t have the answer here, but

I think that structurally, if there are going to be Federal dollars

spent, if you are consistently going to fund a particular initiative,

then there has to be some kind of accountability back to the Federal Government. It is only good management, and that is not the

way this is set up.

It as set up, I think initially when it was established this way,

it was probably the very best approach you could have. Since that

time, we have restructured in the Department of Agriculture and

we have a very different structure that we are working with out

in rural communities. We have Rural Development State Directors

that did not exist in 1990.

So, I think that there needs to be some kind of accountability.

I know, as an Under Secretary who has to take responsibility for

the entire Rural Development budget, and can be and am held accountable by you, as I should be, and even more significantly by

the taxpayers of this country, I need to be able to have some kind

of authority over where the money is going and how it is being

9

spent. So I think you would want some kind of authorizing language that would have to be a critical component of any changes.

Senator CRAIG. The character of its creation, the executive order,

basically kind of puts the idea out there, creates a broad structure

but does not create by law a defined policy structure. Is that what

you are saying?

Ms. LONG-THOMPSON. That is right. And when we have in Rural

Development what is a 21-percent cut in administrative expenses,

we have a very difficult time, even in a large agency, when you

have an obligation to make that uniform across those areas that we

are funding. That really hurts the Rural Development Councils

that have very small budgets to begin with.

Senator CRAIG. Gentlemen, would either of you wish to, or both

of you, comment on the base question?

Mr. CONTI. I would be happy to add to Secretary Long’s answer

and to really support her, in particular because we have a situation

in the Department of Transportation where we have been able to

fund the Partnership about $500,000 a year for several years. That

money was no longer available taken from the Highway Trust

Fund when TEA–21 was technically corrected. The administrative

take-down-what is called the administrative take-down out of the

Trust Fund for both Federal highways and for the State highway

departments-was rearranged and changed, and the administrative

budgets of the Federal Highway Administration in particular were

fairly squeezed because of that take-down.

We also got a prohibition in 1999 from the House Appropriations

Committee that we could not transfer this $500,000 to the partnership, and that prohibition was extended in the fiscal year 2000

budget. So, we are at a point where, unless we take it from some

other agency, Within the Department, we really don’t have the resources to support the Partnership at that level.

In fiscal 1999 I took $50,000 out of my administrative budget,

which is somewhere in the neighborhood of $2,000,000; so $50,000

is a fairly good contribution from that size budget, but it was about

as much as I was able to do from my office. We have requested in

the fiscal 2001 budget, which is up here for consideration, $500,000

again for the Partnership, but that may be subject to the same

treatment that it has received in the last couple of years.

So we do have a problem in assuring the consistency of funding,

and I think that is an issue we would love to work with you on,

with the caveats Secretary Long mentioned, that we don’t want to

create targets for other people.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. Administrator Fox.

Dr. FOX. Mr. Chairman, we don’t have a position on the line item

of funding. I think we put up $422,000 a year and we plan to continue to provide at least that. The Partnership has been very valuable to us.

I would say that it is not a command and control function, and

one of the values of the Partnership is, it is a convening dialogue

across Federal agencies with the local councils. I would, quite

frankly, defer to the local councils if they felt there was any need

to change the administrative structure. I mean, we are doing it for

them anyway.

10

Senator CRAIG. OK. We have been joined by my colleague, Senator Kent Conrad, who is a valuable member of this committee and

probably one of rural America’s clearer voices. Kent, will you wish

to make comment?

STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

NORTH DAKOTA

Senator CONRAD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And

thank you very much for holding this hearing, and a special welcome to Jill Long-Thompson.

Every year, Mr. Chairman, I do a thing we call ‘‘Marketplace’’ in

North Dakota, and it has developed into quite an event. We had

about 5,000 people there this year, and we have a series of display

booths that show people what are things that are working to diversify a farming operation, to build jobs in a community, to attract

new economic development to a region.

And, then we have a series of classes as well, this year nearly

150 different classes that were held, many of them, about a third

of them on technology this year, and many of them were completely

over-subscribed. I mean, you would go into the classes, classrooms

were packed. And Jill Long-Thompson has come before, was there

this year. We very much appreciate it, your presentation and your

contribution to that program.

I think the reason I raised it, Mr. Chairman, is because, as you

know so well, these rural States have been very hard hit by the agricultural crisis. We have been beset by low prices, bad weather,

and a very, very straitened financial circumstance.

The result is, on many of the main streets of cities and towns in

my State, and I am sure it is true in your State as well, there are

really hard times out there. Anything that we can do to help generate economic activity, or plans for attracting economic activity,

that is a plus, and I want to make sure that we are doing everything possible in terms of Federal Government involvement that

can be productive.

I have found Jill Long-Thompson’s office very sincerely motivated

to make a positive difference in this area. I think her own background on a farm probably has something to do with this sincere

motivation, because you don’t have to talk very long about the

problems that we are having with her, and she knows exactly what

we are talking about.

I would just like to go back to the suggestion that the chairman

made, whether it would be helpful to have a line item. I am on the

Budget Committee, and I am on the Finance Committee, and I

have learned, through sometimes bitter experience, it does make a

difference. And I know that the panelists here have had a chance

to respond to that, but I just wanted to add my voice that I think

it would be a useful thing. If I could——

Senator CRAIG. Let me add, I asked the question about a line

item in the context of the current structure of the program. It is

an executive order that created it. We did not by a law create it,

nor did we define it in a clear way, as to its role and its relationship. So I am concerned because the agencies in part have, because

of its flexibility, been able to fund it to some extent. How do we

11

create consistency, I think is what I am interested in, and stability,

therefore predictability, coming out of this program.

Senator CONRAD. Well, I think you make a very good point, because that is critically important out on the ground. If you have

something that is there 1-year and it is not there the next, that is

very disruptive to any kind of long-term plan.

I would just like to ask Jill Long-Thompson, could you tell us

what you see happening out across the country? You have a special

perspective because you don’t just come to my State, and you don’t

just go to the Chairman’s State, you are out around the country.

Could you just give us a brief thumbnail on what you are seeing

out there across the country?

Ms. LONG-THOMPSON. Well, there are some rural communities

that are doing very well right now, but in many rural communities,

particularly those that are more isolated and not as close to regional centers, they are having a very, very difficult time. North

Dakota has a number of communities that there is a lot of work

going on within the communities, but without having some kind of

larger economy to tie into, they face a real challenge.

What I think is particularly valuable about the Rural Development Councils—and in this job, like in your jobs, you hear all sides

of an issue. The councils are often criticized for spending the bulk

of their energy on meetings within the State and national meetings

and otherwise, but the reality is they don’t have program dollars

to administer. And in the rural community that I come from, having an opportunity to meet with folks from various Federal agencies, as well as State agencies, as well as interact with private

foundations, that is a real opportunity.

My home town, our mayor is a part-time mayor. We don’t have

a staff of folks who have Master’s Degrees in public administration

and a specialty in grant writing. So when you have some kind of

method——

Senator CONRAD. It is written over the kitchen table.

Ms. LONG-THOMPSON. Late at night after work, exactly. And so

when you have some kind of initiative that brings these folks together, these meetings can be very, very valuable. But the real

challenge is, with regard to the funding, if there is not a legislative

structure that establishes accountability between the Federal Government that is providing the funding and the entity that is receiving the funding, in this case the Rural Development Councils, I

think it would be very difficult to have sustained support for a line

item. And so I think that if you have one, you have to have the

other.

Senator CONRAD. Can I ask you just a very specific—Mr. Chairman, might I just ask a final question?

Senator CRAIG. Sure.

Senator CONRAD. A very specific question to Jill about the intermediary relending program. Our problem in North Dakota, one of

our problems is that so many Federal programs are based on unemployment, and our problem is not unemployment, our problem

is no employment. Our unemployment rate shows it is very low.

Our employment rate, in the State of North Dakota, Mr. Chairman,

hovers around 2-percent.

Senator CRAIG. Two-percent.

12

Senator CONRAD. That doesn’t mean that we have got some burgeoning economic activity going on, it means people vote with their

feet and they leave town when they don’t have a job. It is pretty

hard to make it through the winter without a job. We have an

awful lot of people who are badly underemployed.

One of the things we have tried to do is get the various programs

to relate to out-migration, and it has come to my attention on the

IRP funding, that the application scoring only looks at out-migration over the past 10-years. In our State, we have been subject to

out-migration for the last 100-years. We are one of the few States

in the Nation that is going down in population, and I would be very

interested in getting a change in the scoring so that, if you have

a place that has had consistent out-migration for decades, not the

just the last 10-years, that is taken into account. Would that be

something we could work together on?

Ms. LONG-THOMPSON. Yes, I think it would just require a regulatory change. It would just require a regulatory change, and I will,

when I get back to the office today, I will start working on that.

Senator CONRAD. I would appreciate it, because I do think it

would be a realistic way of assessing where real need is, I think.

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. I might say that maybe some of those

folks have discovered Idaho, but I will leave it alone.

Senator CONRAD. Mr. Chairman, let me just say our people like

to go South, and I am not talking South Dakota. Something to do

with our winters, I think

Senator CRAIG. If anybody representing Senator Daschle is here,

I would hope that word gets back to him.

In the 1996 farm bill, Section 381(1)(l), for the creation of the

Rural Development Interagency Working Group to coordinate,

make recommendations and evaluate all Federal rural development

efforts, the conference report language for the bill indicated an expectation that National Rural Development Partnership would be

the foundation upon with the Interagency Working Group is established. The report also provided for a role for State Rural Development Councils. What is the status of this Interagency Working

Group? Was it ever established by the Secretary as instructed in

the farm bill, and has it interacted with the Partnership?

Ms. LONG-THOMPSON. I want to check on a couple of things.

Senator CRAIG. OK.

Ms. LONG-THOMPSON. It has been functioning informally, and we

have submitted a report to Congress, and it is based on input from

a number of sources. It has been interagency, as directed by law.

Something else that we now do that has been helpful in this

whole process, is our State Directors for Rural Development at

USDA are required to write strategic plans for their respective

States, and the strategic plan is for USDA Rural Development Administration of our programs. But in writing that strategic plan,

they have worked with the Rural Development Councils in the 36

States that have them. They have also worked with a number of

other entities in their States, and we have brought that information together, and that was a part of the report that was—or was

used in compiling the report that was submitted to Congress.

13

Senator CRAIG. We recognize that there are 36 States. Our goal

was that this would be a national program, nationwide. It is obvious that not all are participating. Why isn’t there a council in each

State, and what might be able to be done to achieve that goal?

Ms. LONG-THOMPSON. We have worked to encourage States to

form Rural Development Councils, not only us at USDA, but the

Partnership, and not just the national Partnership, but the councils

themselves have worked in outreach. I believe it would be a more

powerful network if there were one in existence in every State, and

we have pushed for that, as I mentioned in my testimony. We have

four States that we expect will have councils fairly soon.

But ultimately we don’t have control over it because it is an executive order without legislative direction. There is no authorization,

and so ultimately it falls on the responsibility of the States to determine whether or not they want to have a council. And, as you

know, the governors play a particularly strong role in that because

they are the ones who appoint the director for each council in each

State.

Senator CRAIG. OK.

Ms. LONG-THOMPSON. But we are working on that. And I will tell

you it is a double-edged sword, because at the same time that you

want there to be one in all 50 States, because of the gained influence from that, that means you have to divide the resources that

you have among a larger number of councils. So I still think the

right decision is for it, if it is truly going to be national, there

should be one in every State if the States want them. But in a true

Federal-State partnership, you leave a lot of that control to the

State level, and it is up to them to make that determination.

Senator CRAIG. Your presence here obviously says all of your

agencies are involved in the partnership, and you have some success stories. Do you feel that the all-agency and department approach in contributing is adequately being done in the Partnership

with both money and time at this point, and what do you believe

can be done to increase participation in the Partnership?

Obviously, transportation is key, the kind of programs that

USDA has is key, that can contribute to economic development.

Health care is critically important to rural America, especially the

foundation of health care if we are to have the ability to draw new

development, new jobs, into a region. But the Partnership has been

somewhat limited in its participation at this level. Any suggestions?

Ms. LONG-THOMPSON. I would then go back to what I said initially, which is some kind of legislative authorization with accountability.

Mr. CONTI. I think we would support that as well, Mr. Chairman.

I think there are good examples where it has worked well. Again,

from our department’s perspective, it is very important to involve

people at the local level in the rural areas in these important

transportation decisions, and we see good examples of where that

has really helped create better transportation projects and really

helped local economies. So we would support strengthening that relationship.

Ms. LONG-THOMPSON. One other suggestion would be more

money appropriated from Congress. That would help.

14

Dr. FOX. Mr. Chairman, two comments. One, it is my understanding that we could do with perhaps a little broader participation across the Federal Government on the National Council, that

is one thing that perhaps is limiting us. And obviously if they participated, they would hopefully bring some money to the table. And

that also is impacting, I understand there are four States that

would like to have a council today but are limited by the lack of

funding, so it really is an issue in many ways of—I mean there are

a lot of other issues as well, and I don’t want to minimize those,

but funding is a major issue.

Ms. LONG-THOMPSON. May I follow up on that, too?

Senator CRAIG. Sure, Jill.

Ms. LONG-THOMPSON. Because I have spoken with Mayor

Graham and with others about requiring a greater match on the

part of the States, but that would be quite a burden on the States,

and there are many that believe that, that would literally kill some

of the councils in some of the States. So I think that is an important point to have on the record.

Senator CRAIG. My last question to all of you, then: Should the

Partnership continue? And if it is to continue, should we legislate

it?

Ms. LONG-THOMPSON. The answer to the first question is, without hesitation, yes, it should continue, and I think I unhesitatingly

say yes, there needs to be some kind of legislative authorization to

make it as successful as it can be across the country.

Mr. CONTI. I would concur with those remarks, I think that is

correct.

Dr. FOX. Absolutely. It is a valuable tool, and I think we would

be pleased to work with the Congress if you wanted to put this in

statute.

Senator CRAIG. OK, well, thank you very much for your presence

here today. If I have additional questions, I will submit them to

you in writing and you can respond to them in your leisure. Thank

you very much for taking time to be here today. Thank you very

much.

Now, our second panel: Chuck Fluharty, Director, Rural Policy

Research Institute; Bill Graham, Mayor of City of Scottsburg; Tom

Hudson of the Tom Hudson Company; Cornelius Grant, Executive

Director, North Dakota Rural Development Partnership; Dave

Black, Deputy Secretary for Community Affairs & Development,

Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development; and Colleen Landkamer, Commissioner, First District, Blue

Earth County. Where is that?

Ms. LANDKAMER. Minnesota.

Senator CRAIG. Minnesota. Thank you all for being here. With

that, we will start out in the order in which I have introduced you

all to the hearing room. Chuck Fluharty, Director, Rural Policy Research Institute. Thank you for being here. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF CHUCK FLUHARTY, DIRECTOR, RURAL

POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (RUPRI), COLUMBIA, MO

Mr. FLUHARTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask my

full testimony be included in the record.

Senator CRAIG. Without objection.

15

Mr. FLUHARTY. I appreciate that. First of all, I would like to express appreciation to you and the Subcommittee for this opportunity. I do have testimony, I was asked to go into the full overview

of ‘‘the new rural reality,’’ and I think you know that is primarily

why RUPRI works with the U.S. Congress across a broad range of

issues.

In the interest of time I would, unless you have specific questions, Mr. Chairman, like to just say generally what that reflects

is what the old rural sociologist once said: ‘‘When you have seen

one rural community, you have seen one rural community.’’ We are

a highly diverse rural America. It makes it therefore difficult to

craft national programs. It is why an occasion like the Partnership

is so critical.

Our rural economy is growing. It is fragile and uneven. Threefourths of our counties in the United States are rural, that are

growing. However, of those only four out of ten are getting most of

the growth and, as you know, our historic extraction industry counties are lagging. Generally, we still have huge challenges in human

and social capital, but we are benefiting from an expansion in the

economy of our country, and significant pockets of significant

growth exist, and I would be happy to take any questions you have.

I would like, however, just to offer a few comments. One of my

great gifts is the ability to travel, not only around the country but

to other countries, and learn how their public culture is working

with the private sector in rural development. I would just like to

offer four or five perspectives on this moment.

I think it is really critical, Mr. Chairman, that we get an emergent rural perspective from this Congress. I think the fact that

Under Secretary Long-Thompson and Assistant Secretary Conti

and Administrator Fox are here is recognizing there is an emergent

understanding of the unique rural differential.

The second thing I would like to ask is that you continue to think

about how critical this Subcommittee is. We know that the farm

gate and Main Street are inextricably linked from now on, and I

think the potential for your leadership to continue in looking at integrative role policy efforts out of this Subcommittee is so very critical. We are very enthused on the House side there is a Congressional Rural Caucus forming which is bipartisan. And I think because of the growing suburban context in the policy culture, it is

critical for leaders like yourself to continue to offer these opportunities. We commend you for it. I think it will be critical.

I would like to offer three or four perspectives, at the end, from

RUPRI’s understanding of where rural policy is, that does relate to

the partnership. I think it is really critical that we build a more

integrative community, common sense, grassroots-based sense of

how public policy is going to move in rural communities. And I

think the National Rural Development Partnership, if we didn’t

have it now, we would be creating it to do just exactly that.

I think there really is a need for a new rural pragmatism. We

are not going to have a national rural policy. We need to build community rural policies, and I think to take that to scale, we are

going to need to think about what leadership in this Congress can

do to accomplish that.

16

I will list five areas where I think globally rural policy is moving

to address specific public policy opportunities in a private sector

world. The first is the digital divide. It is absolutely critical. There

is a legislative and regulatory component to that. There is very,

very clearly in that regard a private sector link, and I think the

Partnership is doing very meaningful work in States to do that.

Second, we have got to look at private sector based regional economic strategies in IT. Many of these States are doing that and are

working with congressional committees there. third, we really need

to support rural entrepreneurship, and that is starting to happen.

It is not just equity and venture capital, but it is also systems of

support. The councils are doing that.

The last two issues, we really do need to continue to address

what is going on in the Ag sector, how those challenges and shifts

are occurring. councils are engaged in that. The last issue is the

whole area of the rural landscape: land use, environmentally appropriate new business and infrastructure. And, finally, how do we

build social and institutional capital to make sure our best and our

brightest do not leave?

In closing, I think that is all about local leadership, and I think

we really need to craft new rural, new governance opportunities for

leaders like Mayor Graham, Colleen Landkamer, and councils. If

we didn’t have a Partnership, we wouldn’t be doing that, Mr.

Chairman.

I think this 10-year experiment is at a very different place than

it was, as is rural America today. And I really do think you will

continue to provide, hope you will continue to provide leadership to

think through legislatively ‘‘How do we sustain this?’’ It is unique

in our country, and reflects global trends in building public, private

philanthropic linkages that are community-based.

I really do thank you again, and the Committee, for your time

today. This is a wonderful moment to begin this dialogue, and we

thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fluharty can be found in the appendix on page 53.]

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you very much for those comments.

Now, Mayor Bill Graham with the City of Scottsburg. Mayor,

why don’t you pull that microphone around so that we can hear

you?

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL GRAHAM, MAYOR, CITY OF

SCOTTSBURG, SCOTTSBURG, INDIANA

Mayor GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the

Committee. I would like to say I am very honored but very humbled to be here today. And I am Bill Graham, and am here today

wearing several hats. I am the Mayor of the city of Scottsburg, Indiana, a community of 6,300 people; I am the Chairman of the Indiana Rural Development Council; and I am also Chair of the Executive Committee of the National Rural Development Partnership.

I would like to give you an overview of how work on the Partnership supports the Indiana Council, how these organizations benefit

communities like Scottsburg and other States.

The National Partnership provides foundations for success. It has

the unique ability to connect the efforts of Federal agencies by coVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:29 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 067661 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 67661.TXT SAGRI1 PsN: SAGRI1
17

ordinating resources. All of these agencies have programs that benefit the quality of life in rural America. The work of the NRDP is

exceptional, however, because no other structure exists to provide

coordination of these services to the State and local levels.

Along with Federal agencies, the Partnership brings in representatives of State, local, and tribal governments, as well as the

private sector. All partners come to the table as equals and participate in decisionmaking. We are also equals in doing the work and

in celebrating our successes. We are not about taking credit, but

instead we work together for the mutual benefit for all. The Partnership does not have advocate for new programs or bigger government. Instead, we focus on building bridges, using the foundation

to make better rural communities across the country.

The Partnership provides a forum that allows us to network with

our counterparts from around the country. This network results in

sharing the experiences and good examples that take place in each

of the member States. I have taken many ideas home from the national and State meetings and put them to use to make my community a better place to live.

Limited resources certainly minimize our effectiveness. Our communities and States look to the National Partnership for leadership

through issues. It is important that we continue to provide these

services for the betterment of our rural areas.

The Indiana Rural Development Council is the only Statewide

entity working exclusively to alleviate the disparities in Indiana.

Our agency’s purpose is to coordinate the efforts of citizens and

governments to meet the economic and social needs of rural Indiana.

The council does not operate as a State agency, nor are we a Federal agency. Our council operates at the discretion of the leadership

of our governing board, which is comprised of 28 representatives

from each of the five sectors. We also add State legislators appointments, and we recently added representatives from the U.S. Senate

and Congress’ offices.

The council is not a funding source for communities. We operate

on $87,000 a year to date. The work of the council is done through

task forces, and some of these have been the Environmental Infrastructure Working Group, helping communities identify potential

funding sources for water and wastewater projects and other infrastructure projects.

We also have a Housing Task Force which assists the communities in researching all of their housing assistance. This is known

as IHART, Indiana Housing Assistance Review Team, to help applicants identify partners who can assist in providing affordable,

safe and sanitary housing.

The Community Visitation Program is one of my favorites. The

community visits allow a team of resource providers to listen to

elected officials as well as community residents, to allow key problem areas and resource needs to surface in an informal, open setting. Rural communities, although they may be about the same

size, differ greatly when it comes to needs. We are able to provide

a handbook to these elected officials reporting not only what we

have heard throughout our visits, but also listing resources available to them if they wish to take action on these resources.

18

I can go on and on, but as a Mayor I would like to say how important it has been to me to serve in the Indiana Rural Development Council and to serve in the National Rural Development

Partnership.

I picked up my paper before I left home, and we have a local

paper in Scottsburg, Indiana, and it is called ‘‘The Giveaway,’’ and

it just comes out every Wednesday, so I haven’t got the latest copy

but this is the latest copy before I left Scottsburg.

Page 1 on ‘‘The Giveaway’’—and I only bring this to show you the

kind of issues that we face in small rural communities and as a

local elected official—on page 1, ‘‘Workforce Center is designated as

a ‘one-stop center’ for support services in Scott County.’’ And why

our Workforce Center was designated as a one-stop is through my

participation in the Indiana State Council and the National Rural

Development Partnership, and my effort to make sure that our

county was a one-stop center.

Page 5, ‘‘Domestic situation results in shooting at local school

and liquor store-two dead.’’ Very devastating to a small community

with a population of 23,000 people in the whole county, but very

real rural issues that we deal with.

Page 9, ‘‘Purdue Extension Service offers stress management

workshop for farmers and rural residents.’’ And this maybe might

have been one of those most sickening to me, is the fact that we

are looking like we have already give up on the farm crisis and

those folks are going to lose their farm, not looking at programs

like risk management and other things, as to how much they might

be keeping their farm.

Special insert, ‘‘Basketball Mania Preview.’’ Basketball still prevails very high in the State of Indiana.

There is no educational degree or training I can get to prepare

me for dealing with these issues, no State or Federal Government

that can provide all the services we need to assist our communities

with all these things. To be effective, local leaders need to network

to find proper resources to assist them. The National Partnership,

through the work of the State councils, provides this nonpartisan

forum.

I would really like to thank all of those who has been our partners and our supporters, and would really like to thank this group,

but the Under Secretary, Jill Long-Thompson, and USDA Rural

Development has certainly been a faithful partner to us, and all

the other Federal funding agencies who have been here today, I

personally want to say thanks for standing by and helping us. I

must conclude, but I will submit my testimony, and thank you

again very much for allowing me to be here.

[The prepared statement of Mayor Graham can be found in the

appendix on page 59.]

Senator CRAIG. Mayor, thank you very much for that heartfelt

testimony, and thank you for your leadership at both the State and

national level.

Now, let me turn to Tom Hudson of the Tom Hudson Company

of Moscow, Idaho. Folks, that is not ‘‘Moscow,’’ that is ‘‘Mosco.’’

Tom, welcome before the Committee.

19

STATEMENT OF TOM HUDSON, PRESIDENT, TOM HUDSON

COMPANY, AND CHAIR, IDAHO RURAL PARTNERSHIP

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for that

clarification. I appreciate it. I would also like to thank you for your

efforts in organizing this very important session. It is a privilege

to be here.

I am the Chairman of the Idaho Rural Partnership and the principal of Tom Hudson Company. I have been a rural development

practitioner for 21 years, and am proud to be a fifth generation

rural Idahoan. I share this background to emphasize that rural development is really not just my vocation but also my heritage and

my mission in life, so I take my time with you very seriously today.

In the precious time that I have with you, I would like to emphasize four key points. First, American rural communities and lifestyles are in peril. Second, a strategic public-private partnership is

needed to restore and sustain a stable rural economy. Third, our

State and National Rural Development Partnerships are by far the

most effective means for undertaking this effort. And, fourth, the

current linkage to our valued Federal partners lacks two essential

elements: Our funding is unpredictable, and there is no systematic

commitment to a long-term relationship.

As someone from the private sector, I have developed my commitment to the Idaho Rural Partnership carefully. I am supposed

to be in business to make money. Six years ago I chose to volunteer

my time with this organization because I found that it wasn’t just

unusual in the State, it is actually unique. Hundreds of people

from all walks of rural life and government are working together

as a team on rural issues and collaborating very effectively, building a series of outstanding successes.

The Idaho Rural Partnership operates from the principle that the

residents of a community are best qualified to determine what constitutes progress in their communities. It follows to us that the best

role for our partnership, then, is to inform and advise our rural

communities and businesses; to increase their capacity for helping

themselves; to link rural people with programs and resources that

can help them address their needs; and, finally, to guide governmental partners in filling the gaps in rural service.

Frankly, speaking, I came prepared today to outline and brag

about, about 20 or so recent successes at Idaho Rural Partnership.

Most of these projects have specifically helped to improve business

conditions and helped to stabilize or create jobs. However, in the

brief time that I have with you, I will just say simply that the

projects we have completed address important facets of

agriculture——

Senator CRAIG. If you have, go ahead and give us a couple of examples. I think for the record it would be important to understand

the kind of projects or the character of the projects involved. Please

take time to do that.

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you. I appreciate that. There are so many

partners in Idaho, it is difficult for me to pick anybody else’s favorite reliably, but I can tell you that my own personal one relates to

a project that has taken just about 2-years to undertake, incorporating the insights of nearly every partner we have on our board.

It is related to the biological control of weeds, which as you may

20

well know, in Idaho is a very serious issue. Just on an annual

basis, we lose 30,000-acres a year to yellow star thistle.

So we have our State Agriculture Department, Department of

Commerce, Labor, so many different agencies that have a particular interest in this. Idaho Rural Partnership, led by our executive

director, Dick Gardner, began a process a couple of years ago to engage all of these different agencies, nonprofit organizations, and in

fact our tribes, in trying to address and identify a system that can

successfully begin to push back on our dramatic noxious weeds

problem.

In the course of that 2-years, we successfully created a conceptual feasibility study, then went into full-fledged business planning

with assistance from our outstanding partners in the Economic Development Administration. Ultimately, the Nez Perce Tribe, with

assistance from the Department of Agriculture and the University

of Idaho Extension, as well as many other members of the Partnership, put together an entirely new tribal enterprise focused on biological control of weeks. They are now up, fully running, and as a

full-fledged business, addressing problems not just in our State but

all over the intermountain Northwest, creating highly valuable jobs

within the Nez Perce community, a very stressed community in

Lapwai with a high level of unemployment which has exceeded 50-

percent in recent years, and these are jobs in the area of horticulture science, forestry, and entomology. I think this is an outstanding example of the kinds of things that can go on, and I have

others that I would be happy to share with you.

Note that our projects are creatively funded using agency and

private sector investments. Both the Idaho and National Partnerships are not about massive new spending programs, as our national Chair has shared with you, but rather we are about making

existing programs more effective by working together. In a sense,

the State Rural Development Councils often work as a glue to link

and bind diverse sets of organizations together.

We feel that the job of the Idaho Rural Partnership has only just

started. As with many Western States, the economic health of

Idaho communities varies widely. As you pointed out earlier, we

have communities that are growing, some communities growing

substantially, to the degree that with 8- to 12-percent growth annually, they just struggle to keep up with it. But more often we find

that our rural resource dependent communities are just fighting to

remain viable.

And, similarly, the job of the National Rural Development Partnership has just begun. To be more effective, we need to expand

the principle of collaboration. I think all of us in the 36 States represented currently feel that we need this in all 50 States. It also

means that funding councils is needed at a level where they can

actively management a larger number of collaborations.

I am excited about this hearing because I believe one important

partner has not really been invited to participate in the past 10-

years of the National Rural Development Partnership, and that is

namely the U.S. Congress. You have the ability to recognize collaboration as the most effective way to get progress accomplished

on the ground, and the NRDP is the most effective way to lead this

effort.

21

Together, we have the ability to allow Federal field staff to participate fully in our State councils, and as you may know, they

can’t all do that today. You have the ability to encourage more Federal agencies with rural priorities to invest financially in the

NRDP, and you have the ability to build bridges across the vertical

flows of Federal funding streams.

We in Idaho invite you and we urge you to build upon this outstanding job that we in Idaho see as being attained by the National

Rural Development Partnership. We would like you to help us engage our Federal partners strategically and systematically in our

mission to sustain your rural economies and communities.

Finally, I would say we look forward to continuing this important

dialogue with Congress on rural partners, and I thank you very

much for this chance to speak with you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hudson can be found in the appendix on page 63.]

Senator CRAIG. Tom, thank you very much.

Now, let us go to Cornelius Grant, executive director, North Dakota Rural Development Partnership. Mr. Grant, welcome before

the Committee.

STATEMENT OF CORNELIUS GRANT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NORTH DAKOTA RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Mr. GRANT. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the North

Dakota Rural Development Council and our fellow State Rural Development Councils in 35 States located across rural America, I initially wish to express appreciation to this distinguished committee

for affording the opportunity to discuss the common bounds of the

partnership, and then to describe several relationships unique to

North Dakota.

The National Rural Development Partnership is a network of established and emerging rural institutions that work together to

strengthen rural America. Each of the State councils is comprised

of active volunteer members from a broad range of rural development organizations which are served by a full-time executive director. States may differ on how they are organized and on the rural

issues they decide to address.

The North Dakota Rural Development Council is governed by an

18-member board of directors, five derived from the private sector,

including the chairman, who is appointed by the governor of the

State. Other board members are elected by their peers to represent

community/local government, major communities, tribal governments, and State and Federal agencies. One or more of our board

meetings are held in field locations, in regional centers, or on one

of the State’s four Indian reservations.

I am an enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, and was born and reared on the Turtle Mountain

Reservation located in north central North Dakota. With pride I

say that I am also a retired 35-year veteran career civil servant.

It is my understanding that I am one of two Native Americans

presently serving as council executive directors, the other being

Chuck Akers from Alaska. Also, we have at least one board of directors chairman in Quentin Fairbanks of the Minnesota Rural

Partners, and one co-chairman, Donna Hair of the Oklahoma RDC.

22

I mention these factors to underscore the inclusive intent of the

State Rural Development Council concept, and as one of the stated

goals of the North Dakota Rural Development Council, to forge new

and proactive partnerships.

The NRDC and councils in general, and our counterparts in the

other 35 States at this time, are charged with the primary responsibility to bring together State, Federal, local and tribal governments and the private and public sectors in meaningful forums, offering opportunity to join forces, cooperate in new ways, and devise

strategic action plans to address common issues or concerns, ultimately to strengthen representative communities and rural America itself.

The council is not intended to be a new rural development program, a source of funds, a project clearinghouse or a lobbying organization. The goal is to make existing programs work more effectively to meet the needs of local communities. The council’s role is

to complement, reinforce and enhance these efforts by serving as

a facilitator, expediter, convener, coordinator, and where appropriate, initiator.

The North Dakota Rural Development Council is a relatively new

organization, but we are gaining visibility and stature as we proceed with our Annual Work and Strategic Plan. The first opportunity in this regard was to become part of the State’s team to assist the recovery efforts necessitated by the 1997 winter blizzards

and flood, which brought devastation to large numbers of Red River

Valley communities in eastern North Dakota and three of the four

Indian reservations in our State.

Two years ago the council entered into a partnership agreement

with the North Dakota Department of Emergency Management,

wherein local meetings would be held in the 14 counties and four

Indian reservations, to better acquaint the two parties to emergency management matters and the availability of State EM training and supportive service. Responsibilities were to encourage and

assist the design of a local awareness campaign, and ultimately formulate mutually acceptable operations and hazard mitigation

plans. At this juncture each of the four tribal governments have

designated EM contacts who are attending State-sponsored training sessions and are working closer with their neighbors on a defined cooperative response basis, neighbor-to-neighbor.

In early 1998 a new Leadership North Dakota initiative was announced by the governor’s office and, more importantly, the NRDC

was pronounced to be the lead entity in this special effort. The

council and partners developed a multistate strategy built around

high visibility statewide events, including the use of interactive television broadcasts to 12-sites, including the two tribal community

colleges. At this event we had over 200 participants.

The second event was a six-hour seminar presented by the bestselling author and motivational speaker, Tom Peters. This event

was attended, free of charge, by over 5,000 community leaders and

interested citizens.

The first annual Leadership Development Conference was attended by nearly 1,000 participants, who were welcomed by showcase community betterment booths and leadership building classes

and materials.

23

A direct offshoot of the Leadership Initiative was a charge to the

NRDC and many partners to develop a common format and process

for community strategic planning. Seventy facilitators from every

geographic region in our State have received the necessary training

and are so certified. As a prerequisite to this free training, each

committed to assist at least one community in their area to complete an acceptable strategic plan.

Later this month we are scheduled for a one-day refresher course

and additional group dynamic skill-building exercises. Selections

are currently being made for active participation by at least 30

communities and the 4 Indian reservations, to be assisted as necessary to complete satisfactory community strategic plans.

These activities are noted as tangible examples of the power of

proactive partnerships, such as those forged by the NRDC and a

large number of individuals and organizations who are dedicated

toward enhancing the quality of life and standard of living in North

Dakota. My counterparts in the other 35 States have accomplished

as much, or in many cases much, much more, through the auspices

of the State Rural Development Council concept.

Your demonstrated interest in the State Rural Development

Councils is sincerely appreciated. Thank you again for the opportunity to describe what the North Dakota Rural Development

Council is all about, and on behalf of rural America, our ambitions

for the future.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grant can be found in the appendix on page 69.]

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Grant, thank you. A gathering of 5,000 is

more of a ‘‘happening’’ than a meeting, isn’t it?

Mr. GRANT. It was a very exciting time.

Senator CRAIG. Must have been.

Mr. GRANT. And I emphasized the motivational part, but we

were trying to build leadership.

Senator CRAIG. Well, congratulations. That is a marvelous story.

Mr. GRANT. Thank you.

Senator CRAIG. Now, let me turn to Dave Black, Deputy Secretary for Community Affairs and Development, Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development.

Mr. Black.

STATEMENT OF DAVID E. BLACK, DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR

COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND DEVELOPMENT, PENNSYLVANIA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, HARRISBURG, PA

Mr. BLACK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon. My name is David Black. I am Deputy Secretary of what we call DCD, serving the residents of Pennsylvania. My responsibilities include oversight of Pennsylvania’s

development efforts in three primary areas: local government; community development, which we refer to affectionately as community

building; and entrepreneurial development. I also serve in the capacity as Governor Ridge’s alternate to the Appalachian Regional

Commission, which has a largely rural focus.

Prior to serving in State government, I did serve as a county

commissioner in rural Pennsylvania, northwestern Pennsylvania,

24

Clarion County. I had the opportunity also to serve as chairman of

the Northwest Regional Planning and Development Council, serving eight counties in rural northwestern Pennsylvania with delivery of both State and Federal programs.

What I would like to do today is just share with you a little experience from my prior life, and then perhaps talk a little bit of how

this integrates with what is going on with the Rural Development

Council in Pennsylvania.

During my time in service in county government, which started

in the mid 1980s through the mid 1990s, it was a very difficult

time in many rural places throughout the country. In northwestern

Pennsylvania, we were largely a natural resource based rural area,

coal, timber, oil and gas, and there were certainly difficulties in the

economy in general, but specific difficulties with the local economy.

We had to pool together regionally, work locally, try to figure out

a way to shift our local industrial base while the national economy

was going through a shift as well.

To make a long story short, through a lot of phone calls, a lot

of meetings, a lot of local effort, a lot of outreach, we did manage

to do that, did manage to get things turned around in our county.

However, the recovery I think, in looking at what is in place now

with the Pennsylvania Rural Development Council, might have

happened a little sooner, it might have happened a little quicker,

and I think probably would have happened with a lot less consternation on the part of local elected officials, had the Pennsylvania Rural Development Council been in place.

The Rural Development Council in Pennsylvania dates back to

1992, shortly after the executive order was signed. Since Governor

Tom Ridge has assumed office in 1995, the council was moved from

a regional office of one of our State agencies to the State Capital

in Harrisburg; it was removed from a State agency, became part

of the governor’s executive office; and was elevated to the stature

of the governor’s office and recently became part of State government through an executive order issued by Governor Ridge.

The council enjoys a stronger efficacy role because of this position

in State government, and has access to expanded resources within

State government. In addition to the Federal funding, State government, we do provide approximately $180,000 a year in State

funding to help the council carry out its mission.

The mission of our council in Pennsylvania is relatively simple:

convening, facilitating, coordinating, educating, and advocating.

The Pennsylvania Rural Development Council has sought to open

lines of access and communication throughout rural Pennsylvania.

We largely use telecommunications technology through 10-sites located throughout the Commonwealth to establish four, at least four

meetings a year to discuss a number of issues. These are live teleconferencing, so not only do people have the opportunity to hear

State and Federal officials, but they also have the opportunity to

exchange information and learn from their peers.

Having been on the presenter side of some of these forums, they

have been very lively. It was, as a former elected official, it was one

of the first times that I actually took a hit via telecommunications

at one of these meetings, but it was——

Senator CRAIG. But they can’t throw things.

25

Mr. BLACK. They can’t throw anything but, as you probably could

appreciate, verbal jabs do hurt occasionally.

Senator CRAIG. Yes, I have been there.

Mr. BLACK. But it was, it has been a very good mechanism and

a great opportunity for people to share information using telecommunications. Pennsylvania is a very large State, and to get

from the furthest corner of the State to the State Capital is about

6-hours.

We have had a number of very important presentations, and included in my testimony is detailed information of the presentations

we have had. A couple of interesting ones that I would like to mention here, in the limited time I have left, we did have presentations

on our transportation planning relative to TEA–21. We did have a

presentation on Governor Ridge’s Keystone Opportunity Zone program, which I believe the rural outreach helped this program to be

very successful in its first year, creating 3,000 jobs Statewide, but

notably 2,000 of those 3,000 jobs were in rural parts of the State.

We have talked about Federal safe drinking water law. We have

talked about electric choice; Pennsylvania was one of the first

States to use electric choice. We have also had discussions on Governor Ridge’s ‘‘Link to Learn’’ program, which is an outreach to

school districts to provide telecommunications and e-commerce capabilities in school districts.

Through this extensive outreach, the Pennsylvania Rural Development Council has been a great tool. The Pennsylvania council

does not do the development work, but it helps to enable it to happen. It increases the opportunity to share experiences across rural

Pennsylvania on a peer-to-peer basis, it increases accessibility to

Federal and State government officials on programs to aid development. That creates a sense of camaraderie among rural Pennsylvanians, so that they know that they are not alone and they are not

forgotten.

Thank you for the opportunity to be with you this afternoon.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Black can be found in the appendix on page 72.]

Senator CRAIG. Well, Mr. Black, thank you very much.

I was, I guess, surprised some months ago when I heard the trivia question asked, ‘‘Which is the most rural State in the Nation,

and which is the most urban State in the Nation?’’ We westerners,

because of our large landscapes and oftentimes small communities,

sparsely populated, view ourselves as often the more rural, but by

definition we are not; you are. And I found that most interesting,

but I guess it is a matter of the spread of populations as it results

to the numbers of people.

Mr. BLACK. Outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, we are a

largely rural State.

Senator CRAIG. That is right, and of course the most urban State

in the Nation, that none of us would probably have guessed, is Nevada, because all of the population is in one spot, nearly. The rest

of the State is Federal.

So when it comes to rural development, in the times I have had

the privilege of driving across your State, I am always impressed

by the spread of the population and the number of people who do

live in, by definition, a rural environment, significantly different in

26

a much more uniform way than we find it clustered in our western

States.

Thank you very much. Now, our last presenter this afternoon is

Colleen Landkamer, Commissioner, First District, Blue Earth

County. Wonderful name.

Ms. LANDKAMER. It is a beautiful name, beautiful county. We

would love to have you there.

Senator CRAIG. Now, I would assume that is very fertile land, or

is it clay?

Ms. LANDKAMER. It is clay. That is where the blue comes from.

When the Indians came through, it is a grayish tinge, and so they

call it ‘‘blue earth.’’

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF COLLEEN LANDKAMER, COMMISSIONER,

FIRST DISTRICT, BLUE EARTH COUNTY, MANKATO, MINNESOTA

Ms. LANDKAMER. Thank you, Senator Craig. I appreciate you allowing me to testify before your committee today. My name is Colleen Landkamer. I am the Chair of the Blue Earth County Board

of Commissioners in Minnesota, and I also Chair the National Association of Counties Rural Action Caucus.

As an elected official from Blue Earth County, I have served for

several years on the board of directors of the Minnesota Rural

Partners. In fact, the executive director of Minnesota Rural Partners is here today, Marcie McLaughlin.

Minnesota Rural Partners does not distribute money nor administer any programs. Rather, through an information-based ‘‘learning while doing’’ approach, Minnesota Rural Partners addresses

complex rural problems from a Minnesota, not a Washington, DC.

perspective. They do this in a very efficient manner by convening

the varied partners, building those critical inter-and

intragovernmental relationships, promoting strategic partnerships,

making better use of existing resources. Frequently they intervene

in a problem-solving mode. They are making a difference in rural

America, they are improving the quality of life, and they are representing a new model of governance.

Now, Minnesota Rural Partners has done various things but I

would like to talk about just a couple things that they have done

for my county and our State. We had horrible storms last year that

produced floods and tornadoes. MRP coordinated with the Federal

agencies to help alleviate the conditions in counties following these

severe storms. With the MRP in the forefront of the disaster mitigation, the citizens throughout Minnesota and my county all benefited from their services in coordinating those issues.

They have also proved extremely beneficial in getting out information and best practices examples that have helped all counties

in Minnesota on issues ranging from technology to agriforestry.

There are 35, as you heard previously, other NRDP State Councils

throughout this Nation, and they are all doing similar things. We

are all a little different but there is a significant similarity.

I also want to tell you a little bit about the National Association

of Counties and our relationship with the Partnership. As you

know, NACo is the only organization that represents counties

27

across the United States, headquartered on Capitol Hill, and it is

a full service organization for our counties. We have got a multitude of relationships with various entities, be it the National Governors Association, the League of Cities, but also the National

Rural Development Partnership, the Rural Policy Institute. There

is a multitude of partnerships that we have formed in the last few

years just to deal with rural.

At NACo I chair the Rural Action Caucus, and it was recently

created, just 2-years ago. Previous to that for 2-years we had a task

force that looked at rural issues, but it is a relatively new thing

for the National Association of Counties to have a rural task force

or a Rural Action Caucus, which I chair. I represent 2,350 rural

counties. That is a lot, and there is a lot of rural counties out there.

You recently spoke at our national conference, emphasizing the

need to seize the initiative, and that is what we are trying to do.

We really appreciate your leadership on S. 1608. You are making

such a difference for our forest counties across the United States,

and that includes Minnesota, too, and we appreciate all the work

you and your staff have done.

Our Rural Caucus membership consists of about 1,000 rural

county commissioners, and with their help, our two primary focuses

this year will be bridging the digital divide and providing adequate

health care services to rural counties, which is one of the most

basic things that we think in our rural counties that you need in

order to move forward.

It is essential that our rural partners collaborate on these initiatives. Through future partnerships with our Rural Action Caucus,

RUPRI, the NRDP, and rural State councils throughout America,

we can make a difference as to how this country functions. We

want to do it from the West across the Nation.

So I would like to cite the importance of Under Secretary Jill

Long-Thompson’s role in promoting rural initiatives at the USDA,

and I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership for

rural America and how you are making a difference. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Landkamer can be found in the

appendix on page 76.]

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you very much, Colleen, for your

comments and those kind remarks.

Let me lead into a question for all of you that really is a spinout from the legislation that Colleen is familiar with, some of you

may not be, as 1608 that I and Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon are

trying to cause this Congress to deal with. It creates by direction

a more clarified way of arriving at a collaborative process and rewards for doing so, by suggesting that in these areas of—this happens to be resource management on public lands—that in these

areas where there is conflict between national policy and local

economies, they don’t mesh, as a result of that we find our local

economies growing nonexistent because of a national policy in relation to a public resource, we are causing a collaborative process to

come together and from that, if consensus is built as it relates to

local programs, local projects, happens to be on Federal lands with

Federal resources, then there is a reward of matching monies and

those kinds of things.

28

I strongly believe that we have to move more toward a community-based collaborative process that involves all of the stakeholders, and many of you have employed that, either directly, or by the

character of what you are doing, you are doing that ultimately. So

the question is, when working on a problem, how do you ensure

that you are truly working in a collaborative process and not just

a process representing only a few points of view? Have you created

a template from which you bring together a particular group for

that purpose? Any one of you might respond to that.

Ms. LANDKAMER. If I could respond, Senator——

Senator CRAIG. Yes.

Ms. LANDKAMER.—I think in Minnesota, when you look at our

board, it is extremely diverse, and I think that is very helpful, from

Federal, State, local, tribal, the whole multitude of people that engage in that process. And what I have found is that it is such an

open process, the way ours is run, that we are always bringing in

new partners.

One of the projects last year was a rural-urban dialogue between

a section in the City of Minneapolis and Crookston, which is a

rural community in northern Minnesota. And I think the strength

of that was, it make everyone realize that our issues are the same;

the solutions are a bit different.

I really do believe that we have really opened up a broad dialogue. And it a challenge. It is a challenge to make sure that you

are touching everyone that should be involved in an issue, but it

is something we continue to work towards, and I think the broad

membership of the Partnership makes a difference.

Mr. BLACK. And I would like to—I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CRAIG. Go ahead.

Mr. BLACK. I would just echo similar comments. When there is

an issue that develops, the director of the council has had the ability to bring together the various agents or agencies involved and

bring it to one of the issue forums and discuss whatever the issue

is.

We had an issue, timbering in the Allegheny National Forest,

and there has been some discussion on trying to get the partners

to the table, and just using the format as it exists to share information and perhaps some ideas come out of it, and then from there

solutions can be discussed.

Senator CRAIG. Anyone else wish to comment on that?

Mayor GRAHAM. I would like to say in Indiana sometimes, many

times we ask ourselves, you know, ‘‘Is this a place where we belong, or are we just getting in the way of something that is already

in progress?’’

Senator CRAIG. A reasonable question.

Mayor GRAHAM. Yes, and sometimes I think we figure out,

maybe, that we were or we could just be getting in the way. But

it seems like with as many players as we have sitting at the table,

that those things are very early identified as to where we need to

fit in and how our role can be.

Senator CRAIG. OK. Go ahead.

Mr. FLUHARTY. Mr. Chairman, I would just add, first of all commend you for that effort, and simply say I was sharing with your

staff yesterday, we do a lot of work in RUPRI in Northern Ireland,

29

in the Republic, and they indeed have a national, a stated international policy goal in E.U. called ‘‘subsidiarity,’’ which is exactly

the principles upon which you are operating there in areas of very

high conflict, and that is lowering the resources to the most appropriate level for the decision, creating quantifiable outcome measures, assuring the community and the private sector involved. And

I think we would benefit greatly in our policy culture to learn a bit

about how other rural areas around the world are coping with

these great challenges. The very same principles you are articulating there is what ‘‘subsidiarity’’ is about in Europe.

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you for mentioning that. I would like

to know more about that. We will work with you to pursue that.

Let me ask the next question in this manner: My guess is, you

have all put your best foot forward. Put your worst foot forward.

Where isn’t it working, that you would like to see it work? Or,

more importantly, why isn’t it working in some areas like you

would like to see it work? In all aspects of it, whether it is money,

whether it is the way it is structured.

Mayor GRAHAM. I could tell you my opinion in the State of Indiana.

Senator CRAIG. Yes.

Mayor GRAHAM. In the State of Indiana, and I think maybe even

nationwide, I feel like we have failed when it comes to agriculture,

and that is to the farmer or the rancher. I don’t feel like that we

have that involvement with those people nearly as strongly as we

should have. They are not at the table with us.

We have made efforts to involve them but I don’t think we have

worked hard enough, especially in the State of Indiana. Even

though in the State of Indiana we have the Deputy Commissioner

of Agriculture sitting at our board, it is still very limited as to what

we do.

In the crisis that we have in agriculture, they should be there

and a lot heavier represented than what we have. I guess if we are

making confessions, I would have to confess that I feel like we have

let them down, and we need to work ever so much harder to make

sure they are at the table with us.

Mr. HUDSON. I would like to speak to that as well, Mr. Chairman. Inclusiveness is an outstanding principle and it is certainly

something that we embrace at the Idaho Rural Partnership. It is

also a process. Not everyone comes to the table automatically.

These are very complicated times and there are a lot of players in

the realm.

We I think work hard at bringing new members to the table, representatives of diverse interests, and I think we have got some distance to go yet. If I can be specific, one of our—we have two key

targets at this time in Idaho.

I am sure I will be spanked for saying this, being so specific. But

the Idaho Transportation Department is a very important element

of what we are trying to do. We have some members of the organization who are coming forward, but we don’t feel that we have engaged them as systematically as we need to.

I personally believe, and I am speaking for myself now, that

higher education is an extraordinarily important part of the process of partnering for rural America, and we are only getting forVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:29 Dec 06, 2000 Jkt 067661 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 67661.TXT SAGRI1 PsN: SAGRI1
30

mally engaged now in bringing our great institutions in Idaho to

the table to help us more. Now, it is very much a positive trend,

but I would love to have started that earlier on. This is an evolutionary thing.

I think the other arena where we all would like to see more

progress is in the area of handoff. As you have heard from I think

each of us in our own way, we do not have large numbers of dollars

for project implementation. We are more like pilot lights in many

ways, in trying to engage a variety of partners in doing things, and

sometimes in the handoff it is difficult to make sure that all goes

well.

So we are spending a great deal of time in the arena of leadership training, facilitation, building common ground, mediation

areas, helping communities to help themselves in the implementation area. I think we are making a lot of progress there, but it is

something that is ongoing.

Mr. BLACK. Just a followup. On the State level it is a similar

issue of outreach and perhaps getting deeper and contacting more

people. On a larger scale, on a macro scale across the Nation we

have heard there are 36 councils. Obviously there are some States

that are not involved. It has been, I think what I have heard today,

a very helpful tool in a lot of areas, and that would lead us to believe that it could be a tool in those other States as well.

From the Pennsylvania experience, granted it started towards

the tail end of one administration in our State government, but the

commitment had not been as deep with the first administration as

it has been with the current administration. There has to be a

working partnership at the State level in order for it to work. But

I think to encourage that in other States might be a way that it

could succeed. I don’t want to call it a failure, but I think in services to rural people throughout the country, perhaps there are opportunities being missed.

Senator CRAIG. Anyone else in that general area?

Let me ask this. Tom had mentioned the engaging of our universities, our educational institutions. How many of you in your experiences are doing that or have done it on occasion or consistently?

Colleen?

Ms. LANDKAMER. We have on our board the Humphrey Institute.

There are three different types of educational institutions on our

board, and they show up all the time. So, I mean, you know, you

can have them on your board, they don’t always show up, but they

have consistently shown up and been real players. So I think that

is key, I don’t think there is any doubt about that, so we are real

pleased with that.

Mayor GRAHAM. We have certainly done that in Indiana, also.

We have had Purdue University and Indiana University and Ball

State University all there at the table and participating with us.

Senator CRAIG. Under Secretary Long-Thompson voiced concern

for lack of consistency in funding and a lack of a legislative foundation providing policy guidance and direction. Do you share her concerns on either or all of these points? Yes?

Mr. FLUHARTY. Mr. Chairman, let me perhaps start, because I

am with the councils and the Partnership but not of. We work in

a collaborative manner, but I am really not in a council or with the

31

Partnership. I would make a couple of general structural observations and then a couple of very personal programmatic observations.

I think the councils are uneven across space and circumstance,

as they would want to be, since they are locally driven, adapting

to local circumstance and in different frames of their life cycle,

starting in 1992 to current. I think one of the perpetual challenges

we have in rural policy in the United States is who is our champion, who is our lead congressional committee, how does the USDA

mandate to do rural development, make that work in the ground,

and how do we better link extension, outreach, and the multiple resources that could come to councils?

I think this partnership has come a long way in the last 24-

months in moving that. I would just say, Mr. Chairman, this is a

very different group of people than we had 2-years ago, and I

would simply say look at the leadership and the diversity of rural

America that is represented in this partnership. I think they will

continue to grow.

I will be very candid. I believe this organization needs additional

resources to fulfill their mission. I will be very candid about that.

One of the challenges is, we must take rural to scale in this political arena, and I think this is an excellent organization to do that.

They are underfunded to do that, Mr. Chairman, quite frankly.

Senator CRAIG. Policy structure? Or do you—you know, there is

a question of flexibility and shaping to the situation or the environment.

Mr. FLUHARTY. Correct. Correct.

Senator CRAIG. And that comes probably by an absence of guidelines, specific, under law, or rule and regulation. And the other side

of it is, in absence of that, sometimes you may not get what you

want.

Mr. FLUHARTY. Correct. I will say one other thing. Then I would

like to defer.

Senator CRAIG. Yes.

Mr. FLUHARTY. I think the accountability issue is very huge, and

I also think the ability to create a seamless linkage that allows

Federal decisionmakers and State decisionmakers, in a continuing

decentralized governance structure, to understand what works in

the dirt, is so very key. We aren’t doing that well, Mr. Chairman,

right now in our policy culture, and I think the councils are

uniquely positioned to provide that. The reality is, what we are trying to do, between RUPRI, the Partnership and the councils, is

build that throughput. I think we are starting.

I will simply say, what is the structure? I believe we need serious

congressional action and continual interest in the rural policy agenda. Short of that, I don’t think we will get it, and I would just commend you to stay on task here. I think we will see good things happen if you do.

Senator CRAIG. Mayor.

Mayor GRAHAM. I hope I am answering the question that you

asked, but by just the virtue of the limited resources itself, we find

ourselves really having to sit down and really looking as to how we

can prioritize what we are able to work on.

Senator CRAIG. That is not a bad thing.

32

Mayor GRAHAM. No, but we find that——

Senator CRAIG. It is a limiting factor, yes.

Mayor GRAHAM. Yes, but we find that we are eliminating a lot

of things that we should be working on, and they still should be

priorities, but we haven’t been able to do that. I think that there

has been some value in that; that each State has chosen different

priorities, and out of what these States have done has been a lot

of successes that we can still copy off of, that in the State of Indiana this may not have been the top priority and this may not have

been what we worked on, but we have taken successes from other

States that chose that to be their priority and been able to replicate

that in some part.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. Anyone else wish to comment on

that?

Tom?

Mr. HUDSON. Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with Mr. Fluharty’s comments, and we embrace accountability. We seek it already today,

and work very carefully to account for everything that we do, either

philosophically or financially. Of course, we take great pains to

handle our monies appropriately.

The key for us, I believe, is something akin to a framework, a

policy framework that outlines the kinds of things that might be

necessary for working closely with our Federal partners, but a

framework that allows us the flexibility or the latitude at the local

and the State level to address our unique needs. I don’t see these

things as mutually exclusive. I know that we have a framework already for our accountability that is excellent, and if we can refine

that in ways that address additional Federal needs, I think that is

a relatively straightforward process that should not limit our capacity to continue to be responding to our local issues.

Senator CRAIG. Great. Thank you. Anyone else?

[No response.]

Well, let me thank you all for your time and your willingness to

come and participate. It is obvious to many of us who come from

rural States, the conflict that rural communities find themselves in

at the moment, and there is no quick fix, nor is there a rather positive light at the end of the tunnel at this moment. It is a matter

of working our way out of a problem that is probably a transitional

economy that in part will produce a new economy down the road.

It is also a real problem here as to how we deal with it, to create

optimum flexibility so you can be ultimately as creative as possible

at the local level, and still maintain the accountability that Congress has almost historically insisted upon, and in some part needs

to. It is fascinating at this moment, Colleen, as we work on the

final language of S. 1608, in trying to build a broad base of stakeholders to come together and look at a large package of concerns,

and from that sort out where they can find consensus and then

focus or direct their resources to that point of consensus.

That is where the Congress wants to go. In this instance the administration, or I should say the executive branch, or I should say

the Agency, so that I can be relatively generic, is saying, ‘‘Oh, no,

no, no, no, no. We like the idea of consensus. We like the idea of

a lot of stakeholders being at the table. But we are going to tell

you on what issues you can make your decision on.’’

33

Now, that is just about as helpful as a flat tire, because it already presupposes and preshapes the ultimate decisionmaking, and

offers none of the kind of creativity that you all are experiencing

based on the need. But of course in this instance we are dealing

with an issue of environment, and there is a higher elevation of

sensitivity to it.

I think you come to the arena when there is a consensus that a

problem exists; there just isn’t a consensus as to a solution. Here,

some would argue there is no problem, at least on the thing we are

currently working on; it is just a change in policy, and that is

where the country wants to go, and the local communities will adjust accordingly in the process. They will simply fall out and reshape because the policy of America has changed, or of our country

has changed.

So it is a little different, but not a lot. And it is always fascinating to me, as we try to do this, to watch how difficult it is for people to give up power or to cause it to be transitioned to a different

level where maybe the better kind of choices or decisions are made.

Again, thank you all so very much for coming out today. There

may be some additional questions that the Committee or its members will want to ask of you. And please don’t sense the absence

of members here today as a lack of interest. It is simply not the

case. There are a good many of us struggling with this agricultural,

rural economic issue at this moment. I say agriculture because my

guess is, if agriculture were flourishing, some of our problems or

some of your problems as you experience them would go away right

rapidly. That is not the case today, and so we are trying to resolve

that on a multifront basis.

Again, thank you, and the Committee will stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Æ

(35)

A P P E N D I X

MARCH 8, 2000

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

(81)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

MARCH 8, 2000

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

Æ