Enclosure 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

June 28, 2006 

The Honorable Saxby Chambliss 

Chairman 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 

United States Senate 

Subject: Farm Loan Programs: GAO Reports on USDA Lending Practices

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

This report responds to your request for information relating to the committee’s June 13, 

2006, hearing on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) farm loan programs. In 

particular, your May 16, 2006 letter requested that we summarize our findings from the 

1990s through 2002 on USDA’s farm loan programs. You also requested that we provide 

any GAO opinions on the current management and status of the loan programs and 

identify any matters that the committee should consider. 

The USDA Farm Service Agency’s (FSA) farm loan programs are intended to provide 

temporary financial assistance for the nation’s farmers and ranchers who are unable to 

obtain commercial credit at reasonable rates and terms. FSA provides various types of 

both direct and guaranteed farm loans. Direct farm ownership loans can be used to buy 

farm real estate and make capital improvements. Guaranteed farm ownership loans are 

made for the same purposes and for refinancing existing debts. Also, direct farm 

operating loans can be used to buy feed, seed, fertilizer, livestock, and farm equipment; 

pay family living expenses; and, subject to certain restrictions, refinance existing debts. 

Guaranteed farm operating loans are made for the same purposes, but without 

restriction on refinancing existing debts. Additionally, direct loans include emergency 

disaster loans, which are made to farmers and ranchers whose operations have been 

substantially damaged by adverse weather or other natural disasters. In operating the 

farm loan programs, USDA faces the conflicting tasks of providing temporary credit to 

high-risk borrowers so that they can stay in farming until they are able to secure 

commercial credit and ensuring that the taxpayers’ investment is protected. 

Our reports from the mid-1980s through 2001 highlighted significant financial and policy 

shortcomings in USDA’s farm loan programs. In particular, we reported that billions of 

dollars of losses had occurred on USDA's farm loan programs because of weaknesses in 

USDA’s lending practices and management of the program. In 1990, we placed USDA’s 

farm loan programs on our “high-risk” list because delinquent farm loan borrowers held 

$11.1 billion of the agency’s outstanding loans. In 1992, we reported that because of 

defaults in recent preceding years the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) had 

reduced or forgiven delinquent debt of $7.6 billion. However, starting in the mid-1990s, 

the Congress passed key legislation, such as the 1996 Farm Bill, that addressed many of

 GAO-06-912R Farm Loans Programs 
Enclosure 

the weaknesses in USDA’s farm loan programs. USDA also initiated program 

management improvements in response to our recommendations. In January 2001, we 

removed these programs from our high-risk list because actions taken by the Congress 

and USDA had a significant positive impact on the operations and financial condition of 

USDA's farm loan programs. In our January 2001 report,1

 we noted that borrowers who 

were delinquent on their farm loans owed $1.8 billion on direct loans (about 21 percent 

of the outstanding principle on direct loans)—a significant decrease in delinquent debt. 

Moreover, we reported that USDA’s direct loan losses of $427 million in fiscal year 2000 

were the lowest in over 10 years. Summaries of selected GAO reports from 1988 through 

2001 that outline our prior findings on USDA’s farm loan programs are enclosed. 

Concerning USDA’s more recent farm loan program performance, we have not 

performed work that would allow us to comment on the current management and status 

of the loan programs, or identify matters that the committee should consider at this time. 

We would, of course, be pleased to discuss further work in this area should it be of 

interest to the committee. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and 

Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Please contact me at (202) 

512-5988 or bertonid@gao.gov if you or your staff have any questions about this report. 

Sincerely yours, 

Daniel Bertoni 

Acting Director, Natural Resources 

 and Environment 

Enclosure 

 1

GAO, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Agriculture, GAO-01-242

(Washington D.C.: January 2001). 

2 GAO-06-912R Farm Loans Programs 
Enclosure 

Summaries of Selected GAO Reports on USDA’s Farm Loan 

Programs, 1988 - 2000 

Farmers Home Administration: Farm Loan Programs Have Become a 

Continuous Source of Subsidized Credit, GAO/RCED-89-3 (Nov. 22, 1988) 

We reported that the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), which was FSA’s 

predecessor agency, faced the dilemma of finding the appropriate balance between 

acting as the lender of last resort for family farmers who could not get credit elsewhere 

while at the same time fulfilling its congressional mandate to serve as a temporary 

source of credit. Between 1976 and 1987, the amount of delinquent loan payments 

increased from $164 million to about $7 billion, and the total outstanding principal owed 

by delinquent borrowers increased from $723 million to over $12.8 billion. FmHA was 

originally established as a temporary source of credit for farmers, and it was expected 

that FmHA’s borrowers would graduate to commercial sources of credit once they could 

do so at affordable rates and terms. However, the farm loan programs were not 

operating in that manner--many FmHA borrowers remained in the farm loan program for 

extended periods. We found that about 42 percent of FmHA’s borrowers had borrowed 

from FmHA for 7 or more years, including about 57,600 borrowers who had had 

borrowed from FmHA for 10 or more years. We suggested that the Congress reevaluate 

the role of FmHA in farm lending by considering, among other things, at what point the 

costs of providing long-term credit assistance to farmers in financially marginal 

situations outweigh the benefits to the government, rural communities, and the farmer. 

