U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

58–018 PDF 2010

HEARING TO REVIEW RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

PROGRAMS IN ADVANCE OF THE 

2012 FARM BILL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 

BIOTECHNOLOGY, SPECIALTY CROPS, 

AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 20, 2010

Serial No. 111–55

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois 

KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER, 

Pennsylvania 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

FRANK KRATOVIL, JR., Maryland 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

SCOTT MURPHY, New York 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi 

WALT MINNICK, Idaho 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Ranking 

Minority Member 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

ROBERT L. LAREW, Chief of Staff 

ANDREW W. BAKER, Chief Counsel 

APRIL SLAYTON, Communications Director 

NICOLE SCOTT, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT, BIOTECHNOLOGY, SPECIALTY CROPS, AND

FOREIGN AGRICULTURE

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina, Chairman 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

WALT MINNICK, Idaho 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Ranking 

Minority Member 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

SCOTT KUSCHMIDER, Subcommittee Staff Director

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from Texas, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 4

McIntyre, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from North Carolina, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3

Submitted letter ................................................................................................ 69

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 6

Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania, 

submitted letter .................................................................................................... 69

WITNESSES

Tonsager, Hon. Dallas P., Under Secretary for Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.; accompanied by Hon. Jonathan 

Adelstein, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, USDA; Judith Canales, 

Administrator, Business and Cooperative Programs, USDA; and Tammye 

Trevino, Administrator, Housing and Community Facility Programs, USDA 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9

Submitted letter by Mr. Adelstein .................................................................. 72

Submitted questions ......................................................................................... 75

Higginbotham, Thomas, Executive Director, Northeast Nebraska Economic 

Development District; Member, Board of Directors, National Association 

of Development Organizations, Norfolk, NE ...................................................... 24

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25

Miller, Ed, Director of Economic Development, King and Queen County, Virginia, Mechanicsville, VA .................................................................................... 30

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31

Beaulac, Jr., Willard L., Senior Vice President, PathStone Corporation, Rochester, NY ............................................................................................................... 32

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34

Bahnson, Mark, General Manager, Bloomingdale Communications, 

Bloomingdale, MI; on behalf of National Telecommunications Cooperative 

Association ............................................................................................................ 39

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41

Supplementary information ............................................................................. 73

Miller, Ralph E. ‘‘Eddie’’, Director of Community Development, North Carolina Association of Electric Cooperatives, Raleigh, NC ..................................... 47

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49

Ayers, Ed.D., Van H., Board Member, Delta Land and Community; Agriculture and Rural Development Specialist, University of Missouri Extension, Bloomfield, MO ............................................................................................ 51

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53

(1)

HEARING TO REVIEW RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

PROGRAMS IN ADVANCE OF THE 

2012 FARM BILL 

TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 

BIOTECHNOLOGY, SPECIALTY CROPS, AND FOREIGN

AGRICULTURE, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Mike McIntyre 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives McIntyre, Bright, Kissell, 

Minnick, Peterson (ex officio), Conaway, Thompson, and Cassidy. 

Staff present: Claiborn Crain, Liz Friedlander, Tyler Jameson, 

John Konya, Scott Kuschmider, Clark Ogilvie, James Ryder, Patricia Barr, Mike Dunlap, Tamara Hinton, Jamie Mitchell, and 

Sangina Wright. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE MCINTYRE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. Welcome here today to the Agriculture Committee room. As Chairman of the Subcommittee, I 

want to welcome everyone to this morning’s hearing. 

I am Mike McIntyre from North Carolina. I am glad to have you 

all here with us today. 

We want to start our meeting promptly on time so that we can 

finish on time with today’s very busy voting schedule. We also 

want to honor the time, of course, of our witnesses who have come, 

as well as others who have come to hear the important testimony 

of the two panels that we have. 

The first panel today, I would like to thank Under Secretary Dallas Tonsager for taking the time to come and be with us and to 

bring his various Administrators with him, who I will ask him to 

introduce when you are called upon to begin your testimony. The 

Administrators themselves will not be presenting testimony today, 

but they are at the witness table to answer questions from the 

Members. 

This is, of course, the Subcommittee on Rural Development, Biotechnology, Specialty Crops, and Foreign Agriculture; and today 

our topic is on rural development. 

2

I also want to thank our second panel of witnesses that will be 

coming forward, and they will be recognized as they come in a little 

while. 

Today, we continue to examine the farm policy programs in advance of the 2012 Farm Bill. This process started back in April, 

during the spring, with full Committee hearings and has continued 

through the spring and the first half of the summer with field 

hearings across the country, including one that I was able to conduct on behalf of the entire Agriculture Committee in my home 

State of North Carolina just last month. So I am excited to have 

had the opportunity to have been out in the field myself to hear 

from folks, as well as to be here in Washington in our nation’s capital. 

The Subcommittee has already begun diligent oversight and 

hearings with regard to rural development during this session of 

Congress, not only looking at implementation from the last farm 

bill of various programs, but also examining the Recovery Act 

funds targeted to five rural development loan and grant programs 

within the water, housing, business, and telecommunications mission areas. 

While this Committee remains very much interested in the process by which Recovery Act funds are moving from the agency to 

uses to which they were intended, I would like to focus on the future of these programs once the Recovery Act is passed. So we don’t 

want to only be dealing with the current situation, but we want to 

have an eye toward the future as well and where we are headed. 

Now, while the backlog of some of these programs is expected to 

be significantly reduced, the infrastructure development and financing needs in rural America will not disappear. We want to 

make sure that as we look ahead today from our government and 

non-government witnesses we talk about the strengths and the 

weaknesses in the areas of rural development where we need to 

focus, given our current resources. 

We also want to know how the Recovery Act has helped or where 

it may have hindered administration of your programs. So please 

be honest and candid with us so that we can do the best honest 

and candid assessment ourselves. 

We want to make sure, also, that new regulations on the 

Broadband Loan Program and Grant Program are being—we are 

moving ahead. We know there has been some delay, but we want 

to make sure those awards that are due out by the end of September are in proper order. 

Also, if there is anything that the USDA is applying to the new 

regulations, given what it has learned in administering a large 

amount of Recovery Act funds and in the short amount of time we 

have today, we still would like to hear about that. 

The interim final rule for the Microenterprise Assistance Program, something that emanated from this Subcommittee that I 

have a great interest in, helping write that piece of legislation, the 

interim final rules were finally published after lengthy delay. We 

know there are some questions that have already arisen regarding 

the interest rates, grants, and matching requirements. We want to 

make sure that program gives us the strongest bang for our buck 

to help small business. 

3

We know the fastest job generator today in America is small 

business and that in particular the very small business or microenterprises that employ less than ten people, which the Microenterprise Assistance Program is targeted toward. A program like this 

can be a vital incubator for small businesses and startups in parts 

of the country where they are needed most. So we want to make 

sure today that we hear what you have to say and we hear it in 

the most candid way possible, and that we make sure that—we all 

know we have anecdotal stories. We want to make sure that those 

stories have the broadest application possible as we look ahead. 

I would remind our witnesses today to use the 5 minutes provided for their statements to highlight the most important points 

in your testimony. Please do not read your statement unless you 

know you can read it within the 5 minutes allotted. We would like 

for you to highlight. That way we will have more time to discuss 

with you the questions that may be asked. 

Members are also reminded that they can submit additional 

questions for the record for up to 10 calendar days after this hearing. 

Also, if there is information that a particular witness cannot provide immediately today, please know that you have up to 10 calendar days to provide that and please affirm that you will in your 

testimony if, for some reason, you cannot provide the exact or accurate information today. 

With that, again, thank you all for coming. We thank you for the 

good work that you do. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McIntyre follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE MCINTYRE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM NORTH CAROLINA

As Chairman of the Subcommittee, I want to welcome everyone to this morning’s 

hearing. I would like to thank Under Secretary Dallas Tonsager for appearing before our Committee once again. He is accompanied today by program Administrators 

from across the RD mission: Jonathan Adelstein, Judy Canales, and Tammye 

Trevino. The Administrators will not be presenting testimony today, but they are 

at the witness table to answer questions from Members. 

I also want to thank our second panel of witnesses as well, as some of you were 

able to make it on relatively short notice. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you 

for your attendance and I look forward to your testimony. 

My name is Mike McIntyre, and I represent the rural Seventh District of North 

Carolina. I will be as brief as possible because another Subcommittee will be holding 

a hearing in this room later today, so it is imperative we keep things moving. 

We are here today to continue the House Agriculture Committee’s examination 

into farm policy programs in advance of the 2012 Farm Bill. This process started 

in April with full Committee hearings, it continued throughout the spring and early 

summer with field hearings across the country, including one that I was proud to 

chair in my home State of North Carolina, and it continues this month with review 

of farm bill titles at the Subcommittee level. 

This Subcommittee has already been diligent in rural development oversight during the 111th Congress. Not only have we looked at implementation of programs 

since the last farm bill, but we have examined Recovery Act funds targeted to five 

Rural Development loan and grant programs within the water, housing, business, 

and telecommunications mission areas. 

While this Subcommittee remains very much interested in the process by which 

Recovery Act funds are moving from the agency to the uses for which they were intended, I would like to focus on the future of these programs once the Recovery Act 

has passed. While the backlog in some of these programs is expected to be significantly reduced, the infrastructure, development, and financing needs in rural America are not going to disappear. 

4

Chairman Peterson kicked off the farm bill hearing process when he did in order 

to encourage stakeholders to think about new ways of doing things if they could get 

a better result with the same amount of resources. Keeping that in mind, I look forward to today’s discussion from both our government and non-government witnesses 

about the strengths and the weaknesses of our rural development programs given 

their current resources. Has the Recovery Act helped or hindered program administration? And what can be done better in the future keeping in mind the budget constraints we will face in writing the next farm bill? 

And while we are do not want to spend as much time looking backwards and looking forwards, the implementation of current programs is of great interest to this 

Subcommittee. I understand the new regulations on the broadband loan and grant 

program have been delayed until the Broadband Initiatives Program awards under 

the Recovery Act are due to be made by the end of September. If there is anything 

the USDA is applying to the new regulations given what it has learned in administering a large amount of Recovery Act funds in a short amount of time, we would 

love to hear it. 

In addition, the interim final rule for the Rural Microenterprise Assistance Program—a program I helped write and strongly support—was recently published after 

a lengthy delay, and some are already questioning whether the levels of interest 

rates, grants, and matching requirements will give that program the strongest bang 

for its buck. Especially in today’s economy, a program like RMAP can be a vital incubator for small business startups in parts of the country where they are needed 

most. 

Finally, I would note that not every program in rural development is under this 

Subcommittee’s jurisdiction, or even within the full Committee’s jurisdiction. Nevertheless, we are interested in the administration and capability of all rural development programs because they are vitally important to many of our constituents, 

which is why I have asked for all three Administrators to join us today. 

When I chaired a farm bill hearing in North Carolina last month, I heard from 

more than one witness about how USDA Rural Development is an essential partner 

in developing, promoting, and implementing strategies to bring new homes, businesses, infrastructure, and technologies to small North Carolina communities. Many 

of us can tell similar stories and point to examples in our own districts where USDA 

has helped private individuals, businesses, or nonprofits leverage public resources 

into something tangible that improved the quality of life in their town. Ensuring 

that these opportunities remain for rural America are the goals we want to meet 

in writing the next farm bill. 

I would remind our witnesses today to use the 5 minutes provided for their statements to highlight the most important points in their testimony if they cannot read 

their entire statement in less than 5 minutes. As always, Members will be permitted 

to submit additional questions for the record for up to 10 calendar days after the 

hearing. 

At this time, I would yield to Ranking Member Conaway for any opening statement he would like to make.

The CHAIRMAN. I will now call on our Ranking Member, the 

other Mike, Mr. Mike Conaway. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and, witnesses, thank 

you very much for being here this morning. 

Today’s hearing is intended to review rural development programs in advance of our next farm bill work. I believe that while 

that is important in discussing it to find out what is working, I 

think it is even more important to hold a hearing where programs 

are not working as Congress intended. Unfortunately, there are 

several significant issues in the way our programs are being implemented, and I hope they can be addressed today. I am glad that 

Mr. Tonsager has brought with him his Administrators to provide 

timely and thorough answers to the questions. 

From the days of first notice of funding, it was clear that significant problems existed in the specific approach USDA has used to 

5

implement broadband provisions of the stimulus bill. A year ago, 

this Subcommittee was assured that changes could and would be 

made to address the concerns that we had, and those that our industry partners shared. However, USDA instead decided to forge 

ahead with a rule that would prove deficient before the application 

period even opened. As a result, only 13 remote projects were funded using half the funds set aside for these remote areas. 

This Subcommittee previously expressed concern over the DavisBacon provisions and how they might be applied to the infrastructure projects under the stimulus spending. Our fears were confirmed when the USDA acknowledged that these provisions would 

increase project costs by 20 percent above the farm bill programs. 

When small rural towns are struggling to find ways to pay for critical water and sewer needs, and when grants are being sought for 

rural broadband projects because a loan is not a viable option, 

these artificial cost increases simply do not make sense. 

I am hoping Mr. Tonsager can demonstrate that USDA has done 

everything in their power to put out guidance in a timely manner 

to applicants and has exercised every bit of flexibility afforded by 

statute to minimize artificial costs on the stimulus bill. 

On several occasions, we were assured that RUS had sufficient 

resources to implement the stimulus bill without detracting from 

other obligations, and yet 2 years have passed without implementation of the Broadband Loan Program under the 2008 Farm Bill, 

even though we were assured that rules would be published well 

before now. 

Furthermore, Secretary Vilsack has since stated that USDA has 

no intention of implementing the loan program before Fiscal Year 

2011. I look forward to a rational explanation for why USDA has 

failed and now refuses to implement a loan program that I believe 

is the cornerstone to some of the efforts to connect rural America. 

We are also aware that USDA is pursuing a project called the 

Know Your Food, Know Your Farmer initiative. Only a select few 

of our rural development programs contain any authority that 

might support this initiative, and that authority includes very limited funding. And yet USDA seems to be drawing nearly every program that exists into an initiative that could ultimately disadvantage meritorious projects that favor certain size entities beyond the 

intent of Congress and the scope of the law. I look forward to an 

explanation of this initiative and how much of our scarce Rural Development resources USDA will try to divert to this initiative. 

This Subcommittee has previously highlighted the need for interagency cooperation. There are 16 Federal agencies administering 

over 88 programs that target rural development. While I look forward to hearing more about what USDA is doing to effectively coordinate the rural development efforts and use taxpayer funds initially, I am also looking forward to the testimony from our second 

panel of witnesses to get an update on how programs are being implemented out in the countryside. I appreciate the time our witnesses took today to share their insights with us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

The chair would request that any other Members who would like 

to have opening statements submit them for the record so that witVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:39 Oct 14, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-55\58018.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
6

nesses may begin their testimony. We can ensure that there is 

ample time for questions from all the Members that may be 

present. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

Thank you, Chairman McIntyre for calling today’s hearing. I want to commend 

you for the work you have done on this Subcommittee in conducting oversight of 

rural development programs, and in particular, those programs that received funding through the Recovery Act. 

Since 1980, USDA has been designated as the lead Federal agency in promoting 

rural economic development. It administers the greatest number of Federal rural development programs. The Federal role in rural economic policy will only be as effective as the programs USDA provides. 

As with other programs in the farm bill, I want to hear today, both from USDA 

and from our second panel, about implementation of farm bill rural development 

programs: what can be done to get more out of them, which programs need improvement, and how well current funding is being utilized. 

Considering the tough budget climate we are operating in, we need to be sure that 

rural development programs justify the taxpayer investment in them. The best way 

for us to do that is to spend wisely and show how these programs help everyday 

rural Americans. 

While there are a lot of moving parts to Rural Development programs, their various missions are all focused on serving the rural areas of greatest need through 

loans, grants and technical assistance, in areas that lack sufficient private investment. Many of these vital programs are oversubscribed, so I would like to hear from 

USDA to what extent the program backlogs have been reduced in the wake of the 

Recovery Act. 

These programs finance basic infrastructure in rural America that most urban 

and suburban residents take for granted. Reliable, affordable broadband Internet 

service, for example, is one of the most important needs facing rural America today. 

It is vital to job creation and retention, economic development, entrepreneurship, 

education, and medical technology. The Recovery Act provided a large infusion of 

funds to the Rural Utilities Service to deploy broadband to rural, unserved areas, 

and I look forward to hearing from Under Secretary Tonsager and Administrator 

Adelstein on their progress to date, and how they expect USDA’s rural broadband 

loan and grant program will operate in the future once all the Recovery Act awards 

are made. 

Ever since I was elected, I have employed staff in my district office to work full 

time on economic development issues. A lot of that work happens in consultation 

with USDA’s Office of Rural Development, and we have accomplished a lot with the 

help of the Department’s programs. So I know firsthand the value that these programs provide and the potential return on investment that exists. 

Along those lines, I welcome the witnesses today who hopefully will provide some 

good insights on how Rural Development funds work on the ground out in rural 

America. 

I yield back my time.

The CHAIRMAN. Today, we do welcome our first panel of witnesses now, the Honorable Dallas Tonsager, Under Secretary for 

Rural Development with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Thank you, sir, for joining us. And, also, if you would please introduce the Administrators that we greatly appreciate taking their 

time to join us as well; and then you may proceed with your testimony. 

Mr. TONSAGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We, too, appreciate 

the opportunity to be here today. 

I would introduce my Administrators, Tammye Trevino, the Administrator of the Rural Housing Service; Judy Canales, the Administrator of the Rural Business and Cooperative Service; and 

Jonathan Adelstein, the Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service. 

7

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and thank you to each of you for 

your service as well. 

You may proceed, Mr. Under Secretary. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DALLAS P. TONSAGER, UNDER

SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY 

HON. JONATHAN ADELSTEIN, ADMINISTRATOR, RURAL 

UTILITIES SERVICE, USDA; JUDITH CANALES,

ADMINISTRATOR, BUSINESS AND COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS, 

USDA; AND TAMMYE TREVINO, ADMINISTRATOR, HOUSING 

AND COMMUNITY FACILITY PROGRAMS, USDA 

Mr. TONSAGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Conaway, and the Members of the Committee. We would like to 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss the implementation of 

Title VI of 2008 Farm Bill and the Recovery Act. 

I would like to express my appreciation for the collaboration we 

enjoyed with you, Mr. Chairman, and the Subcommittee over the 

past year and a half. We share a deep commitment to rural America and an understanding of its unique challenges and opportunities. We look forward to continued partnership with you to bring 

those opportunities to fruition. 

USDA Rural Development is committed to the future of rural 

communities. Rural America includes some of the nation’s most dynamic, rapidly growing areas. But the aggregate statistics tell another story. Rural America on average is older, less educated, and 

has a lower income than the nation as a whole. The average per 

capita income is approximately $11,000 below the urban and suburban average. Unemployment and poverty rates are higher; nine 

out of the ten nation’s persistent poverty counties are rural. 

USDA’s strategic plan published earlier this year by Secretary 

Vilsack focuses squarely on these challenges. The Secretary has 

identified five pillars to support a new foundation for growth and 

opportunity in rural communities. 

The first is development of new markets to provide additional income opportunities for farmers and ranchers by promoting exports 

abroad and supporting domestic, local, and regional food systems 

that keep wealth in rural communities. 

Second, provide new opportunities for prosperity and small business growth by investing in rural broadband access. 

Third, create green jobs that can’t be exported by promoting the 

production of renewable energy in communities across the country. 

Fourth, stimulate rural economies by promoting outdoor recreation like hunting, fishing, and other activities that create jobs as 

well as conserving the national resources we cherish. 

And, finally, create new income opportunities for rural landowners by facilitating the creation of ecosystem markets that reward them for taking care of the environment. 

This is a challenging agenda. It is also a necessary one. The implementation of the last farm bill has coincided with the most severe economic crisis since the 1930s. In response, the Congress provided $4.36 billion in ARRA budget authority to support an estimated $21.2 billion in investment in broadband, single family housVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:39 Oct 14, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-55\58018.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
8

ing, community facilities, water and waste, and business development. 

As of July 2nd, Rural Development has committed over $17.4 billion of this total; and my written testimony details the numbers. 

We are on track to fully obligating our Recovery Act dollars by September 30th of this year. I cannot express highly enough my appreciation for the job done by our staff in rising to the occasion. 

I appreciate as well the additional S&E funding that Congress 

provided which was invaluable in allowing us to address critical 

staffing issues on the accelerated basis necessary. 

In closing, we look forward to working with you on the 2012 

Farm Bill. Let me briefly note a few key areas for further discussion. 

First, the ability under ARRA to provide a flexible mix of loans 

and grants to broadband applications has been extremely important. The Farm Bill Loan Program does not have this flexibility. 

This was an issue that was discussed at length during consideration of the last farm bill, and it is a question that will surely be 

revisited. 

Second, we would be eager to discuss with you options for 

streamlining and rationalizing program delivery. Rural Development administers over 40 programs. Many of them are small and 

overlapping. This is a complex issue. We understand that Members 

often have very targeted objectives in mind in crafting program authorities, but there may well be significant administrative efficiencies to be gained through consolidation, provided that there is 

no negative impact on the service we provide. We are open to discussion on this question. 

Another important initiative for the Obama Administration is regionalism. We are encouraged that the President has chosen to 

seek pilot funding for a regional initiative in the 2011 budget, and 

we look forward to continuing the discussion as we move towards 

the 2012 Farm Bill. 

Finally, I expect that the definition of rural will be as contentious in this next farm bill as it was in the last. We have in draft 

a report to Congress on this question and will submit it to you later 

this summer. 

It is easy to describe the difficulties with the existing definition 

of rural. The challenge is to identify a different definitional scheme 

that does not create as many problems as it solves. 

This is a difficult question, as this Subcommittee fully appreciates, and I know that we will have extended discussions with you 

as we move forward. 

These are sensitive questions on which we want to work collaboratively with stakeholders and the Congress before proposing significant changes. I am glad the Subcommittee is beginning the discussions now in order to provide time for thoughtful consideration. 

I know that you share our commitment to improving the services 

to rural America; and I welcome your thoughts, comments, and 

questions as we begin this discussion. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonsager follows:]

9

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DALLAS P. TONSAGER, UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL

DEVELOPMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Chairman McIntyre, Ranking Member Conaway, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for this opportunity to discuss implementation of Title VI of the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill). I would like at the outset 

to acknowledge and express my appreciation for the close working relationship we 

have enjoyed with you, Mr. Chairman, and the Subcommittee over the past year 

and a half. We share a deep commitment to rural America. We understand, as do 

you, the unique challenges faced by rural communities. We recognize the remarkable new opportunities for rural America now on the horizon, and we look forward 

to a continued partnership with you to bring those opportunities to fruition. 

Rural America is the backbone of our great nation. It comprises 3⁄4 of the nation’s 

land area and is home to more than 50 million people. Rural America is our farms 

and forests; our mountains, deserts, and plains; our small towns and smaller cities. 

Agriculture has historically been the iconic industry, but today more than 95 percent of rural income is earned off the farm, with manufacturing, mining, forestry, 

tourism, and services sustaining employment and driving growth in most rural 

counties. 

USDA Rural Development is committed to the future of these rural communities. 

Rural America includes some of the nation’s most dynamic, rapidly growing areas. 

But the aggregate statistics tell another story. On average, rural America is older, 

less educated, and lower income than the nation as a whole, with an average per 

capital income approximately $11,000 below the urban and suburban average. Average unemployment and poverty rates are higher. Nine out of ten of the nation’s persistent poverty counties are rural. 

Three generations after the mechanization of agriculture and the onset of mass 

farm consolidation, too many rural communities have yet to find the diversified economic base to replace the jobs that have been lost. The consequence continues to 

be the loss of population due to out-migration as young people question the prospects for finding employment and raising families in rural areas. Far too many rural 

communities remain unable to offer economic opportunity to their young people, especially highly educated young people. The young, educated, and upwardly mobile 

leave rural areas in disproportionate numbers, and the cycle of decline continues. 

Reversing that dynamic and transforming rural America for the next Century is our 

mission. 

USDA’s Strategic Plan published earlier this summer by Secretary Vilsack focuses 

squarely on this challenge. The Secretary has identified five pillars to support a new 

foundation for growth and opportunity in rural communities in a rapidly changing 

21st century economy:

• Develop new markets to provide additional income opportunities for farmers 

and ranchers by promoting exports abroad and supporting domestic local and 

regional food systems that keep wealth in rural communities;

• Provide new opportunities for prosperity and small business growth by investing in rural broadband access;

• Create green jobs that can’t be exported by promoting the production of renewable energy in communities across the country;

• Stimulate rural economies by promoting outdoor recreation like hunting, fishing 

and other activities that create jobs as well as conserving the natural resources 

we cherish; and

• Create new income opportunities for rural landowners by facilitating the creation of ecosystems markets that reward them for taking care of the environment.

This is a challenging agenda. It is also a necessary one. USDA Rural Development 

is at the heart of it, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss implementation of 

the Title VI provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill, and the impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) on these programs as we look ahead to the 

2012 Farm Bill. 

The implementation of the last farm bill has coincided with the most severe economic crisis since the 1930’s. In response, the Congress provided an additional $4.36 

billion in ARRA budget authority to support an estimated $22 billion in investments 

in broadband, single family housing, community facilities, water and waste services, 

and business development. As of July 9, 2010, Rural Development has committed 

over $18 billion of this total, which includes:

• Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program (B&I): As of July 9, 2010, the 

B&I program has approved 485 loan guarantees to rural businesses in 49 

10

states. One hundred percent of recipients have been small businesses, and these 

investments have created or saved an estimated 29,469 jobs. As of July 9, 2010, 

the B&I program had obligated 92.3 percent of its projected $1.572 billion in 

ARRA program level funding.

• Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program (RBEG): The RBEG program assists 

rural businesses in creating or retaining rural jobs. A total of 189 projects, have 

been approved including at least one in every state. About $19.25 (99.2 percent) 

million of the available ARRA funding has been obligated as of July 9, 2010.

• Broadband: The Rural Development Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) authorized by ARRA provides both loan and grant assistance. Since the Farm Bill 

Broadband Loan program does not include a grant component, BIP required the 

development of a new program, and initial awards were not made until December 2009. As of July 9, 2010, the BIP program has awarded $1.413 billion to 

construct 102 broadband projects in 37 states and one territory. These projects 

will serve approximately 600,000 rural households, 102,000 businesses, and 

nearly 5,000 anchor institutions (hospitals, schools, community centers, and libraries). The $1.458 billion awarded to date is 43.5 percent of the total projected 

program level of $3.35 billion.

• Water/Wastewater Infrastructure: As of July 9, 2010, the Rural Development 

Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant program has obligated 726 loans 

and grants totaling $2.62 billion to rural communities in 52 states and Territories, many of which had long been backlogged for this perennially oversubscribed program. The $2.62 billion obligated to date represents 80.3 percent of 

the available funding. An additional $245 million in Water program funding has 

been announced but not yet obligated, which brings the total funding commitment to date to 88 percent of the available funds.

• Community Facilities: As of July 9, 2010, the Rural Development Community 

Facilities program has obligated over $891 million in ARRA funding to recipients in 48 states. Including projects announced but not yet obligated, the Community Facilities program has provided ARRA funding totaling just over $1 billion to 1,282 rural communities for libraries, emergency services facilities, critical access hospitals, courthouses, and other essential community services. This 

represents 81.1 percent of the total funds available.

• Single-Family Housing (SFH): As of July 9, 2010, the Rural Development Single 

Family program has assisted more than 90,000 families in purchasing or refinancing their homes. The SFH-Guaranteed program has obligated 99.6 percent 

of the available $10.1 billion in ARRA funds. The SFH-Direct program has obligated 69.4 percent of the $1.562 billion available.

Although authorized by the Recovery Act, these investments flowed through our 

regular Title VI programs, with a number of additional ARRA requirements. These 

included prevailing wage and Buy American provisions as well as rigorous recipient 

reporting requirements to increase transparency and accountability. Including our 

regularly appropriated, non-Recovery Act dollars, our total investment in rural 

America in Fiscal Year 2009 exceeded $31.4 billion. We are on track to have obligated all of our Recovery Act funding by September 30, 2010. I cannot express highly enough my appreciation for the tireless work of our staff in managing a workload 

that was literally doubled overnight with the passage of ARRA. 

At the same time our dedicated staff worked to implement ARRA, they faced the 

challenge of implementing a number of new provisions in non-ARRA programs mandated by the farm bill. In the interests of time, I will limit my comments today to 

the Title VI programs that are either new, that have been significantly changed, or 

that have been the object of particular interest by this Subcommittee.

• Broadband Loan Program: The Recovery Act provided an opportunity to 

make significant investments to bring broadband to rural communities and has 

drawn new interest from across the country. We have studied the applications 

and awards under BIP in order to improve the pending new regulations for the 

farm bill program. The two programs are not directly comparable: the farm bill 

program is loan-only, while BIP provides the flexibility to provide a competitively awarded mix of loans and grants. Nonetheless, we believe that there will 

be valuable insights to incorporate into the final Broadband Loan Program rule, 

which we now anticipate publishing by the end of this calendar year.

• Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP): The RMAP program is one of the most exciting new initiatives from the 2008 Farm Bill. It provides funding through community based intermediary institutions to make 

small loans and technical assistance to microentrepreneurs. This holds great 

11

promise for targeting assistance to startup and home based ventures, which are 

often particularly important in rural communities. I would also note that there 

is a clear synergy between RMAP and the rural broadband program, which will 

give even the smallest rural entrepreneur access to regional, national, and even 

global markets.

The Interim Rule to implement RMAP was published in the Federal Register

on May 28, 2010. A Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) was published on 

June 3. A total of $45.1 million is available in FY 2010 for loans, grants, and 

technical assistance. The initial application window closed July 16, and we are 

beginning to evaluate the responses. We anticipate announcing initial awards 

by late summer.

• Value-Added Producer Grant Program (VAPG): The VAPG program is a 

tool for enhancing producers’ incomes and encouraging wealth creation in rural 

America. The 2008 Farm Bill made significant changes related to minority and 

socially disadvantaged producers and mid-tier value chains. These issues are 

complex and, in response to comments from stakeholders and our own internal 

analysis, the initial FY 2009 NOFA implementing this program was withdrawn. 

A revised NOFA for Fiscal Year 2009 was published on September 1, 2009, with 

the application window closing on November 30. Rural Development received 

550 applications in response to the FY 2009 NOFA and, on June 3, 2010, we 

announced approximately $22.5 million in funding for 195 projects.

To implement new permanent regulations for the VAPG program, USDA published a proposed rule on May 28, 2010. The public comment period closed on 

June 28, 2010. We anticipate publication of an interim final rule in the Fall and 

publication of the FY 2010 NOFA shortly thereafter.

• SEARCH Grants (Special Evaluation Assistance for Rural Communities 

and Households Program): The SEARCH Grant program is an important enhancement to the Rural Development Water and Wastewater Program. It will 

provide predevelopment planning grants for feasibility studies, design assistance, and technical assistance to financially distressed rural communities of 

2,500 or fewer inhabitants for water and waste disposal projects. This will remove a significant barrier to many of our neediest communities as they seek 

to provide essential community services to their residents. A Final Rule for the 

SEARCH Grant Program was published on June 24, 2010, although no funds 

are available in the current fiscal year. SEARCH Grants will be available in 

FY 2011 if Congress provides funding.

Our topic today is Title VI, but in closing I wish to acknowledge as well the dedication and effort of our Business Programs and Energy Division staff in implementing the important new energy initiatives created or expanded in Title IX of the 

farm bill. We have testified on that subject separately, and I know that we will have 

many opportunities to revisit Title IX with you. Renewable energy is one of Secretary Vilsack’s five pillars for rural development, and for good reason: It provides 

an extraordinary opportunity for rural producers, landowners, businesses, investors, 

and utilities as we build the production capacity and smart grid necessary to transition America to a new, cleaner energy system in the decades ahead. 

As we look ahead, we also look forward to your continued counsel as we seek to 

apply the lessons learned in ARRA to the administration of our ‘‘baseline’’ nonARRA programs. In particular, ARRA has afforded us an opportunity to observe the 

impact of a loan component in the rural broadband program. I anticipate this will 

be an ongoing topic of discussion in the months ahead. 

The ability under ARRA to provide a flexible mix of loans and grants to 

broadband applicants is worthy of study and discussion. The existing farm bill loan 

program does not have this flexibility. This was an issue that was discussed at 

length during consideration of the last farm bill, and it is a question that may be 

revisited as we consider the next one. 

Looking ahead, we would also be eager to discuss with you options for streamlining and rationalizing program delivery. Rural Development administers over 40 

programs. Many of them are small and overlapping. We understand that Members 

often have very targeted objectives in mind in crafting program authorities, but 

there may well be significant administrative efficiencies to be gained through consolidation. We would of course wish to ensure that any reorganization preserves and 

enhances our outreach and service to rural communities. 

Another important initiative for the Obama Administration is looking at how communities can work together in regions. We are encouraged that the 2011 budget proposed to explore smart regional approaches within the current farm bill programs, 

and we look forward to continuing this discussion as we move towards the 2012 

12

Farm Bill. Broadband, renewable energy, the smart grid, transportation, water and 

wastewater services, and many essential community services such as hospitals and 

emergency services are inherently regional in character. It is clear that a holistic 

multi-community and multi-county approach leverages resources and rationalizes 

planning, and we look forward to working with you to find ways to move rural communities in this direction. 

Finally, I expect that the definition of rural will be as contentious in the next 

farm bill as it was in the last. We have in draft a report to the Congress on this 

question and will submit it to you in the coming months. It is easy to describe the 

difficulties with the existing definitions of rural; the challenge is to identify a definitional scheme that does not create as many problems as it solves. This is a difficult 

question, as this Subcommittee fully appreciates, and I know that we will have extended discussions with you as we move forward. 

These are sensitive questions on which we want to work collaboratively with 

stakeholders and the Congress before proposing significant changes. I am glad that 

the Subcommittee is beginning this discussion now, in order to provide time for 

thoughtful consideration. I know that you share our commitment to improving our 

service to rural America, and I welcome your thoughts, comments, and questions as 

we begin this discussion. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Under Secretary. 

Can you explain the notice in the Federal Register yesterday regarding the Microenterprise Assistance Program, why nonprofits 

have previously been excluded, and if this change was made in response to concerns of the stakeholders involved? 

Mr. TONSAGER. The Microenterprise Assistance Program we are 

very excited about. I just want to put that on the table. We think 

it is an extremely useful tool in rural communities, especially the 

ones we are trying to get to the most. 

I will ask Administrator Canales to comment on your question. 

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome, Ms. Canales. 

Ms. CANALES. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, 

Ranking Member Conaway. 

Indeed, yesterday we published a notice in the Federal Register

that makes clear the eligibility for nonprofits, both public and private, that can be participants in the Rural Microenterprise Assistance Program. This was something that was not an intentional exclusion, over the long run, these organizations, nonprofits, have 

been a big participant of all of our rural business programs. In 

making that correction, we are also going to look at extending our 

first round so that those organizations can have the opportunity to 

apply if they thought they could not initially. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you expect revisiting the interim final rule 

again this fiscal year? I know there have been concerns that have 

been raised about interest rates, grant rates, and the addition of 

some of the unauthorized provisions limiting Federal assistance to 

the rural loan, and requiring some credit test—of the total loan and 

requiring some credit test. 

Ms. CANALES. We are taking a look at this. I know there has 

been a concern in regards to the timing, but this is a new program, 

and this is also a very new opportunity for us to delve into the 

microlending at the level that it is. So we want to make sure that 

the rule fully relates to the Congress’ intent, as well as listens to 

the various stakeholder groups from around the United States that 

have commented. So, for that reason, we will be looking very closely at the comments that these organizations have communicated to 

us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

13

Mr. Under Secretary or Mr. Adelstein, one of you may want to 

address the concern that we have with the Broadband Loan Program, what it will look like in the future, especially if there is the 

growing concern about when grants may no longer be part of a mix. 

In your testimony you stated that you studied the applications and 

awards in order to improve the pending new regulations for the 

program. Can you share with us anything you have learned so far, 

or anything that might be useful to this Committee on the statutory side of things, as we now consider a new farm bill and its effect on broadband? 

Mr. TONSAGER. First of all, we are very pleased about the ARRA 

Broadband Program. We have spent a significant amount of time, 

of course, implementing that program; and we are rapidly approaching the round two announcements. We will be involved with 

the round two announcements in the very near future. 

We of course arrived here a little over a year ago collectively, so 

that is the only time we have had to deal with the farm bill 

broadband program. 

I think it does make sense that we look closely at what we have 

learned with this mix of grant-loan combinations. Obviously, we 

have wanted to address the most difficult, challenging parts of 

rural America in this grant-loan combination mix. We want to use 

every resource we can have to address broadband. 

I am going to turn it over to Administrator Adelstein to talk 

about the farm bill program broadband issue, and maybe he can 

address your questions directly. 

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome, Mr. Adelstein. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One of the lessons, as the Under Secretary indicated, is that it 

is very difficult to have a business case in some of the most remote 

rural areas for a loan-only program. One of the concerns that was 

raised in previous Congresses was that RUS was making loans in 

areas that were not sufficiently rural, that weren’t the most remote. That is why we attempted in the first round of the ARRA 

Broadband Program to go to the most remote areas. 

As the Ranking Member said, in the first round of ARRA funding 

we are still continuing to do that. But in serving the most difficult 

to serve areas, we, of course, still want to make sure the taxpayer 

is paid back. In many cases, the business case is the most difficult 

in the areas that are hardest to serve. We found the broadband 

program has been essential in order to provide a grant component 

that has enabled those businesses to balance out the project so they 

can take on a loan and responsibly service the debt for those loans. 

We sometimes need to reduce that loan amount, just as we do in 

the water program, where we carefully calibrate the amount of 

grant versus the amount of loan. 

This has been very successful in the Recovery Act Broadband 

Program to get broadband to places that otherwise wouldn’t be possible. We have literally transformed communities by providing 

broadband to these areas. 

The other big lesson we have had is the importance of flexibility. 

We learned in the first round and we have learned in the Farm Bill 

Broadband Program in the past that there is a need for additional 

flexibility for us to work with our borrowers, to work with our 

14

grantees to ensure that we can meet their needs in a way that allows them to continue to operate their business as they have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

I am going to now proceed to our Ranking Member for questions 

he may have. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just preface remarks by I know you guys have a spectacularly difficult job. Congress lays on all kinds of new initiatives and 

new programs and new, ‘‘Gee whiz, this is a great idea things,’’ on 

you. You also come up with those ideas yourselves. I understand 

there is a tension with limited resources to do everything everybody wants to get done, your side, our side; and somehow you parse 

that out and figure out how to get it done. 

These examples of the definition of rural, that is, the study, is 

late. By statute, it should have already been here. Our frustration, 

of course, is that we have some things we think are a good idea. 

We have no leverage whatsoever to make that happen, other than 

to drag you in here and explain to the world that that study is not 

done. 

You said, late this summer—this summer—that you think that 

you will have that study done? 

Mr. TONSAGER. Yes. 

Mr. CONAWAY. With respect to stimulus spending, there are lots 

of differences of opinion as to whether or not that is the right way 

to go. But is there any doubt in anybody’s mind that money in the 

stimulus program that has not yet been spent is stimulative? Anybody remotely think that money that hasn’t been spent yet is doing 

anything that those who favor the stimulus plan said it does or 

would do? 

Mr. TONSAGER. If I understand—forgive me, but——

Mr. CONAWAY. That was a terribly phrased question. The idea 

that, unless you spend it, it can’t possibly be stimulative, that view. 

Mr. TONSAGER. Right. We very much feel we are on track to use 

all of the funds. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. With respect to the broadband issues, 13 

projects—and maybe you don’t have the detail of the granularity to 

tell us, but could you walk us through, say, three of those projects 

than have actually broken ground where it is moving forward? We 

are 19 months into this session and well into 17 months of stimulus activity. Can you talk to us briefly about a specific project that 

has actually broken ground?

Mr. TONSAGER. Go ahead, Jonathan.

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Well, certainly. There is a project in Kansas, a 

Kansas rural telephone company, that is a large project that already has broken ground. A number of these projects have done a 

lot of pre-engineering work. We have many of them that have broken ground. The one in Kansas, in particular, is a very large 

project, 4,600 square miles in rural Kansas, that they have already 

begun to do work on. 

There are other examples of that. Those that haven’t broken 

ground are already engaged in pre-construction activities, which 

have involved hiring and job creation. 

Mr. CONAWAY. The stimulus money has got to be spent by the 

end of September. 

15

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Correct. 

Mr. CONAWAY. And you are on track to get all of that money 

spent? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Absolutely, we are on track. We have met all of 

our milestones. There are a large number of announcements coming up very shortly. 

Mr. CONAWAY. So the projects will be finished, the taxpayer will 

be able to get a completion certificate that the project is throwing 

out broadband service by September 30? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. No, by obligation we mean that the funds have 

been committed by the Federal Government. The actual projects 

take a longer period of time. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Yes. Those commitments, though, have to be 

something beyond just an Executive Branch commitment. You have 

to have signed a contract with somebody, right? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Yes, that will be a full contract, signed, sealed, 

and delivered that they will deliver what it is the taxpayer is funding. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. Back to the conflict between you guys doing 

what Secretary Vilsack and what the President wants to you do 

versus what Congress wants you to do. 

Know Your Food, Know Your Farmer, that doesn’t appear to 

have a lot of authority for it under the law. Yet you have pushed 

that one forward. You have not done a study on the definition of 

rural. You have not done a lot of things we can list. But you have 

decided that Know Your Food, Know Your Farmer is a big deal. 

How much money are we spending on that? 

Mr. TONSAGER. I am going to ask the Administrator to speak to 

that, but first I want to talk about Know Your Farmer, Know Your 

Food a little bit. 

One of the great struggles in rural America is local economics, 

developing businesses locally that do generate local activity. I think 

Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food addresses that very well. I 

think it does create an economic opportunity in a lot of rural communities that is hard to generate at times. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Before this initiative, folks in rural America didn’t 

realize they could grow things and sell it to local markets? 

Mr. TONSAGER. No, of course they did. They understood that. I 

think that there has been a movement that has grown for some 

years relative to local foods, and our hope is to enhance that and 

encourage that. 

Mr. CONAWAY. How much resources have you put against that 

program? 

Mr. TONSAGER. I will ask the Administrator to speak to that specifically. 

Ms. CANALES. Yes, sir, Mr. Conaway. There are a couple of programs specifically that I am responsible for within the Rural Business and Cooperative Programs. Our flagship program, the Business and Industry Loan Guarantee Program, had a five percent 

set-aside for local food usage; and we surpassed that in Fiscal Year 

2010. Actually, 14 percent of our entire Business and Industry loan 

portfolio went to some type of local food activity. 

Mr. CONAWAY. What is the dollar amount on that? 

16

Ms. CANALES. The dollar amount on that particular amount was $188 million in loan guarantees. Remember these are local businesses that get that loan—the bank has to make the loan with that 

loan guarantee. So that is our contribution, and that was 14 percent. 

The previous year, in Fiscal Year 2009, it was 7.7 percent. So 

there is additional activity to that. 

So, in total, over Fiscal Year 2009 and 2010 to date—because, as 

you know, we are not done yet with Fiscal Year 2010—and we are 

still making loans, by the way—it is $276 million. 

Now also——

Mr. CONAWAY. That is gross loans. That is not——

Ms. CANALES. Right, because you are not looking at all the other 

leveraged amounts. Because there are other monies that go into 

projects. There may be a local contribution. There may be an SBA 

loan. That is a deal-to-deal scenario. 

The other part that I wanted to mention to you is the ValueAdded Producer Grant Program which, as you know, has been a 

very, very active program. We are very pleased that we were able 

to reach 45 states to make it a truly national program: $22 million, 

195 projects throughout the United States. So if you look at that 

combined amount, $22 million and the $276 million, you are reaching almost $300 million. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Conaway. 

Mr. Kissell. 

Mr. KISSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome to everybody here, and I especially want to say hello to 

Ms. Canales. She was good enough to come visit. Chairman McIntyre and I, our districts are side by side; and we share a lot of common challenges in our rural development opportunities. And Ms. 

Canales was good enough to come to a joint session of the Chairman’s worst counties and some of the worst counties in my district 

coming together; and she was able to come in, talk to folks. We 

really appreciated that visit immensely, and the follow up that has 

come out of that. 

My question, Mr. Under Secretary, it really relates to the reason 

why we needed Ms. Canales to come visit us. In large part—there 

are other reasons, too, but in large part there are areas within our 

nation, especially my district and, as I mentioned, Chairman 

McIntyre’s district where trade deals in effect took away certain industries from places, and really put those areas at disadvantages 

before the national economy went down. Those areas saw their 

economy had already gone down because they lost their industry so 

fast, especially in textiles, furniture making, so forth and so on. 

We almost have seen where the winners and losers in certain industries have created winners and losers within areas. My question 

is, as we look towards the new farm bill, how can we address those 

areas? As Ms. Canales came and visited those areas that were suffering before, and it is more than just an economic downturn for 

the nation, that there are certain inherent problems not of their 

own making where you—how do you attract new industry? How do 

you attract the upturn in the economy when you are facing the situation that these areas have faced because they just don’t have 

17

anything to build on? The traditional agriculture is doing well, but 

the infrastructure to a certain degree has been lost. 

So in that area of our rural economy how can we look towards—

give a little extra attention to them so that we can kind of recognize, as Ms. Canales came down, recognize these areas are trying 

to overcome more than just a downturn in the economy. When everything starts going again will they be okay, because they weren’t 

okay before? 

Mr. TONSAGER. That is a challenge faced by many rural communities, and I appreciate the question regarding that. 

I think especially as we go into the 2012 discussion we should 

focus on those very stressed areas that you described. We do have 

tools, and as an agency we like to think of ourselves as a problemsolving agency. So we want to engage in a problem-solving way in 

the long term in this case, as you described it to me. 

On the northern plains, we developed an ethanol industry. That 

is not necessarily the solution for everybody. We hope energy can 

be the solution for a lot of areas in development. But we brought 

together farmers, private investors, and others in two groups that 

created these ventures, that created the jobs. I think we have to 

look a lot to ourselves for the investment and for the capital necessary to build these kinds of ventures. 

We think that the Secretary’s approach to regionalism makes a 

lot of sense. The idea is to try to get communities to work together 

that may have been competitive with each other in the past, and 

spend some time together and see if they can find mutually beneficial strategies. We like feasibility studies, we like business plans, 

we like Value-Added Producer Grant Programs that causes those 

kinds of things to happen. 

Because local economies really have to be built by local people, 

and the more they understand about their opportunities the better 

opportunity they have to be successful. 

I think we have a lot to talk about about the tools that we can 

possibly provide to help the communities that you describe. From 

our staff perspective we do want to form groups and efforts that 

help regions like yours be successful. 

Mr. KISSELL. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kissell. 

Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member, and 

Mr. Under Secretary. I really appreciate everyone’s testimony 

today. 

Mr. Under Secretary, you mention that prevailing wages are required to qualify for stimulus funding in your testimony. I have a 

specific project in mind in my district, actually, a visiting nurse 

agency building that typically would qualify under the program 

prior to the stimulus. It certainly qualifies today under the provisions of the stimulus. 

But the situation that happened, though, was they found that 

they had to find other alternatives to pursue that project. Because 

when it came down to it, they knew they could afford the project 

until all the new conditions with the stimulus monies, which specifically was prevailing wage, was imposed; and prevailing wage 

18

was enough to put them over—beyond the resources that would be 

available to be able to do that project. They couldn’t afford that increased cost because of the prevailing wage requirement. Is there 

anything—or what can be done to address this? 

Mr. TONSAGER. We certainly would want to continue to work 

with them to see if we can develop strategies that would help them 

do the project. We have a complement of laws that we have to deal 

with regarding the stimulus money and our normal programs. So, 

in that case, what we would attempt to do is sit down with them—

and I am not quite sure which program area you are referring to, 

probably Community Facilities. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Community Facilities and rural economic development specifically. It just struck me, though, that stimulus was 

supposed to be above and beyond; and these folks applied early. 

This was a very early project that was brought to my attention, a 

great project. This is an agency that touches a lot of lives in rural 

communities, a very rural area. And it just struck me that if stimulus was above and beyond, why, because they were pursuing Community Facilities monies, where was the baseline of the program 

that always has been here? 

And, frankly, let me say USDA does a great job with that, the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the state office, the regional offices, we are very proud of the work they do in our rural communities. This part was very, very frustrating not just certainly to 

those folks in that rural community, but to me, that we added the 

prevailing wage component that essentially priced the project out 

of affordability. 

Mr. TONSAGER. If I could, I would ask Ms. Trevino to offer any 

ideas she might have regarding the project. 

Ms. TREVINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. 

We were instructed to use prevailing rate wage rates with all our 

CF projects, and so with the ARRA money it was something we had 

to impose. So there was no getting around that. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Was there a rationale why that was? I don’t believe—just a point of clarification, prior to the ARRA stimulus 

money, was prevailing wage a required component within a Community Facilities program? 

Ms. TREVINO. Well, I believe it was something that was imposed 

just on ARRA. So, many of the projects that were difficult to fund 

based on the prevailing wage increase went through fiscal year 

money instead of the ARRA funding. 

Mr. TONSAGER. I would add that this is statutory for us. What 

we do in the regular program it would not be a critical element. 

That is for the existing program, the non-stimulus program. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. Certainly a part that makes—that part of 

what was added to statute puts our rural communities just at a 

tremendous disadvantage. 

I also know this project was really looking to use local contractors. They wanted to hire local folks to stimulate those local rural 

communities, and yet for many different reasons prevailing wage 

priced them out of that market, and projects that they would have 

to go to bigger cities, much further away than Clarion County, 

Pennsylvania. 

19

Mr. Adelstein, just real quickly, because I am running out of 

time, in November 2009, 20 of my colleagues actually on the Small 

Business Committee and I sent you a letter, which I am submitting 

for the record, describing our concern with the implementation for 

funding for rural broadband within the stimulus. 

[The document referred to is located on p. 67.] 

Mr. THOMPSON. Specifically, our letter suggests giving 

prioritization to rural areas with the greatest need, improving the 

website, the complexity of the application process, the difficulty of 

requiring the 10 year limitation on the sale or lease of ARRA-funded facilities, matching contributions and a definition of a remote 

area—and my time is limited. Actually, it has expired. But I guess 

what I would ask, it would be great to get a follow up now that 

it has been—I know that we have an initial follow up, and I appreciate that. But, now that we are many months down the line it 

would be great to kind of get a follow up and see where we are 

with all those. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Thank you. I would be happy to respond, if I 

could, now. 

Basically, we have addressed all the issues that have been raised 

by you and others in terms of the second round of funding that we 

did. In the second NOFA, we eliminated the requirement that there 

be a remote definition but instead prioritized funding toward the 

most remote rural areas. We did provide for more flexible funding 

for the grant, we changed the way that we focused on last mile, 

and we had the Commerce Department focus on the middle-mile 

projects, splitting those up. We tried to be more flexible. The 

website has been updated since then. We have attempted to address all those issues. I would be happy to go line by line in response to the record, if that would be helpful. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Cassidy. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I came in late so I am not sure to whom to address 

my questions, but I will try to throw it out and let you pick, if you 

will. 

In my office, there is someone who helps communities with grant 

applications. She tells me the process is complex, that it can take 

up to a week of a full-time worker for a community which, by definition almost, has few resources to apply. Indeed, sometimes they 

have to a hire professional grant worker, grant writer, in order to 

get their grants, which we are depriving a minimally resourced 

community of resources in order to get the resources, if you will. 

Any thoughts? How can we make this better? 

Mr. TONSAGER. We do have challenges relative to our application 

processes, and we do seek to try and make those work as well as 

we can. There are also technical service providers, such as planning districts and other parties, who will assist communities with 

development of those grant applications. 

Sometimes it is a matter of degree. Sometimes the projects are 

very large, involving a significant amount of money, and do require 

a significant amount of work to get there. 

20

I do appreciate the concern expressed, that we have 40 some programs, with an application process that is, in many cases, different 

for each. And so is there opportunity to take a look at that? Yes, 

there probably is. 

I guess, coming into the farm bill, we would want to have a dialogue with you about streamlining some of the programs, not to 

eliminate anybody from getting a program, not to seek to reduce 

the funding for a program, but to look exactly at that. Because 

some of these——

Mr. CASSIDY. Can I ask staff, both sides, to make a meeting with 

your office so that it becomes an action point, as opposed to a thing 

we could do? Is that okay, Mr. McIntyre? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Because I can tell you from the front lines folks are 

having a difficult time navigating this. 

I know of one rural community that hired someone to do a grant 

application for the broadband. The contractor screwed it up, and 

they have lost their opportunity, even though later review showed 

they had a strong application. So, again, it becomes almost a feedin, if you will. So can we work that out? 

Mr. TONSAGER. We would very much look forward to it. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Next—and I don’t know this. You can tell me I perhaps should, and I apologize if I should. You have specific funds 

within the Business and Industry program for loans, loan guarantees to rural food enterprise entrepreneurs that process and distribute through locally and regionally. In my community, both 

Southern University and LSU have ag extension stations which do 

some of this, but they are, frankly, cash strapped right now. Is it 

possible for these ag extension stations to apply for some of these 

funds, either directly, or through a subsidiary, in order to bring 

this process to the people whom they serve? 

Mr. TONSAGER. We would certainly be happy to meet with them 

and explore every program we have that may potentially be used 

for them in some way. Of course, whether it is debt service, or 

whether they have the capacity for debt service would be a question for them. We do have some grant programs that maybe could 

be beneficial through themselves or a subsidiary, but we would 

want to go through it with them to make sure we get them on the 

right track. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Just so—I have an example. I was in Birmingham, 

Alabama. They have taken a plot of ground which was unused next 

to a housing project and set up an urban garden. The people that 

run this urban garden then sell their organically grown food to 

high-end restaurants in town, as well as consume it themselves. 

Now it is a consortium of private individuals that put it together 

initially. But, again, within these ag extension stations we have 

folks whose full-time job is to implement such. So just as an example, is that something that could potentially access grants or funding through this program? 

Mr. TONSAGER. Well, we would want to explore it with them and 

make sure we could help. I would ask the Administrator, Judy, to 

comment as well. 

Ms. CANALES. Thank you, Mr. Cassidy. 

21

In fact, I attended a Value-Added Producer Grant Program conference held in Biloxi, Mississippi, 2 weeks ago that was all extension folks. They were coming from around the United States, and 

they have been very keen on exactly what you are talking about. 

And many of them have been able to provide technical assistance, 

assist with feasibility studies and so forth, for clients to be able to 

access the Value-Added Producer Grant. 

Another group which is actually also in your state are the 1890 

organizations, educational institutions. They, too, have also received some support from USDA, from my organization to provide 

technical assistance to businesses in their service area. 

And then the other part I wanted to make sure you were mindful 

of is the Rural Microenterprise Assistance Program that we are 

launching—we are deep into the application process now—also includes technical assistance monies to organizations. Universities 

are eligible entities to apply, to be able to assist with technical assistance. So we would love to have this conversation with you and 

become more familiar with the groups that you know of that would 

want to get involved in this. 

Mr. TONSAGER. I am reminded as well we have to make sure it 

is a rural project and also reference you to the ag marketing service that could also potentially be helpful on the project. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Cassidy. 

Mr. Under Secretary, Secretary Vilsack identified increasing populations in rural communities as a goal for the next farm bill. Can 

you identify what, if any, programs in Rural Development could be 

better utilized to meet this goal, or how they might be changed in 

any way to meet this goal? 

Mr. TONSAGER. That is a pretty broad challenge to me. I think 

the Secretary is very frustrated with the out-migration we see in 

a lot of rural communities. He really has pressed us hard to look 

at our programs to see what programs specifically can be helpful 

to bring that growth back, or to at least mitigate the decrease in 

population in rural areas. 

I tend to focus on the business-related programs and those that 

help enterprises create jobs, because without job creation, without 

wealth creation, the migration is difficult to stop. Many of our programs support rural communities and services that help attract 

people to rural communities—good community facilities, good housing, and so forth—but you have to have a component of that that 

pays the bills. For example, the programs related to bio-energy that 

might help us create projects that create economic growth, job creation, use of local materials for new product production, are really 

fundamental keys. I offer that as an opinion from my perspective 

about what really has to happen for jobs, for communities to be created and that is job creation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Conaway, do you have an additional question? 

Mr. CONAWAY. I do have one other one real quick, actually two, 

kind of a follow up on Mr. Thompson’s conversation with you about 

prevailing wage or Davis-Bacon. 

If projects cost 20 percent more than they would have otherwise 

cost without the Davis-Bacon provision, does that mean the 

22

projects then are 20 percent smaller than they would have been, 

or that communities have to find that 20 percent somewhere else? 

How does that work? 

Mr. TONSAGER. Generally speaking, the whole project would be 

eligible for the grant-loan combination. So I don’t think that they 

would be necessarily 20 percent smaller. 

Administrator Adelstein would like to comment about it. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Yes, in terms of Davis-Bacon, the ARRA 

Broadband Program initially referred to it. The applicant is able to 

bid for the full price of the project, including the wages. So they 

would submit to us in their application what their anticipated wage 

rates would be, and if they were higher then they would be eligible 

for a larger overall grant-loan combination. 

Mr. CONAWAY. So the grant which is provided by taxpayers 

across this country to fund that piece of it, or they would be required to borrow more money than they would have otherwise had 

to borrow. Is that a fair assessment? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. I would say so. The Act requires Davis-Bacon 

wage rates. The idea was to create high-paying jobs, make sure 

that these jobs that were created under this are good jobs you can 

sustain your family with and earn a good living. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Yes, I have heard that argument. 

One final thing, under section 6110 of the farm bill which was 

signed in May of 2008 there is a provision for access to the Rural 

Broadband Loan Program that Secretary Vilsack has announced 

that some 3 years into the deal we will finally implement it in 

2011. There has already been a requirement that one of those 

pesky annual reports to Congress be made. And if the loan program is not functioning that report would be relatively quick for 

2009 and 2010, I guess. But could you give us the rationale, Dallas, 

as to why the continued delay in this loan program under the farm 

bill? 

Mr. TONSAGER. We are addressing the loan program, and we 

want to move forward with it. We do believe we have learned a lot, 

as talked about previously, going through this grant-loan process. 

Of course, that grant-loan mix has predominated under the circumstances for the last 18 months on the application process. 

Jonathan, can you add to that? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. That is right. We have seen very little interest 

in the Farm Bill Loan Program while the ARRA Program has been 

in place, and we are taking the lessons from ARRA into account. 

We also learned from the FCC’s National Broadband Plan what 

their plan is, and we wanted to make sure we had a program that 

fit in with what the FCC had in mind. So we are moving quickly 

now to get those regs done, get them done right. 

I actually worked on the original farm bill when I was on the 

staff for the U.S. Senate on that, so I understand the importance 

of it. We are certainly working on that. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Sure. The provision authorizes some $25 million 

a year for each year. Do you know off the top of your head, since 

we have lost 21⁄2 years of that authorization, does it carry forward? Does the full $125 million that was authorized over the 5 years, 

will your program have access to that? Or is it just $25 million per 

year from this point forward? 

23

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Those were multi-year monies, so in fact, those 

funds can be rolled over into the next year, which was another consideration. Because we are likely to get a larger demand for the 

Farm Bill Loan Program as ARRA expires, I think the interest is 

going to quickly rise on that. We want to transition people into that 

program that didn’t make it in ARRA and have other loan needs; 

and so having those additional funds will be very useful for that 

purpose. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks, everybody. I appreciate you being here today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do any of the panelists have a remaining question? 

You do, Mr. Cassidy? 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, you may or may not be able to answer this. 

I am not quite sure how broad your kind of authority is. But you 

mention on page three of your testimony that USDA’s core support—core goal is to support rural communities, providing incentives to help the environment. And yet I gather that the President’s 

budget calls for using conservation funds for other purposes. And 

so it is seems as if we are at cross purposes. We desire to strengthen the ecosystems, if you will, and yet the President’s budget is diverting conservation funds. Any comments, thoughts, illuminations, 

disabusements?

Mr. TONSAGER. That core goal is not part of my mission area. I 

do not have an intimate knowledge of the conservation programs 

or the directions they are moving. Clearly, the Secretary wants conservation and believes ecomarkets are an important part of the 

economy that we are moving into in the future, but, beyond that, 

I really couldn’t comment. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank all of our panelists and the excellent job that you 

have done and the service that you give to our country. Thank you 

for your commitment. 

Mr. Tonsager, thank you especially for bringing all of your Administrators with you. And, to the Administrators, we look forward 

to our continued work with you. God bless each of you. 

We will now just take a momentary break to in order to change 

panels. You may stand up and stretch if you are in the audience 

and need a break. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The second panel should be seated. We need to 

proceed. 

We want to welcome today our second panel of witnesses. We’ll 

let each of you describe exactly what your position is. 

Is Dr. Ayers in the room? 

Not seeing him in place yet, Mr. Higginbotham, we will proceed 

with you, if you would like to proceed. 

24

STATEMENT OF THOMAS HIGGINBOTHAM, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, NORTHEAST NEBRASKA ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT; MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEVELOPMENT

ORGANIZATIONS, NORFOLK, NE 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Conaway, and Members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Tom Higginbotham. I am the Executive Director for 

the Northeast Nebraska Economic Development District, 

headquartered in Norfolk. I also serve on the Board of Directors for 

the National Association of Development Organizations. I thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today on USDA Rural Development programs in advance of the 2012 Farm Bill. 

My goal today is to offer some concrete examples about the effectiveness of USDA’s rural business programs and to provide suggestions as you look toward the next farm bill. 

This morning, I will limit my remarks to three main points: 

First, USDA’s business loan, grant, and technical assistance programs for the Rural Business and Cooperative Service are essential 

resources for rural communities as they try to create economic opportunities and improve the quality of life for their citizens. With 

USDA’s assistance, rural communities across the nation are now 

better positioned to pursue new jobs and wealth-generating opportunities. 

Together with our 501(c)(3) nonprofit, Northeast Economic Development Incorporated maintains a rural business grant and loan 

portfolio of $2.2 million, which comprises more than 45 percent of 

our business. Since 2001, these funds have helped to create or retain more than 450 jobs throughout our region. 

Second, USDA’s Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program and 

Intermediary Relending Program are highly effective sources that 

allow intermediaries to assist rural entrepreneurs, business leaders, and local officials as they pursue innovative development strategies and business opportunities. 

I would like to highlight one instance where USDA RBEG funding was crucial for the operation of four small businesses in our region. 

After 2008 flooding that occurred in Platte County, Colfax, and 

Butler County, NED, Inc. received $200,000 of rural RBEG funding 

to assist these businesses to rebuild. After using these funds, it 

was able to provide assistance to four businesses: Kracl Funeral 

Chapel, John’s Tire Sales and Service, Grubaugh Machine, and 

Creative Touch. 

With the help of these funds, Kracl Funeral Chapel retained five 

full-time employees and continued operations as usual; John’s Tire 

Sales and Service retained two full-time employees and changed 

their business focus to tire sales, which increased their profitability; and Creative Touch retained four full-time positions. Finally, Grubaugh Machine, a family owned business, retained three 

full-time positions and purchased some new equipment, which 

helped them expand their business. 

Without the assistance of USDA’s RBEG program provided to 

help these businesses get back on their feet after the flooding, they 

might not be in operation today. 

25

It is important to note that, while these types of programs are 

taken for granted in a more urban setting, in a highly rural area 

such as ours there may only be one tire center and one funeral 

home. The loss of these specialized services to our citizens could be 

great. 

But my region is not the only one benefiting from USDA’s programs. My written testimony includes examples from around the 

nation that the USDA funding has helped toward the job and 

wealth creation of many businesses and entrepreneurs. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Administration’s newly proposed Regional Innovation Initiative will make USDA’s infrastructure investments more efficient and effective by rewarding regional approaches to rural development. The initiative will allocate funds 

competitively among innovative regional economic development 

projects tailored to local needs and opportunities. The initiative’s 

new approach will lead to increased efficiency as rural community 

capacity is enhanced through greater coordination and leveraging 

of regional funds. 

NADO supports the goal of moving rural development towards 

commitment to regional strategies designed by local leaders. We 

urge the Subcommittee to support this promising initiative. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today; and I welcome any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Higginbotham follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS HIGGINBOTHAM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NORTHEAST NEBRASKA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT; MEMBER, BOARD OF

DIRECTORS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS, NORFOLK, 

NE 

Thank you, Chairman McIntyre, Ranking Member Conaway and Members of the 

Subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify today on U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development programs in advance of the 2012 Farm Bill. 

My name is Thomas Higginbotham. I am Executive Director of the Northeast Nebraska Economic Development District, headquartered in Norfolk. I also serve on 

the Board of Directors of the National Association of Development Organizations 

(NADO). 

Before I begin, let me first thank the Subcommittee for your leadership and support of rural development programs. The broad portfolio of USDA Rural Development programs for business development, community facilities, broadband and telecommunications, and value-added agriculture production and marketing are essential to the long-term economic competitiveness of our nation’s small urban and rural 

communities. 

My goal today in covering this important topic is to offer some concrete examples 

about the effectiveness of USDA’s rural business programs and to provide suggestions as you look toward the next farm bill. As debate begins on the rewrite of the 

farm bill, I strongly encourage Members of this Subcommittee to make rural business, and rural development programs in general, a central theme of the proposal. 

These programs are critical to economic expansion in rural America. 

About the National Association of Development Organizations 

The National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) provides 

advocacy, education, research and training for a national network of 520 

regional development organizations. NADO members—known locally as councils of governments, economic development districts, local development districts, 

planning and development districts, regional councils and regional planning commissions—are focused on strengthening local governments, communities and economies through regional solutions, partnerships and strategies. 

This morning, I would like to focus my remarks on three key points.

1. USDA’s business loan, grant and technical assistance programs provided through the Rural Business and Cooperative Service (RBS), are 

26

essential resources for rural communities as they strive to create economic opportunities and improve the quality of life for their citizens.

With USDA’s assistance, rural communities across the nation are now in a better position to pursue new job and wealth-generating opportunities, whether in 

traditional sectors such as agriculture and natural-resource based industries or 

emerging science and technology fields.

2. USDA Rural Development’s Rural Business Enterprise Grant (RBEG) 

program and Intermediary Relending Program (IRP) are highly effective resources that allow intermediaries to assist rural entrepreneurs, business leaders and local officials as they pursue innovative development strategies 

and business opportunities. NADO encourages the Committee to look at ways 

to increase funding resources for these small yet invaluable programs.

3. The Administration’s newly proposed Regional Innovation Initiative 

will make USDA’s infrastructure investments more efficient and effective by rewarding regional strategic approaches to rural development.

The Regional Innovation Initiative will provide incentives and resources for the 

enrichment of rural development strategies on a regional and local basis to implement area-wide priority projects and initiatives. NADO urges the Subcommittee to support this promising initiative.

First, Mr. Chairman, USDA’s vital business loan, grant and technical assistance programs provided through the Rural Business and Cooperative 

Service (RBS) are essential resources for rural communities as they strive 

to create economic opportunities and improve the quality of life for their 

citizens.

The ability to create and sustain viable small businesses and generate wealth is 

the core of successful community and economic development. However, rural and 

small metropolitan communities face special challenges, such as limited access to 

capital and technological infrastructure and a depleted employment base that restricts their ability to attract and retain these new businesses. 

Through its portfolio of over 18 different loan, grant and technical assistance programs, RBS provides rural businesses and entrepreneurs the tools needed to overcome some of those challenges, harness their independent spirit and better position 

themselves to pursue innovative opportunities. These opportunities result in new job 

creation and wealth generation for their communities, whether in traditional sectors 

such as agriculture and natural-resource based industries or emerging science and 

technology fields. 

The Northeast Nebraska Economic Development District (NENEDD) covers a 17 

county region of our state. The total population of the region is 214,271, of which 

nearly 70,000 is concentrated in our three largest communities. Of the 117 communities in the NENEDD footprint, 110 have a population less than 2,500. Our region 

faces many of the economic challenges common to rural communities throughout the 

country. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Bureau of Business Research Service 

Population Projections forecasts a population loss in our region of 20,251 from years 

2000 to 2030. From 1999 to 2009, the State of Nebraska documented a net job loss 

of more than 11,000, of which, 2,000 were from our 17 county region. 

Our local governments do not qualify for direct grant assistance offered through 

programs such as the HUD Community Development Block Grant program. As 

USDA Rural Development is one of the few Federal agencies focused on providing 

resources for rural business and community development, our communities depend 

on USDA to provide the assistance they need. 

For this reason, USDA Rural Development is one of NENEDD’s key grant and 

loan partners. NENEDD, together with our 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, Northeast Economic Development, Inc. (NED, Inc.), maintains a USDA rural business 

grant and loan portfolio that is worth $2.2 million and comprises more than 45 percent of our organizations’ total business. Since 2001, these funds have helped to create or retain more than 450 jobs throughout our region. 

The ever-changing character of rural America’s economic drivers requires that 

Federal assistance programs incorporate a level of flexibility that allows the programs to grow with the changing needs of its recipients. According to recent U.S. 

Census data, in 1990 Northeast Nebraska’s two biggest industries were Retail Trade 

and Agriculture. By 2000, the two biggest industries had switched to Manufacturing 

and Education/Health/Social Services. Today, Manufacturing is the only industry 

that employs more than 20,000 people. Educational Services, Agricultural Services 

and Retail Trade industries employ more than 10,000. The Wholesale Trade industry employs the second-fewest number of people at 3,881, and Public Administration 

employs the fewest at 3,215. 

27

In Northeast Nebraska, the flexible nature of the USDA RBS programs allows our 

lenders and intermediaries to respond to the evolving nature of the region’s economy 

and the changing needs of our businesses and entrepreneurs. As the Subcommittee 

works to evaluate USDA rural business programs, NADO encourages you to ensure 

this flexibility is maintained. 

Second, Mr. Chairman, USDA’s Rural Business Enterprise Grant (RBEG) 

program and Intermediary Relending Program (IRP) are highly effective 

resources that allow intermediaries to assist rural entrepreneurs, business leaders 

and local officials as they pursue innovative development strategies and business 

opportunities. When traditional banks are not interested in financing rural companies, these funds fill that gap. NADO encourages the Subcommittee to look at ways 

to increase funding resources for these small yet invaluable programs. In addition, 

we encourage USDA Rural Development and Congress to provide as much flexibility 

as possible in these programs to allow intermediary investments in new and emerging knowledge-based firms which often lack the traditional collateral required by 

Federal lending programs. 

As one of the smaller USDA initiatives, the RBEG program is often overlooked. 

However, the broad nature of RBEG assistance combined with its focus on small 

business development makes the program an indispensable tool in many rural regions across the country. In total, RBEG investments have helped to create or retain 

more than 180 jobs in our region. 

After the 2008 flooding that occurred in Platte, Colfax and Butler Counties, 

Northeast Economic Development (NED), Inc. received a $200,000 Rural Business 

Enterprise Grant (RBEG) for the establishment of a disaster assistance revolving 

loan fund (RLF) to assist local businesses rebuild. Under the disaster assistance 

RLF, businesses were provided a zero percent interest loan for up to 90 percent of 

the total project cost. 

Using this funding, NED, Inc. was able to provide assistance to four businesses: 

Kracl Funeral Chapel, Inc. (Schuyler, NE), John’s Tire Sales & Service (Schuyler, 

NE), Grubaugh Machine, Inc. (Platte Center, NE) and Creative Touch, Inc. 

(Schuyler, NE). With the help of these funds, Kracl Funeral Chapel, Inc. retained 

five full-time employees and continued operations as usual; John’s Tire Sales & 

Service retained two full-time employees and changed their business focus to tire 

sales instead of a gas service shop, helping them become more profitable; and Creative Touch, Inc. retained four full-time positions. Finally, Grubaugh Machine, Inc., 

a family-owned business, retained three full-time positions and purchased a new 

piece of equipment which has helped them expand their operation. 

Without the assistance USDA’s RBEG program provided to help these businesses 

get back on their feet after the flooding, they might not be in operation today. While 

these types of businesses are taken for granted in more urban settings, in a highly 

rural area such as ours, there may be only one tire center or one funeral home in 

a community or county. Their closure would result in a complete loss of vital and 

specialized services to our citizens. 

USDA Rural Development’s Intermediary Relending Program (IRP) is another invaluable and often overlooked resource for rural regions. Since 2001, NENEDD and 

NED, Inc. have been awarded a total of $1.5 million in USDA IRP funds through 

three separate awards. Using these funds, we made 58 loans, generated more than 

$23 million in leveraged funds and helped to create or retain more than 435 jobs 

throughout our region. 

Recently, IRP gap financing was the key ingredient needed to complete a medical 

expansion project. Dr. Randall Hedlund owns and operates The Family Chiropractic 

Center, a successful chiropractic clinic in Albion (Boone County, NE). The business, 

which began in 2000, was operated in a 1,400 square-foot space that Dr. Hedlund 

leased. However, in 2008, due to the tremendous growth of his business and the desire to offer an improved health care facility, Dr. Hedlund embarked on an expansion project. 

At the same time, the Boone County Economic Development, the City of Albion 

and other business leaders in town saw the need to recruit a dentist to Albion to 

replace two retiring dentists. Community leaders encouraged Dr. Hedlund to expand 

the scope of his project to include additional office space that would accommodate 

the needs of one new dentist and one other professional business, such as an attorney or accountant. Through a combination of bank financing and IRP loan funds, 

Dr. Hedlund was able to finance a new three-bay professional office building. 

Through its loan program, NED, Inc. staff provided key technical assistance in 

business plan preparation and $100,000 in IRP loan funds to help finance the 

project. Since its completion, this project has retained two and created ten full-time 

positions. 

28

But my region is not the only one benefiting from USDA’s critical business program assistance. 

Holley’s Sweets, a small rural business in Coffee County, Alabama was able to 

expand its operations due to assistance from the Southeast Alabama Regional 

Planning and Development Commission and USDA Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant (REDLG) investments. Holley’s Sweets began baking flavored 

cakes in a small house using two ovens. The cakes were sold to local grocery and 

convenience stores. The company continued to grow and needed more space, a larger 

freezer and a loading dock. In 2001, a new 15,000 square-foot bakery facility was 

constructed with financing that included a $450,000 REDLG loan. After this critical 

expansion was completed, the company’s sales grew to over $1 million annually and 

they were able to add 56 new jobs. 

In 1995, the Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments (AVCOG) in Auburn, Maine secured an RBEG award of $500,000. Of this total, $425,000 was for 

microlending and $75,000 was dedicated for technical assistance. To date, AVCOG 

has lent over $900,000 that has leveraged an additional $14.8 million in owner equity and private funds. The average RBEG loan amount is approximately $27,000, 

and the program has helped AVCOG and its partners create or retain 350 jobs in 

its rural region. AVCOG has also been awarded three IRP loans for a total of $3.5 

million. To date, the AVCOG IRP program has lent nearly $8.4 million that has leveraged over $43.7 million in other capital investments. 

The Southern Georgia Regional Commission in Valdosta was the first recipient of IRP funds in the nation in 1989. Since then, the commission has received 

four additional IRP awards for a total of $2,899,790. The commission also received 

RBEG funds totaling $268,400. Combined with RLF recapitalized funds and private 

leverage, over $17 million has been injected into the commission’s 18 county area 

and 1,291 jobs have been created. 

The North Central Pennsylvania Regional Planning and Development 

Commission (North Central) in Ridgeway administers five separate IRP loan pools with an aggregate value of over $4.3 million. North Central used this loan 

portfolio to assist DuBrook, Inc., a concrete manufacturer owned and operated by 

Rosemary Barber. DuBrook, Inc. operates at four facilities in Pennsylvania: one in 

St. Marys (Elk County), one in DuBois (Clearfield County) and two in Butler County. To remain competitive and efficient, DuBrook needed to upgrade its equipment 

to include the acquisition of four advance front discharge mixers. With the commitment of $200,000 from the North Central IRP loan pool, Rosemary was able to leverage additional loans from the Clearfield County Industrial Development Authority and the local bank. These new mixers will enable DuBrook to run a more efficient and technology advanced service and retain 70 jobs. 

North Central also facilitated the preparation of two RBEG awards that provided additional opportunities for economic growth in its rural six-county area. One 

grant was for $99,000 to establish a small revolving loan program in the Coalport 

area of southern Clearfield County. North Central submitted the successful application, established a local loan intake committee, provided the essential staff 

training of the local industrial development corporation, and monitored the activity 

of the initial loans. As a result, the Glendale Industrial Development Corporation 

now has a small loan pool that can give their local businesses access to capital. 

Since opening in 1994, Big Equipment Company of Havre, Montana has 

sought the financial assistance of the Bear Paw Development Corporation to 

help start the business, purchase a building for the business operations, and purchase additional equipment and inventory as it grew. Bear Paw Development Corporation has provided $450,000 in IRP funds, combined with other Federal dollars 

and Montana Department of Commerce micro-business loan funds to meet the financing needs of Big Equipment over the years. Since opening its doors, the company has grown from one employee and $200,000 in sales to 15 employees and over 

$4 million in sales. 

In 2005, the Catawba Regional Development Corporation (an affiliate of 

Catawba Regional Council of Governments in Rock Hill, South Carolina)

provided $112,000 in IRP loan funds to J&S Enterprises (the real estate holding 

company of an operating company called Davis Neon). Davis Neon is a contract commercial sign manufacturer in Heath Springs, South Carolina, population 1,044. 

The company had outgrown its former manufacturing plant and acquired a 150,000 

square foot former textile distribution facility. At the time the loan was made, Davis 

Neon employed 95 people, making the company one of the largest employers in the 

small town of Heath Springs. Through the building, machinery and equipment acquisition, the company was able to add 25 new manufacturing jobs. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Administration’s newly proposed Regional Innovation Initiative will make USDA’s infrastructure investments more effiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:39 Oct 14, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-55\58018.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
29

cient and effective by rewarding regional strategic approaches to rural development. This reflects the reality of today’s marketplace where rural communities are not only competing statewide and nationally, but more likely, internationally. The Regional Innovation Initiative will provide incentives and resources for the 

enrichment of rural development strategies on a regional and local basis to implement area-wide priority projects and initiatives. NADO urges the Subcommittee to 

support this promising initiative. 

The Regional Innovation Initiative is designed to provide a new framework for 

USDA to promote economic development and job creation in rural communities. The 

initiative’s new approach will lead to increased efficiency as rural community capacity is enhanced through greater coordination and leveraging of regional funding. We 

strongly support the goal of moving rural development toward a commitment to regional strategies designed by local leaders. 

To support this regionally based, locally driven approach, USDA requested a setaside in the FY 2011 Budget of more than $280 million of existing program funds, 

roughly five percent of the funding from approximately 20 existing USDA programs, 

including USDA’s rural business programs. The initiative will allocate funds competitively among innovative regional economic development projects tailored to local 

needs and opportunities. 

NADO was encouraged by early reports indicating the draft FY 2011 Department 

of Agriculture Appropriations bill approved by the House Agriculture Appropriations 

Subcommittee includes $176 million to support the Regional Innovation Initiative. 

We urge Congress to finalize its commitment to fund this program and adopt provisions included in the President’s FY 2011 Budget request giving USDA authority 

to set aside funding needed to begin the initiative. 

We applaud the Secretary for advancing the importance of regional approaches to 

rural competitiveness. We also understand the immense pressures on the Federal 

budget. At the same time, we encourage Congress to dedicate new resources for rewarding and promoting regional economic development across rural America, not 

just the proposed carve-out of existing programs. 

The Regional Innovation Initiative will help address one of the most important 

but under-funded parts of rural community and economic development-rural development strategies and institutional capacity to implement priorities. 

Most rural local governments simply lack the financial resources to hire professional economic development practitioners, and few Federal programs are specifically designed for their needs. Our rural regions are lagging behind in economic development, job creation and growth, but not because they lack the assets or willingness needed to strengthen their communities. Whether through the timber, agricultural, natural resources, energy or manufacturing industries, rural regions truly are 

key drivers of America’s economic and national security. What they lack are the resources to successfully leverage those assets into economic growth opportunities for 

their own citizens. 

The Regional Innovation Initiative will provide these regions with resources and 

a framework to examine their strengths, move beyond current program stovepipes, 

and develop a structure leveraging those assets to addresses challenges in their 

local economies. The initiative also recognizes the value of working regionally. No 

community will have to ‘‘go it alone’’ but by the same account, no community can 

thrive alone. In order to benefit from this new initiative, communities will have to 

work together to address their common priorities and goals. 

Ultimately, the proposal will provide rural regions with the resources necessary 

to build their workforce and strengthen their existing community infrastructure, 

creating prosperous rural communities where people want to live and raise families. 

The Initiative will also provide much-needed incentives and resources for the enrichment and implementation of regional rural development strategies. NADO urges the 

Subcommittee to support this promising initiative. 

In closing, I urge your continued support of USDA Rural Development 

programs, especially vital business loan, grant and technical assistance 

programs. USDA Rural Development is an essential partner and funding source 

for rural regions. It is also a vital tool for regional development organizations such 

as NENEDD as we strive to provide assistance and build capacity for the communities that rely on us for expertise and assistance. I urge you to support enhanced 

funding for USDA Rural Development programs in the next farm bill and increased 

emphasis on regional development strategies through initiatives such as the Regional Innovation Initiative. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify today on the views of NADO and our members. I welcome any 

questions.

30

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you for the good work the National Association of Development Organizations does. I know 

many of us are quite familiar with the good work that you do, and 

we thank you. 

While we are on that end of the table—I believe you may also 

have been the second one to sit down—Mr. Ed Miller from Mechanicsville, Virginia, if you will tell us what you do and proceed with 

your testimony, please. 

STATEMENT OF ED MILLER, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT, KING AND QUEEN COUNTY, VIRGINIA,

MECHANICSVILLE, VA 

Mr. Ed MILLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the Committee 

for giving me the opportunity to be here today. My name is Ed Miller, and I serve as Director of Economic Development for King and 

Queen County, Virginia. 

King and Queen County is located in the middle peninsula of 

Virginia. We are a very rural farming community with a population 

of approximately 6,600 people. The County has no public water or 

sewer systems and no broadband infrastructure, so we truly are 

very rural. 

Because of the lack of public utilities and high-speed Internet, 

economic development, and specifically working on business attraction efforts in our County, is very difficult. One of the difficulties 

we have is our state in particular basically has a lot of incentives 

for bigger projects, manufacturing projects, if you will, office 

projects, but none that deal with very rural type projects. So we depend a great deal on the rural development programs of USDA. 

I would like to mention a few programs that we have used. 

We have been assisted in our efforts to help small startup businesses with the RBEG program, the Rappahannock Tribal Council, 

and that is a non-recognized tribe in Virginia. They are located in 

King and Queen County, and they have received USDA funds for 

a market study for a water bottling facility they are looking at on 

tribal land. 

Grant-loan funds from USDA have also been obligated for a library building in King and Queen. Right now, our library building 

is a double-wide trailer that is 15 years old, so we were very appreciative of that, and construction will start on that very soon. 

We also requested funding from USDA for some kitchen equipment for our schools and a new hangar for our regional Life Evac 

medical helicopter. There is only one Life Evac evacuation system 

in our region, it is located in King and Queen, and they haven’t 

had a hangar since their inception. So we are working with USDA 

on getting that. 

My experience with USDA and with the Rural Development programs have generally been very favorable. I do have a couple of 

comments, though, that I would like to share on some things I 

think that might be improved. 

For example, with startup businesses, and particularly in rural 

areas, some of the information that is requested under the RBEG 

program is quite difficult for them to put together and particularly 

as a startup business. It requires a great deal of paperwork and 

31

they have to hire people to help them to do it, and it is just very 

hard on them, particularly when you are looking to start up a business. 

I think the other thing that needs to be remembered in those 

programs is that if these businesses could go to a bank and get the 

funding, they probably would. I think the process needs to be a little easier for them than if they would go to a bank and have to 

try to get those loans. 

One question that I know that we don’t quite understand in King 

and Queen County, when we are doing the applications, why things 

are asked for, like the charter for the county. It would seem to me 

that it is pretty obvious if you are a county in Virginia you are 

chartered, and we have been there since the 1600s. 

There are other issues with the applications, because they seem 

to be geared both towards the public sector and the private sector, 

and there are some questions that private sector applicants might 

need to answer where the public sector might not. So I am just asking that maybe in the future those things could be looked at and 

perhaps simplified just a bit. 

I noticed when I was going and inputting information into the 

system the other day for the ARRA, to put in the system about 

what has been obligated to us, it was interesting because when you 

go in, it will ask you the same thing several times, like your address and all that identifying information. It would seem to me you 

could put that in once and be done with it and move on. 

The other interesting thing was, at least as I understood it, if 

you received a loan-grant for a program, you had to do two separate reports. It would seem to me there would be a place that 

would say loan and grant, you could put the information for both 

and just do one. Those are some things I have seen in working on 

those applications. 

Finally, and I know a lot has been said here about broadband, 

it was very interesting in King and Queen, as I say, we are quite 

rural, and we were basically told in round one that we were not 

considered to be a rural county. So we were very confused with 

that. Now, I understand that some of the rules changed in round 

two and we did apply in round two, but it was just an interesting 

thing for us to see. 

I certainly appreciate the time you have afforded me to give this 

testimony. If there are any questions, I would be glad to answer 

them. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ed Miller follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ED MILLER, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, KING

AND QUEEN COUNTY, VIRGINIA, MECHANICSVILLE, VA 

Good morning. My name is Ed Miller and I serve as Director of Economic Development for King and Queen County, Virginia. I would like to thank the Committee 

for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today. King and Queen County, 

located in the Middle Peninsula of Virginia, is a very rural farming community with 

a population of approximately 6,600 people. The County has no public water or 

sewer system and no broadband infrastructure. Because of the lack of public utilities and high speed Internet, economic development and specifically business attraction is difficult to achieve. Also, economic development incentives from the Commonwealth of Virginia are generally geared toward office headquarters or manufacturing 

projects with large capital investments and a large number of employees which generally do not look at rural areas like King and Queen. That is why the United 

32

States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its Rural Development Programs are 

critical to economic development efforts in rural communities in Virginia. 

We have been assisted in our efforts to help small ‘‘start-up’’ businesses by receiving a Rural Business Enterprise Grant (RBEG) from USDA. The Rappahannock 

Tribal Council, located in King and Queen County, received USDA funds for a market study to determine if a natural spring water bottling project on tribal property 

should proceed. Also, grant-loan funds from USDA have been obligated for a library 

building in King and Queen and we have requested grant-loan funds to upgrade 

kitchen equipment in our schools. Our regional public use airport, which is located 

in the County, has submitted an application to USDA for grant-loan funds for a 

hangar for its regional Life Evac helicopter. USDA rural development programs are 

very important to King and Queen County. 

My experience with the administration of the Rural Development Programs has 

generally been favorable. However, the amount of information that a small ‘‘startup’’ business is required to submit as part of the RBEG Revolving Loan application 

can be overwhelming. Also, it needs to be remembered that if these firms could get 

funding from a bank they would. The process and the requirements for the loan 

need to be simplified. Also, I do not understand why a local government has to submit its organizational documents, including its charter, as part of an application 

process. Finally, the ARRA reporting should be simplified. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Beaulac. 

STATEMENT OF WILLARD L. BEAULAC, JR., SENIOR VICE 

PRESIDENT, PATHSTONE CORPORATION, ROCHESTER, NY 

Mr. BEAULAC. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, my name is 

Lee Beaulac. Thank you very much again for inviting me to share 

a few thoughts here this morning. 

My name is Lee Beaulac. I am the Senior Vice President for 

Community and Economic Development at PathStone Corporation. 

We are a 45 year old nonprofit community development finance institution certified by the U.S. Department of Treasury to work in 

seven states and in Puerto Rico. 

PathStone is an intermediary lender for both the SBA and USDA 

under the Intermediary Relending Program and we have deployed 

about $16 million, mostly to very small and micro-businesses, and 

mostly in New York and to some extent in Ohio and in Puerto Rico. 

These funds have further leveraged $41 million in private sector financing. 

Small firms in rural areas need capital finance startup, as well 

as expansion costs, but research still indicates that SBA’s per capita spending is significantly less in rural areas than in urban communities. This is leaving a significant financing gap for nontraditional lenders like PathStone to address, and this gap has widened 

over the last 2 years as conventional banks have begun to cut back 

on their small business lending. 

According to the FDIC, bank lending is down $30 billion, or four 

percent, from where it was last year, and the SBA reports its lending through conventional banks is at its lowest level in 2 years. 

The upheaval in the financial services industry has resulted in 

credit drying up for businesses in low-income communities, loan-tovalue ratios are falling, lines of credit are disappearing, and commitments are evaporating. 

As a result of the precipitous decline of the availability of credit 

from private financial institutions, demand is increasing for the entire range of local, regional and national loan funds, micro-loan 

programs, venture capital and intermediary organizations. 

33

The tremendous increase in demand for loans and services experienced by PathStone over the past 2 years comes at a time when 

access to operating and grant programs is beginning to dry up. In 

this environment, USDA programs, like the Intermediary Relending Program and the Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program become even more critical as we work to provide the financing for rural businesses needed to stay afloat and maintain jobs. 

Through the IRP, USDA makes loans, as you probably know, to 

public and nonprofit intermediary lenders, who then in turn make 

loans to private enterprises in rural communities. In many cases, 

the loan made available through IRP is one of the few sources of 

fixed-rate term financing available to small businesses for working 

capital, lines of credit and equipment. With an average size of 

$100,000 a loan, an upper limit of $250,000, the IRP is targeting 

small businesses that are the backbone of the rural economy. 

You may know this, but USDA has administered IRP since 1988. 

There are currently 400 intermediaries across the country, and 

USDA has not suffered a single default under the IRP program in 

the 20 years it has been administering the program. That is quite 

a record. 

A typical intermediary revolves IRP funds three times over the 

life of the 30 year loan. It is also a huge leveraging factor from the 

IRP, something like $7.30 for every dollar loaned through the IRP 

program. We have been using IRP since 1995, and it has been critically important for us, particularly as we identify certain sectors 

within the economy that have traditionally not had access to conventional credit and capital. 

We have several sector intervention strategies. The IRP is a very 

integral part of that. So has been the RBEG, the Rural Business 

Enterprise Grant program. The RBEG has allowed us to essentially 

work in the Adirondack region of New York to help microentrepreneurs who have very limited markets based on low density of 

population, remote rural locations and bad weather, have access to 

a worldwide market through the Web. RBEG has been able to fuel 

the training and technical assistance to move microentrepreneurs 

onto the Web. 

I also wanted to mention very quickly, it is very important, the 

rural entrepreneurship relending—I am sorry, the assistance program. We supported the RMAP as part of the 2008 Farm Bill. We 

believe it is critically important for USDA to have a program that 

addresses microlending. The programs we talked about here before, 

B&I and all the other ones, really don’t serve microloan entrepreneurs. 

We are disappointed it has been 25 months since the enactment 

of this law for Rural Development to actually issue its rules. It has 

been very frustrating for us, because on a number of levels the 

rules they have issued have not really conformed to the direction 

this Committee gave them; and that is, issues of the interest rate 

that the borrower will borrow from USDA on, the amount of technical assistance that will be paid for. 

There is a limit on 75 percent of the total financing need from 

the RMAP program. It is limited to 75 percent of the total deal. 

These are really problematic issues, and especially problematic for 

smaller organizations in more remote rural areas of this country. 

34

So I would urge the Committee to again support IRP, RBEG, certainly the B&I program, but really direct USDA to essentially come 

full circle, issue these rules and get the money out in the street. 

In our opinion, there is nothing more important to rural development than access to credit and capital, and USDA is a critical component of that. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beaulac follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLARD L. BEAULAC, JR., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, PATHSTONE CORPORATION, ROCHESTER, NY 

Thank you, Chairman McIntyre and Ranking Member Conaway for the opportunity to testify as a witness regarding the Unites States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) rural development programs and specifically our experience at 

PathStone in working with the USDA programs to support economic development 

efforts and finance small businesses throughout Upstate New York. 

My name is Lee Beaulac. I work for PathStone Corporation where I serve as Vice 

President for Community and Economic Development. PathStone is a private notfor-profit organization based in Rochester, New York that provides business finance, 

training and technical assistance to small and micro-businesses as well as a myriad 

of housing activities including homeownership assistance and multi-family development. We also develop and finance community facilities. Founded in 1969, 

PathStone is active in the states of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Vermont, Virginia and Puerto Rico. 

PathStone is a Community Development Finance Institution, certified by the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury. In this capacity, we provide financing to existing and 

start-up businesses, primarily in rural communities and small towns. Our loan capital comes from both the private and pubic sectors. Commercial finance institutions 

invest funds in our organization which, in turn, makes loans to businesses in hard 

to reach markets. With respect to public sources of capital, PathStone is an ‘‘intermediary’’ lender for both the Small Business Administration (SBA) and for the Department of Agriculture. We have deployed approximately $16 million in loan capital into over 450 businesses in New York State and Puerto Rico since 1992, these 

funds have further leveraged over $41 million in additional investment. 

The Importance of USDA Business Financing Programs 

Small businesses, defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as firms 

with 500 or fewer employees, make-up 90 percent of all rural businesses and more 

than 75 percent of these rural firms have 20 or fewer employees. 

Small firms in rural areas need capital to finance start-up as well as expansion 

costs and yet research indicates that SBA’s per capita spending is significantly less 

in rural areas than in urban communities. 

This leaves a significant financing gap for non-traditional lenders like PathStone 

to address and this gap has widened over the last 2 years as conventional banks 

have cut back on their small business lending. Since 1992 PathStone has averaged 

$500,000 per year in new lending. Over the past 2 years we’ve averaged over $2.3 

million in new loans, which is further evidence of the dramatic increase in demand 

for loans and services from a ‘‘non-traditional’’ lender like PathStone. While in good 

times non-traditional financial institutions like Path Stone have been viewed as the 

lenders of last resort we are increasingly becoming a critical sources of capital, if 

not the only source of capital for a wide range of businesses as the regulatory environment tightens and conventional lenders pull back. 

According to the latest figures from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 

bank lending is down $30 billion, or four percent, from where it was at this time 

last year and the SBA reports that its lending through conventional banks is at its 

lowest level in 2 years. 

The upheaval in the financial services industry has resulted in credit drying up 

for businesses in low income communities—loan to value ratios are falling, lines of 

credits are disappearing, and commitments are evaporating. As a result of the precipitous decline of the availability of credit from private financial institutions, demand is increasing for the entire range of local, regional and national loan funds, 

micro loan programs, venture capital and intermediary organizations to fill this expanding void created by the reluctance of private financial institutions to provide 

credit. At the same time these same mission driven organizations are also facing 

a liquidity shortage as traditional non-governmental sources of capital—from priVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:39 Oct 14, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-55\58018.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
35

vate philanthropic organizations, the bond market, and private financial institutions—are no longer available. The tremendous increase in demand for loans and 

services experienced by PathStone over the past 2 years comes at a time when access to operating and grant capital is shrinking while demand for these funds by 

nonprofit institutions has increased dramatically. 

In this environment USDA programs like the Intermediary Relending program 

(IRP) become even more critical as we work to provide the financing the rural businesses need to stay afloat and maintain jobs. 

Intermediary Relending Program (IRP) 

Through the IRP, USDA makes loans to public and private nonprofit intermediary 

lenders that in turn make loans to private business enterprises in rural areas. In 

many cases the loans made available through the IRP are one of the few sources 

of fixed rate, term financing available to small rural businesses for working capital, 

lines of credit and equipment. With an average loan size of $100,000 and an upward 

limit of $250,000, the IRP is targeting small businesses that are the backbone of 

the rural economy. 

USDA has administered the IRP since 1988 and currently USDA has some 400 

intermediary lenders participating in the program and these lenders have made 

over $700 million in IRP loans to rural businesses across the country. The USDA 

has not suffered a single default under the IRP in the 20 plus years that it has administered the program. 

Beyond the importance of the patient, flexible capital provided by the IRP, there 

are three other factors of note:

1. Job Creation—The average IRP loan is $100,000 and according to USDA, on 

average, each loan for that amount creates or saves 76.5 jobs. A recent survey 

of the community development corporations that administer IRP funds reported 

$3,000 cost per job;

2. Continuing Source of Capital—A typical intermediary revolves IRP funds 

three times over the life of the 30 year loan to an IRP lender which means that 

every dollar in Federal funds lent to an IRP intermediary translates to $3 lending to a rural business; and

3. Leverage—a recent survey of IRP borrowers indicates that projects financed 

with IPR are able to leverage significant additional capital largely from conventional lenders. IRP borrowers surveyed leveraged as much as $7.3 per every $1 

in IRP funds loaned to a business.

PathStone has been an IRP lender since 1995. We have found the IRP to be critically important to our efforts to reach businesses that are not being served by traditional lending institutions. As an example, we recently made a loan to a new small 

farm winery in New York’s Finger Lakes region. Ravine’s Vineyards, like many of 

the region’s wineries, lacked access to many forms of traditional credit and capital. 

Not withstanding the fact that Ravine’s already was garnering a solid reputation 

as a successful producer of fine wines for 3 years, and the owner had a proven track 

record as a wine maker with another of the local award winning wineries in the 

region. Ravine’s had a difficult time attracting capital to complete a major expansion 

to their facility. This project would have had a difficult time moving ahead without 

resources from the IRP program. Ravine’s has since won many awards for their 

wines and continues to be a shining star in the winery industry. 

The IRP had been and will continue to be an important tool in providing financing 

to businesses within PathStone’s ‘‘Sector Intervention’’ strategy. In 2005, we 

launched an effort to support entrepreneurs within certain sectors of New York’s 

rural economy that were having difficulty gaining access to conventional financing. 

Small ‘‘farm wineries’’ in New York’s Finger Lakes region of the state, while being 

one of the greatest economic engines in the regional economy, were not getting the 

attention from commercial banks that they needed in order to thrive. PathStone set 

in motion a regional initiative that involve training for both bankers and winery operator/owners, technical assistance and the establishment of special pools of financing directed at supporting the growth of this particular sector. Our efforts led directly to the development of the first ‘‘benchmarking’’ study for small wineries in 

New York State. 

PathStone recently launched its latest sector intervention effort targeted at small 

scale food and energy producers in western and central New York State. Again, 

small and micro-scale producers in this sector are having difficulty gaining access 

to credit and capital they need to sustain and expand their businesses. 

The only obstacle to greater use of the IRP in rural America is the limited funding 

available for the program. Over the last several years, appropriations for the program have dropped from over $40 million to less than $35 million. 

36

The previous Administration took steps to depress the demand for IRP funds. First the maximum for loans to intermediaries was decreased from $2 million to less 

than $400,000. Second, applications were taken on a quarterly basis confusing applicants about time lines. 

Despite this, demand remains strong. Every year, USDA receives requests for at 

least twice the dollar amount available. At the start of the fiscal year, USDA al- ready had on hand over $26 million in requests for $33 million in loan authority. An increase in IRP to $75 million would create 10,000 jobs and leverage some $500 million in additional lending in rural America. Those funds will be revolved 

three times over the life of the loan to the intermediary and we would use those 

funds to leverage bank financing that would not otherwise be available to our rural 

business owners. Delete period 

The Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program (RBEG) 

The Rural Business Enterprise Grant (RBEG) program has been extremely helpful to PathStone in its efforts to help businesses that are having difficulty accessing 

credit and capital, business management training and expanding their markets. The 

RBEG program is very flexible and lends itself to addressing problems which are 

specific to different localities. In Puerto Rico, PathStone is currently utilizing the 

RBEG program to conduct business management training and technical assistance 

to micro-entrepreneurs in the more remote rural communities on the Island. In New 

York, the RBEG program has supported efforts to introduce Internet marketing 

strategies to micro-businesses in the Adirondack region of the state. Limited local 

retail opportunities, caused primarily by low population densities, remote locations 

as well as by bad weather for a good part of the year, are being replaced by a global 

marketplace. The RBEG helped launch a partnership between PathStone, eBay and 

several area educational institutions that has resulted in material economic improvement for many micro-businesses in the region. 

PathStone has entered into four RBEG contracts since 2004 and has, utilizing 

RBEG resources, provided assistance to 676 entrepreneurs. 

The Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP) 

The financing situation facing micro-businesses is particularly difficult because 

these ventures had difficulty securing financing even before conventional banks 

started pulling back on small business lending. We generally define a microbusiness 

as a business with fewer than five employees and many of the microentrepreneurs 

we finance have fewer than three employees. These businesses are often start-ups 

and few have the collateral that a conventional bank would require especially in 

these difficult economic times. 

That said, these microentrepreneurs are a critical source of employment in Upstate New York as in most rural areas and during economic downturns we see many 

individuals turning to self employment. In fact during our last recession, from year 

2000 to 2003, employment grew in microenterprise while falling for larger employers. Nationwide employment grew in microenterprise nine percent while employment fell by almost two percent in larger firms. 

And yet USDA rural development programs have not traditionally addressed the 

needs of microbusinesses.

• B&I Loan guarantees that can provide multi-million dollar guarantees;

• Intermediary Relending Program (IRP) that provides capital to nonprofit entities that, in turn make loans to private businesses in rural areas. The average 

size loan is $100,000, with a maximum of $250,000; and

• There are no resources at USDA exclusively targeted to provide technical assistance or financial assistance to very small businesses.

PathStone supported the creation of USDA’s Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance 

Program (RMAP) as part of the 2008 Farm Bill. We believe it is important that 

USDA have a program dedicated to supporting rural microbusinesses and ensuring 

that both financial and technical assistance are available to rural entrepreneurs and 

particularly those unable to access credit from conventional lenders. 

Under the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program the Secretary is authorized to make one percent loans for a term of not more than 20 years to established 

Microenterprise Development Organizations (MDO). These MDOs will use the 

USDA funds to capitalize revolving funds making fixed rate loans of up to $50,000 

to start up and expanding rural microenterprises. The terms and conditions of loans 

made by an MDO to a microenterprise are established by the MDO. 

Every MDO that secures a loan under the program is eligible to receive an annual 

technical assistance (TA) grant from USDA in an amount that is equal to but not 

more than 25 percent of the outstanding balance of the loans made by the MDO 

37

to microenterprises. The TA grants can be used by the MDO to provide pre-loan as 

well as post-loan assistance to businesses as needed and may include assistance in 

developing or refining a business plan, marketing assistance, and management assistance. 

Microenterprise Development Organizations that receive a loan under the program are required to establish and sustain a loan loss reserve equal to at least 5% 

of the outstanding loan balance. In addition, MDOs are required to provide a 15 percent match for any grant dollars secured. USDA can defer principal and interest due 

on a loan to a Microenterprise Development Organization for a period of 2 years in 

order to permit the MDO to make microloans to microentrepreneurs. 

While we believe the RMAP as authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill holds great 

promise we are disappointed that for 25 months after the farm bill was signed into 

law we are still waiting for USDA to implement the program. When USDA issued 

an Interim Rule on the program in May of 2010, the field has some serious concerns 

about the rule and how it has strayed from what we believe was intended by the 

law. 

In short, USDA’s Interim Rule on the RMAP still gives short shrift to the technical assistance and training component of the program, does not provide the maximum interest subsidy or grant amount authorized in the statute and provides new 

requirements that are not authorized by statute. Congress enacted the RMAP to improve prospects for job creation in rural areas through microenterprise. However 

through the rule, USDA has made it unnecessarily difficult and expensive for local 

organizations like PathStone to carry out a program of technical and financial assistance to benefit micro-entrepreneurs. The result of this rule will be a program 

that is not widely available as relatively few rural organizations have the financial 

capacity to absorb the costs required to implement the program. 

I would like to submit for the record a letter that we are submitting to USDA 

with comments on the RMAP rule and application. 

Community Development Finance Institutions and the Business and Industry Program (B&I) 

We are pleased that USDA has retracted the rule that is had established in 2008 

making CDFIs ineligible to participate in the Business and Industry Program (B&I). 

This program provides guarantees of up to 90% for participating lenders that make 

loans to eligible businesses. For the same reasons that CDFIs have excelled at administering IRP contracts, CDFIs will safely and effectively deploy their own loan 

capital into underserved rural communities and benefit greatly from this type of 

guarantee instrument. Rural communities desperately need the additional credit 

and capital that ‘‘non-traditional lenders’’ like PathStone will deploy into traditionally underserved areas of the economy. 

In closing, I would like to encourage the Committee to support programs, like the 

IRP, RBEG, and the B&I programs, that have proven track records of success but 

could use more resources, And second, I would encourage the Committee to work 

with USDA to see that RMAP program funds are made available soon, as intended 

by this Committee, so PathStone and others can work to sustain and grow healthy 

small and micro-businesses in rural communities across the country. 

ATTACHMENT

Submitted by Robert A. Rapoza Associates

July 27, 2010

Branch Chief, 

Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.

We are writing in response to the Interim Final Rule on the Rural Micro-Enterprise Assistance Program (RMAP) published in the Federal Register on May 28, 

2010. In general, while the Interim Rule has changed a number of provisions from 

the proposed rule, published in October of 2009, it does not substantially improve 

the regulatory structure of the program. The rule still gives short shrift to technical 

assistance and training, does not provide the maximum interest subsidy or grant 

amount authorized in the statute and puts in place new requirements that are not 

authorized. Congress enacted RMAP to improve prospects for a job creation engine 

in rural areas: microenterprise. Through this rule, USDA has made it unnecessarily 

difficult and expensive for local Microenterprise Development Organizations (MDOs) 

to carryout a program of technical and financial assistance to micro-entrepreneurs. 

The result of this rule will be a program that is not widely available, as relatively 

38

few rural MDOs have the financial capacity to absorb the costs required in order 

to implement the program. 

In detail our comments: 

4280.311 Loans provisions for Agency Loans to Microlenders 

Under the Interim Rule a micro-lender must not only come up with a 15% match 

for grant funds, it must also come up with 25% of the loan capital borrowed from 

USDA, or limit loans to 75% of the total. The rule does not permit the use of interest income to defray technical assistance or other related costs, yet the Interim Rule 

does not permit maximum grant authorized under the law. 

The Interim Rule includes a new requirement that limits the Federal share of an 

‘eligible project’ which USDA defines as the loan, to 75% of the total. Our understanding is that this requirement is based on an interpretation of section 379(c) of 

the RMAP statute, which applies a 75% project cost to the loan made by the MDO. 

Section 379(c) establishes a cost share for Section 379(B) which authorizes technical 

assistance grants. It does not reference nor relate to loan. 

Beyond including a fundamental misinterpretation of the law, the Interim Rule 

establishes a framework that will be, in many cases, unworkable. In order to meet 

this matching requirement, a micro-lender may commit 25% of its capital to the revolving fund, thereby tying up its funds for the term of the loan and forgoing the 

use of interest income from that capital. Given the restrictions on use of interest 

income (§ 4280.311) few will do that. 

Alternatively, a microlender may require a borrower to come up with the 25% 

non-federal share. This, of course, flies in the face of the credit elsewhere test 

(§ 4280.322(d)). If a borrower can secure financing for 25% of its project cost, the 

borrower is able to secure credit from other sources. This requirement is rendered 

even more unworkable by the provision in the rule that states ‘‘Agency has a first 

lien position’’ on all microloans (§ 4280.311(e)(15)). This first lien requirement is 

without statutory basis and flies in the face of widespread practice by microlenders 

in the field who frequently take subordinate position to gain the participation of private lenders in microloans. We strongly recommend removal of the ‘‘first lien’’ requirement from the final rule. 

Section 4280.311(f)(1) limits the total amount that a MDO can owe at any one 

time to the Federal Government to an amount not to exceed $2.5 million. The basis 

for the $2.5 million limit is unclear as it is not in the law and may limit instances 

in which there is substantial additional demand for microloans that cannot be met 

because of an artificial and unauthorized limitation put on MDOs. 

The law establishes a minimum interest rate of 1% for USDA loans 

(§ 379E(b)(3)(B)(ii)). Yet, the Interim Rule (§ 4280.311(12)) establishes a 2% rate for 

the first five years and a 1% rate for those MDOs with satisfactory performance. 

Again, this raises the cost of the program and is just more government rigmarole. 

It continues to be our recommendation that USDA (§ 4280.311(d)(13)) simply implement the 1% interest rate as set in the law. 

There are other loan provisions that remain unchanged and therefore are impediments to successful implementation: 

The Interim Rule (§ 4280.311(g)) requires MDOs to capitalize the loan loss reserve. The intention of Congress on this provision was to allow 5% of the USDA loan 

to be used for the loss reserve and yet the rule states that ‘‘no agency loan funds 

may be used to capitalize the LLR’’. MDOs are already required to match 25% of 

the grant funds. Requiring another 5% match on loan funds would limit the participation of smaller organizations and this would be counteractive to Congressional intent. 

The training and technical assistance is authorized under section 379E(b)(4) of 

the Act and specifically authorizes training as an eligible activity. However, the Interim Rule does not reflect the importance of this training activity. Through ranking 

criteria the rule penalizes organizations with training programs that focus on providing assistance to businesses and entrepreneurs for whom credit is not the issue, 

but need assistance in writing or refining a business plan, marketing, developing 

a website or managing cash flow. 

Grant Provisions § 4280.313

Under Subsection B—Grants to Assistance Microentrepreneurs, a MDO is eligible 

to receive an amount equal to 25% of the outstanding balance. The Interim Rule 

provides for 25% of the outstanding loan balance on the first $400,000 loaned, followed by an additional 5% on the amount borrowed between $400,000 and the maximum $2.5 million. This is far less than contemplated by the statute. The limitation, 

when coupled with restrictions on use of interest income, will impede the ability of 

39

MDOs to provide adequate technical assistance because the resources will not be 

available. 

In section 4280.02 ‘‘technical assistance and training’’ are defined as the same 

thing, and throughout the Final Interim Rule the two terms are used interchangeably. The Final Interim Rule fails to recognize the unique aspects of the two activities. Technical assistance and training are two totally different items. Technical assistance or business counseling is simply working with a client in a one-on-one fashion. Training, whether classroom, web-based, or through another medium, is more 

about teaching business principles to a group versus intensive one-on-one technical 

assistance. Group training is broad-based compared to intensive one-on-one core 

counseling. Tying the two items together creates a funding incentive for programs 

that in the end will leave some entrepreneurs coming up short. We suggest that the 

Final Rule provide separate definitions for the two activities, and scoring that reflects the importance of technical assistance. 

Strong business skills are the key to the success of a microenterprise. Training 

on how to prepare strong business plans, market goods and services and manage 

finances is critical to the success of microenterprises. While it is certainly not the 

only need of struggling microentrepreneurs, in many instances training is the first, 

most critical and greatest need. 

The Interim Final Rule reflects neither the reality of how a successful microenterprise assistance program works nor Congressional intent. The RMAP statute is 

clear—the program should fund programs to train microentrepreneurs in addition 

to providing loans and related technical assistance. 

We recommend that USDA amend the interim rule to lower the cost of the program to MDOs as well as rural businesses, to remove unauthorized barriers to effective and efficient operations and encourage necessary training and technical assistance for rural entrepreneurs. 

Sincerely,

STAN KEASLING, RCAC, West Sacramento, CA; 

CEYL PRINSTER, Colorado Enterprise Fund, Denver, CO; 

MARK COUSINEAU, Connecticut Community Investment Corporation, Hamden, CT; 

BOB RAPOZA, Rapoza Associates, Washington, D.C.; 

GRACE FRICKS, Appalachian Community Enterprises, Cleveland, GA; 

JERRY RICKETT, Kentucky Highlands Development Corporation, London, KY; 

CHRIS SIKES, Western Massachusetts Enterprise Fund, Inc., Holyoke, MA; 

RON PHILLIPS, Coastal Enterprises, Inc., Portland, ME; 

DENNIS WEST, Northern Initiatives, Marquette, MI; 

BERNY BERGER, Southwest Initiative Fund, Hutchison, MN; 

MARY MATHEWS, Northeast Entrepreneur Fund, Virginia, MN; 

CHUCK HASSEBROOK, Center for Rural Affairs, Lyons, NE; 

LEE BEAULAC, PathStone, Rochester, NY; 

HOPE CUPIT, Southeast RCAP, Roanoke, VA; 

BILL BAY, Impact Seven, Almena, WI; 

WENDY BAUMANN, Wisconsin Women’s Business Initiative, Milwaukee, WI; 

KARL PNZAEK, CAP Services, Stevens Point, WI. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Bahnson. 

STATEMENT OF MARK BAHNSON, GENERAL MANAGER, 

BLOOMINGDALE COMMUNICATIONS, BLOOMINGDALE, MI; 

ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS

COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BAHNSON. Chairman McIntyre, Ranking Member Conaway, 

and Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for 

the opportunity to be here today to review Rural Development programs in advance of the 2012 Farm Bill. I am here on behalf of 

Bloomingdale Communications and NTCA, the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, which represents more 

than 580 small rural community-based communications service 

providers throughout the nation. 

40

Bloomingdale Communications where I serve as the General 

Manager provides broadband, video, voice and other telecommunications services to about 3,000 customers in southwest Michigan. 

Along with 1,100 of my fellow rural rate-of-return regulated community-based providers around the nation, we cover more than 1⁄3

of the nation’s land mass, yet our total subscriber base accounts for 

only about five percent of the nation’s total. 

Thanks in large part to private-public partnerships between 

rural independent telecommunication providers, RUS programs 

and cost-recovery programs, such as Universal Service and intercarrier compensation, Americans who reside in the most rural 

parts of Michigan and elsewhere throughout America are today enjoying communications services that are comparable in price and 

scope and quality to those available in urban areas. 

Over the course of its history, our U.S. telecommunications lending has stimulated billions of dollars in private capital investment 

and rural communications infrastructure. That is a remarkable 

record and a testament to the vision and dedication of this Subcommittee, the leadership and staff of RUS, and the rural sector 

of the telecommunications industry. It is a model that should be 

continued, or, at the very least, emulated. 

Through the years, NTCA and its members have had a good 

working relationship with RUS and its financing programs. After 

all, it was this relationship that was conceived and built around 

the mutual recognition that, without adequate financing, rural 

America was unlikely to ever be served in a fashion comparable in 

price and scope to that which is provided in suburban and urban 

America. Yet that is not to say that this relationship has not been 

without problems, and in my written testimony I described several 

issues that we hope to be addressed. One would be the need to clarify Davis-Bacon Act wage compliance rules and also the often burdensome auditing process. 

Serving our nation’s rural citizens with telephone service has always been challenging, and bringing broadband to these sparsely 

populated areas will be even more challenging. However, with a 

national commitment to ensure all Americans receive comparable, 

robust communications services, we have been able to overcome the 

many barriers that otherwise would have left rural America behind. 

Unfortunately, it appears, based on provisions in the national 

broadband plan, we may now be abandoning the approaches that 

have led to the successes we see today. Even more alarming, it 

looks as if we may soon abandon the basic principles of Universal 

Service That Have Ensured Rural America Is Not Left Behind. 

While on the surface, the plan’s goal of providing broadband to 

all Americans seems commendable, it unfortunately also sets our 

country on a path of a digital divide between rural and non-rural. 

The plan sets a universal goal of 4 megabytes per second, while 

promoting 100 megabytes per second for 100 million households. 

By setting these goals, we ensure speeds 25 times slower in highcost rural areas. 

The plan abandons our country’s longstanding commitment to 

providing comparable telecommunications services to all Americans. As you know, without comparable broadband speeds, rural 

41

communities, which are becoming increasingly dependent on 

broadband, will fall further behind and be unable to compete and 

receive jobs comparable with health care, educational opportunities 

and services as urban Americans. 

While the Agriculture Committee does not have jurisdiction over 

telecom policy, we bring our concerns about the plan to your attention because we believe the ripple effect of the plan is already being 

felt by RUS programs in rural communities throughout the country. The plan may quickly lead to the inability of rural providers 

like myself to repay billions of dollars in loans extended by RUS 

as well as the rural primary financiers, CoBank and RTFC. 

To avoid putting our RUS telecom programs at risk, NTCA, along 

with more than 40 concurring national, state and tribal associations, recommends several changes to the national broadband plan 

that can be found in my written testimony. 

We believe that the RUS telecom programs, along with other programs I outlined earlier in my statement, will continue to enable 

America’s rural community-based telecommunications system providers to meet the broadband needs of our nation’s rural citizens. 

As part of this effort, we look forward to continuing to work with 

this Subcommittee and RUS to provide rural America with affordable and robust communications services. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bahnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK BAHNSON, GENERAL MANAGER, BLOOMINGDALE

COMMUNICATIONS, BLOOMINGDALE, MI; ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL

TELECOMMUNICATIONS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION

Introduction 

Chairman McIntyre, Ranking Member Conaway, Members of the Subcommittee, 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here today to review rural development programs in advance of the 2012 Farm Bill. I am here on behalf of 

Bloomingdale Communications and the National Telecommunications Cooperative 

Association (NTCA), which represents more than 580 small, rural, community-based 

communications service providers throughout the nation. 

Bloomingdale Communications, where I serve as the General Manager, provides 

broadband, video, voice, mobile and other telecommunication services to about 3,000 

customers in southwest Michigan. Along with about 1,100 of my fellow rural rateof-return regulated community-based providers around the nation, we cover more 

than 1⁄3 (37%) of the nation’s land mass yet our total subscriber base accounts for 

about 5% of the national total. And therein lies the genesis of the challenges we 

confront. Throughout our history, we have responded to policies that were developed 

for the larger segment of the population, but do not work for us. But, I am happy 

to say that is absolutely not the case with regard to the Rural Utilities Service 

(RUS) and its tremendous Telecommunications Financing Program. 

Brief History of Rural Telecommunications 

Like most other rural telecommunications systems, Bloomingdale Communications got its start in 1904 when regular citizens living in rural areas, who were left 

without telephone service, banded together and created a telephone system to serve 

their homes and the homes of their neighbors. While their own can-do spirit got 

them started, it wasn’t until after the 1949 passage of the Telephone Amendment 

to the Rural Electrification Act (REA), which made Rural Utilities Service (RUS) financing available to fund rural telecommunications systems, that communication 

services in rural American truly began to improve and expand. 

Thanks in large part to these private-public partnerships between rural, independent telecom providers, RUS programs, and cost recovery programs such as Universal Service and intercarrier compensation, Americans residing in the most rural 

parts of Michigan and elsewhere throughout rural America are today able to enjoy 

42

communication services that are comparable in price, scope, and quality to those 

available in urban areas. 

RUS Telecommunications Financing Program 

Through the years, Congress has stepped in on many occasions to modify and otherwise redirect the RUS Telecommunications Financing program to ensure it is appropriately fulfilling its mission and effectively responding to the communications 

financing needs of the current era. 

Today, the program consists of many elements including its primary units—the 

Hardship Account, the Cost of Money Account, and the Guaranteed Account; the 

Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Account; and the short term stimulus related Broadband Initiatives Program. In addition, the rural sector also relies 

heavily upon two private sector financiers, the Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative, and CoBank, which both closely coordinate with RUS in their financing activities. 

There are also two programs available to the industry that are under the Rural 

Business Cooperative Service—the Rural Economic Development Grants Program 

and Rural Economic Development Loans Program that are both authorized under 

Section 313 of the REA for use by RUS borrowers. Nevertheless, today we would 

like to emphasize the RUS and the programs that are directly under its purview. 

Over the course of its history, RUS telecommunications lending has stimulated 

billions of dollars in private capital investment in rural communications infrastructure. In recent years, on average, less than a few million dollars in Federal subsidy 

has effectively generated $690 million in Federal loans, grants, and guarantees. For 

every $1 in Federal funds invested in rural communications infrastructure, $4.50 in 

private funding has been invested. That is a remarkable record and a testament to 

the vision and dedication of this Subcommittee, the leadership and staff of the RUS, 

and the rural sector of the telecommunications industry. It is a model that should 

be continued or at the very least emulated. 

It would not be possible to bring the sorts of advanced telecommunications services to the communities mentioned in this testimony without the assistance of the 

RUS Telecommunications Financing Program. Funding is often just not available 

from other sources for many of the project purposes we utilize through the RUS program. As a result of the service provided through RUS financing, rural economies 

have been stabilized in many of these communities. Small businesses are relocating 

to our areas once again and young families are moving back to raise their families 

in the relatively safe and secure environment they dreamed of while having many 

of the conveniences found only in the cities. This certainly makes the risk of providing service worthwhile. 

Considering the dynamic nature of the communications industry, the rapid pace 

of technological advances, and the fact that legislative and regulatory policymakers 

alike continue to uniformly advocate the necessity of making advanced broadband 

services available to every American—including those in the most remote and insular regions of our vast nation, there is no doubt as to the current and ongoing importance of each one of the above named financing elements. 

Through the years, NTCA and its members have had a very good working relationship with the RUS and its financing programs. After-all, it was a relationship 

that was conceived and built around the mutual recognition that without adequate 

financing, rural America was unlikely to ever be served in a fashion comparable in 

price and scope to that which is provided in suburban and urban America. 

Yet, that is not to say this relationship has never been without problems. Though 

it is often viewed almost as a lender of last resort, the RUS still has many strong 

controls in place to ensure taxpayer dollars are not squandered. It may come as a 

surprise to many that, as a result, we have to jump through significant hoops to 

secure the various forms of RUS financing. Generally, this so-called red tape is understandable, but the agency does have a rather long history of being perceived as 

being overly cautious and too slow in its overall approval process. 

In 2008, my company spent tens of thousands of dollars with legal and industry 

consultants to prepare an application for a traditional broadband program loan. Yet 

the application was not submitted due to unclear rule changes in the program under 

the new farm bill. Why the rule changes were necessary was unclear to me as the 

program that funded our 2005 project seemed to be working fine. 

We routinely hear from colleagues of instances where long-time borrowers are required to submit significant documentation, including dissected financial statements 

rather than the consolidated ones they may already have on hand, while first-time 

applicants are able to obtain approvals under less restrictive project feasibility requirements. Another common complaint revolves around how documentation will 

bounce between a borrower and the agency numerous times with the applicant, on 

43

each occasion, believing they have provided all that has been asked for only to find 

out later that the list of required information has changed along the way. Likewise, 

we often hear how announcements of loans and grants are made to the public with 

great fanfare, yet it will often be weeks or even months before dollars are ever allowed to flow to the project. We have also heard for years that a good part of the 

problem in finalizing agreements and covenants lies directly at the feet of the 

USDA’s office of general counsel, which I believe was the case with our 2008 project. 

My point in raising this is to show that it is not necessarily a problem associated 

with the RUS, but may be one that is coming from elsewhere within the agency or 

even the Administration, and as such, may be impacting programs beyond just those 

under the jurisdiction of the RUS. 

Again, we understand that Federal programs of this nature require a solid business plan and more due diligence than might be encountered in the private sector. 

Having been involved with the traditional RUS Loan Program, its broadband program, and now its stimulus related broadband program, we know what to expect 

and generally feel we are prepared to satisfy their requirements. But it bears repeating, and particularly with regard to the stimulus related program, that there 

are hurdles standing in the way of the most efficient application, approval, and fund 

distribution process. 

At any rate, to help with the approval process, rural LECs have typically gone 

to great lengths, even before making an application with the agency, to ensure they 

are able to show feasibility for their respective projects. Many have gone so far as 

to go door to door ahead of submitting their financing application to obtain commitments from a majority of the community they propose to service in order to show 

the initiative will be financially feasible. 

Other independent telecommunications providers have used the broadband loan 

program to build or compete in communities outside their traditional ILEC territories where broadband deployment may not be as advanced. However, there are 

also stories in many parts of the country where broadband loans have been approved where broadband services existed through two or three competitors. In the 

case of a loan in Oregon, a loan was made in communities where broadband deployment was at 99% or greater. This loan was also made over the objections of the RUS 

Field Representative. While overbuilding and competition is allowed under the regulations, I do not believe this is what Congress intended for the program. Similarly, 

we have encountered a little of this with regard to the stimulus program, as well, 

which is not a good use of limited resources. Recently we saw that Congress has 

given consideration to rescinding a portion of these funds to help pay for the latest 

supplemental. We truly believe there is a need for these dollars for rural broadband 

projects. However, if these dollars are going to be used for extreme and unwise overbuilds and duplication, we would almost rather see them rescinded. 

As a telco provider, I am well aware of the challenges faced by a Federal agency 

trying to determine where broadband currently exists. Under the FCC’s Form 477, 

broadband deployment is reported only by a ZIP CODE and does not paint an accurate picture of what is available in rural America. We are hopeful that the congressionally mandated mapping that is underway will help better determine the level 

of broadband that is deployed and where RUS financing should and should not be 

utilized, going forward. 

Ultimately, we recognize that the painstaking process of an RUS application is 

designed to protect the American taxpayers. This principle should be reinforced as 

Congress looks to reauthorize any of the agency’s programs. 

With regard to the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) program, we, as well as 

many of our industry colleagues, who have received awards, have encountered several issues that leave room for improvement. First, while Davis-Bacon reportedly 

applies for wages paid on certain jobs, as of today, RUS still has not provided the 

details on how to apply Davis-Bacon and to what jobs the law needs to be applied. 

This is critical, since it impacts costs for any stimulus project. And after many 

months, one would think RUS or the USDA would be reaching out to the Labor Department or elsewhere within the Administration to resolve this question. As a result, we are hearing that cost analyses are likely being inflated in order to avoid 

violating the law. This results in uncertainty and the extremely high likelihood that 

our overall project costs are going to be higher on our end without an adjustment 

on the BIP support side. And, in addition, although we are ‘‘shovel ready’’ with our 

project we cannot, as of today, send out our bid requests without a clear and RUS 

approved definition. 

We have also encountered extreme problems with the legal forms which are very 

extensive and in many cases have contained errors—including lien provision errors. 

Also, many award recipients have encountered situations where their private sector 

44

financiers have issues with provisions of the loan documentation and again, particularly with the language surrounding leins. 

I would like to draw your attention to the collateral structure, or lien on assets 

and revenues, that is required by NTIA and RUS under their respective loan and 

grant programs. Traditionally, RUS has agreed to share this lien on an equal and 

rateable (pari passu) basis with private lenders that have an outstanding loan to 

a rural telecommunications provider. This is a prudent underwriting standard and 

serves to ensure that both the government and the lender are adequately protected 

in the case of a default. 

Under this shared security arrangement, RUS has a very successful track record 

of partnering with private lenders and leveraging billions of dollars in private capital for rural telecommunications providers to invest in the rural infrastructure. 

However, it is unclear if RUS will modify its lien sharing requirements. The NTIA 

has been unwilling to share any collateral on a pari passu basis under BTOP. We 

are hopeful that RUS will not follow NTIA down this path, and will continue its 

longstanding tradition of working with private lenders to deploy a state-of-the-art 

communications infrastructure in rural America. 

Unfortunately, RUS has not been particularly prompt in their responses to these 

issues. These sorts of issues combined with the looming uncertainly that continues 

to surround the FCC’s National Broadband Plan and its related proceedings has led 

many of our industry colleagues to seriously question whether or not to move forward with stimulus funding and other investment proposals. 

Audits 

As a traditional broadband borrower from RUS, my company is required to supply 

an independent audit each year. I believe that this is a very good policy even though 

the process is very burdensome to a company that has an accounting staff of only 

three members. The process for our company lasts about a month preparing all the 

documents needed by the auditors. Then staff spends an additional week with the 

auditors on site. And finally, about a week of follow-up as the auditors complete 

their process. This 6 week period completely dominates the time of our Accounting 

Supervisor and some of the time of the other two staff members. During that time 

we will have three payrolls, accounts payable, accounts receivable and all the other 

duties usually performed by three staff members now being carried out by one or 

two. 

Last year, after our independent audit, the IRS did an audit of our company—

neither audit found any mistakes by our accounting staff. RUS then conducted a 

third audit for my company with an RUS staff auditor of the Fiber-to-the-Home 

project in Paw Paw, Michigan. This was a $5 million project, so you can imagine 

the number of invoices, checks, equipment lists and many other documents that the 

auditor requested. So once again the accounting staff needed to spend several weeks 

collecting all the information needed for the auditor. The auditor was in our office 

for a couple weeks reviewing all the information. He was very professional, very nice 

to work with and many times complemented my accounting staff and the job they 

had done both collecting the information he needed and the day-to-day work that 

they had performed documenting the project. At the end of the day, what he found 

was that the bank account opened specifically for the project was funded with twenty-five dollars ($25) instead of the one hundred dollars ($100) that was requested 

in the rules. Should we have funded the account with $100? Yes. At the end of the 

day did affect the project in any way? No. Did we add an additional $75 to the account? Yes. With all that said, it seems like my company and RUS spent a great 

deal of time and money to find a $75 error. I would suggest that since we are already having an independent audit, could some additional items be added to the 

independent auditing firm’s list of things to check or could we possibly conduct a 

combined audit? It bears mentioning that we have encountered these very same 

issues with a rash of industry audits associated with the universal service program, 

and again, to date, they have found no waste, fraud, or abuse, yet have spent millions of program dollars and company dollars in arriving at that conclusion. These 

are dollars that could have gone toward bring broadband to rural America. 

Broadband in Rural America 

Today, telecom providers and policy makers alike have shifted their primary focus 

from voice services to broadband, which offers the promise of being the great equalizer between rural and non-rural areas of our nation. With the help of the RUS’s 

broadband loan and grant programs, stimulus funding, and the aforementioned cost 

recovery mechanisms, rural communications service providers are working to replicate the success of their telephone service build-out by steadily deploying 

45

broadband infrastructure and related services to an increasing percentage of their 

subscribers. 

Listening to the needs of our customers and understanding the ever-growing importance of broadband in everyday life, Bloomingdale Communications is working 

to provide state-of-the-art communications in our service areas. In addition to being 

a traditional RUS borrower, Bloomingdale Communications recently applied and 

was awarded $8.3 million through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(Recovery Act) BIP. This award will allow our company to build out our fiber network to over 1,451 homes in our service area, which will enable farmers, students, 

home-based business, and many others to take advantage of high-speed broadband 

services. This is a part of our continuous effort to provide the broadband infrastructure that is necessary to support the growing bandwidth needs of our customers. 

A typical business plan that would sustain itself simply cannot be constructed for 

the rural segment of the market. It is in these high-cost areas that support from 

the RUS will continue to be critical in enabling our systems to overcome the economic challenges of providing broadband to our customers. 

While not perfect, the RUS BIP program has yielded tremendous opportunity to 

expand broadband access to unserved and underserved communities throughout the 

United States. We wish to thank and congratulate those on this Committee that 

worked so hard during the crafting of the Recovery Act to ensure the RUS administered at least a portion of the broadband stimulus funding. The RUS’ knowledge of 

rural America and experience with broadband loan programs has proved to be of 

great value in both the decision making and administering aspects of this important 

program. 

Thanks to the funding made available by RUS telecom programs, many rural 

communities are now, or will soon be, able to take advantage of all the services and 

capabilities broadband has to offer. Broadband is the fuel that will power growth 

in the heath care, education, homeland security, and energy sectors throughout 

rural America. It has the potential to be the great equalizer between rural and 

urban regions. In fact, we believe it has the potential to ‘‘save’’ rural America, which 

continues to shrink in many parts of the country. 

According to the Foundation for Rural Service’s (a partnership of NTCA) ‘‘2009 

Rural Youth Telecommunications Survey,’’ 60% of respondents indicated that would 

consider living in a rural area after graduation, while only 13% ruled out the possibility altogether. Of the survey respondents, 45% said that the availability of a variety of telecommunications services would be an important factor in determining 

where they will eventually live. Asked what they considered ‘‘essential’’ telecommunications services, 66% of respondents chose broadband Internet. In addition 

to keeping the best and brightest rural students from leaving for non-rural areas, 

robust broadband services are also critical to economic development in these areas. 

According to a January 2010 Public Policy Institute of California report, during the 

years 1999 to 2006, an area moving from no broadband providers to one to three 

providers would achieve overall employment growth of 6.4%. Last year, the United 

States Department of Agriculture released a study entitled ‘‘Broadband Internet’s 

Value for Rural America’’ that confirmed these findings. That study found that ‘‘employment growth was higher and nonfarm private earnings greater in countries with 

a longer history of broadband availability.’’ 

Concerns About the National Broadband Plan 

Serving our nation’s rural citizens with telephone service has always been challenging and bringing broadband to these sparsely populated areas will be even more 

challenging. However, with a national commitment to ensure all Americans receive 

comparable, robust communication services, we have been able to overcome the 

many barriers that otherwise would have left rural American behind. Unfortunately, it appears, based on provisions of the National Broadband Plan (NBP), we 

may are now abandoning the approaches that led to the successes we see today. 

Even more alarming, it looks as if we may soon abandon the basic principles of universal service that have ensured rural America is not left behind. 

While on the surface the NBP’s goal of providing broadband to all Americans 

seems like a commendable goal, it unfortunately also sets our country on the path 

of a digital divide between rural and non-rural. The plan sets a universal goal of 

4 Mbps, while promoting 100 Mbps for 100 million households. By setting these 

goals, which will ensure speeds 25 times slower for high-cost, rural areas, the plan 

abandons our country’s long-standing commitment to providing comparable telecommunication services to all Americans. As you know, without comparable 

broadband speeds, rural communities, which are becoming increasingly dependent 

on broadband, will fall further behind and will be unable to compete and receive 

46

comparable job, health care, or educational opportunities and services as urban 

Americans. 

We all agree comprehensive reform of telecommunications policy is needed to 

modernize support for communication services of the future. However, we are asking 

Congress to address the disruptions the NBP’s modernization proposals would have 

on carriers that have invested and been successful in providing modern telecommunication services in rural areas based on predicable support mechanisms. As 

you may know, this particular issue has already caused a great deal of concern 

among legislators, and has led to at least 22 Senators and 45 Members of the House 

of Representatives signing letters to FCC Chairman Genachowski expressing their 

disapproval with the NBP’s low standards that will cause a digital divide between 

rural and urban Americans. 

We believe the economic future of rural America is at stake. Therefore, we urge 

you to help modify the NBP’s recommendations so businesses and workers can embrace rural areas and to ensure all Americans can benefit from this plan equally. 

Impact on RUS Programs 

While the Agriculture Committee does not have jurisdiction over most telecom 

policy, we bring our concerns about the NBP to your attention because we believe 

the ripple effect of the NBP is already being felt by RUS programs and rural communities throughout the country. The NBP may quickly lead to the inability of rural 

providers to repay billions of dollars in loans extended by RUS as well as the rural 

sector’s primary financiers CoBank and RTFC. In recent comments submitted to the 

FCC, regarding the matter of the NBP, CoBank said, ‘‘unless there is a sufficient 

and sustainable cost recovery mechanism, no financing method (e.g., loan, loan guarantee, revolving loan, or one-time grant) will sustain a rural broadband network in 

the long term.’’ 

We would also like to make Committee Members aware that in a December 22, 

2008 filing with the FCC, the RUS outlined just how important Universal Service 

support is to the agency’s massive telecommunications lending portfolio. In that filing, the RUS explained how its nearly $4 billion tax-payer financed loan portfolio 

could be put at risk by proposals that would curtail Universal Service flows. Then 

RUS Administrator Jim Andrew stated that an analysis of borrowers at the time 

showed that 35% of loans outstanding would not be feasible were Universal Service 

funding to be frozen. He went on to say that if toll revenues (interstate and intrastate access revenue, interstate and intrastate Universal Service funding, and enduser subscriber line charges) were frozen; 2⁄3 of the loans would not be feasible. Specific to my company, last year, about 40% of our revenue came from Universal Service support and access charges. Last year we saw a 14% decrease in access billing. 

As these revenues continue to diminish, my company will be more than challenged 

to fulfill its commitments to private and Federal lenders—not to mention to provide 

adequate service to our customers. 

As I noted earlier, the uncertainty created by the NBP and other proposed policy 

changes have already impacted the rural telecommunications market and RUS programs. Several rural telcos are considering not accepting the stimulus awards in 

which they have applied or been accepted for. In fact, one rural telco in Indiana has 

already decided to reject the stimulus award they received from RUS in round one 

based on the uncertainty created by proposed policy changes. 

To avoid putting RUS telecom programs at risk, NTCA, along with the National 

Exchange Carrier Association (NECA), the Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies (OPASTCO), the Western Telecommunications Alliance (WTA), the Rural Alliance, and 38 concurring state associations and other groups recommend the following changes to the NBP:

• Not impose an overall cap or freeze on the existing High Cost program for incumbent carriers, or new caps or freezes on rural local exchange carrier 

(RLEC)-specific mechanisms such as interstate common line support.

• Not require RLEC’s to shift to incentive regulation, as it has been demonstrably 

ineffective in encouraging carriers to provide an evolving level of service to consumers in high-cost areas. In contrast, rate-of-return regulation has a proven 

track record of success in this regard, and remains fully viable in today’s competitive broadband environment.

• Focus on developing simple, reliable and workable methods based on actual 

costs for supporting broadband in RLEC territories and not pursue efforts to develop complex models or ‘‘market based’’ mechanisms such as reverse or procurement auctions.

47

• Immediately reform the USF contribution system and, most importantly, expand the contribution base to include, at a minimum, all broadband Internet 

access providers.

• Move quickly to address certain discrete intercarrier compensation reform 

issues such as strengthening the call signaling rules to mitigate phantom traffic 

as well as confirming that interconnected Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) 

providers are required to pay access charges. 

Conclusion 

As applications evolve over broadband, all Americans connected will experience 

untold opportunities for employment, health care, education, as well as entertainment. As the world is getting increasingly competitive, it is essential that the 

United States have a ubiquitous national