We also recommended that FmHA develop an operational definition of “graduation” and 

monitor compliance with that definition. 

Government Financial Vulnerability: 14 Areas Needing Special Review, OCG90-1 (Jan. 23, 1990) 

This report identified federal programs that we considered to be plagued by serious 

breakdowns in their internal controls and financial management systems and, as a result, 

vulnerable to major losses of federal funds. We included the FmHA’s loan programs 

because delinquent farm loan borrowers held $11.1 billion, or 48 percent, of the agency’s 

$23.3 billion in outstanding loans as of September 30, 1989. We stated that the potential 

for controlling loan losses warranted additional review and oversight. 

Farmers Home Administration: Billions of Dollars in Farm Loans Are At Risk,

GAO/RCED-92-86 (Apr. 3, 1992) 

We reported that the multibillion-dollar federal investment in farmer loan programs was 

not adequately protected: about 70 percent of USDA’s direct farm loans of almost $20 

billion were held by borrowers who might not meet some or all their obligation to repay 

their loans. In the direct loan program, field lending officials had not complied with 

agency loan-making and loan-servicing standards established to safeguard federal 

financial interests. By allowing delinquent borrowers to obtain additional credit, FmHA 

had also reinforced its lending to poor credit risks, and by providing debt relief to 

borrowers who had defaulted on their loans, it had created incentives for farmers to 

3 GAO-06-912R Farm Loans Programs 
Enclosure 

avoid repaying their debts. Furthermore, the FmHA’s mission--to help keep high-risk 

farmers on their farms—often conflicted with normal fiscal controls and policies 

designed to minimize risk and financial losses. As a result, there were no clear 

guidelines that would have enabled FmHA to balance its responsibilities as the lender of 

last resort for the nation’s farmers with its responsibilities as a fiscally prudent lender. 

We made numerous recommendations to USDA and the Congress aimed at (1) improving 

compliance with loan and property management standards, (2) strengthening farm loan 

policies and programs design, and (3) clarifying USDA’s farm lending role and mission. 

Farm Service Agency: Information on Farm Loans and Losses (GAO/RCED-99-

18, Nov. 27, 1998) 

We reported that the value of direct farm loans held by delinquent borrowers had 

decreased from $4.6 billion in 1995--about 41 percent of USDA’s total outstanding direct 

farm loan principal--to $2.7 billion by 1997. However, in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, about 

$1.9 billion of principal and interest owed on farm loans was written off by USDA. For 

the 9-year period, fiscal years 1989 through 1997, FSA wrote off $15 billion of direct farm 

loans for almost 80,000 borrowers through its various processes for resolving 

delinquencies. 

Farm Service Agency: Updated Status of the Multibillion-Dollar Farm Loan 

Portfolio, GAO-01-202 (Jan 10, 2001) 

We provided an updated overview of the changing financial condition of FSA’s farm loan 

portfolio as of September 30, 2000. FSA had more than $16.6 billion in outstanding farm 

loans at the time. Of that amount, about $2.1 billion was owed by delinquent borrowers, 

and most of this amount (87 percent) was owed on direct loans. Overall, this financial 

position reflected improvement in FSA’s direct farm loan portfolio as well as a 

continuation of a relatively healthy guaranteed farm loan portfolio. Also, farm loan 

losses incurred by FSA during fiscal year 2000 totaled about $486 million, considerably 

less than in each of fiscal years 1995 through 1999, when USDA’s direct farm loan losses 

averaged $778 million per year. 

Farm Loan Programs: Improvements in the Loan Portfolio But Continued 

Monitoring Needed, GAO-01-732T (May 16, 2001) 

We testified that the overall financial condition of the farm loan portfolio had improved 

and that USDA's direct loan losses in fiscal year 2000 were the lowest in over 10 years. 

We also noted that the continued improvements in the farm loan portfolio in recent years 

had resulted from legislative and management actions. In particular, the 1996 Farm Bill 

included provisions that (1) prohibited borrowers who are delinquent on direct or 

guaranteed farm loans from obtaining additional direct farm operating loans, (2) 

generally prohibited borrowers whose past defaults resulted in loan losses from

obtaining new direct or guaranteed farm loans, and (3) limited borrowers to one instance 

of debt forgiveness on direct loans. The 1996 Farm Bill also required borrowers to have 

or to agree to obtain hazard insurance on the property that they acquire with farm 

ownership and operating loans, and required applicants, as a condition for obtaining an 

4 GAO-06-912R Farm Loans Programs 
Enclosure 

emergency disaster loan, to have had hazard insurance on property that was damaged or 

destroyed. Further, the 1996 Farm Bill limited the length of time that direct loan 

assistance is available and enhanced the potential for direct loan borrowers to obtain 

conventional credit by allowing a 95-percent guarantee on loans made by commercial 

lenders. Also, since the mid-1990s, USDA had addressed several loan management 

problems, such as the quality controls over loan-making and loan-servicing, thereby 

reducing some of the risks associated with the farm loan programs. 

(360728) 

5 GAO-06-912R Farm Loans Programs 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER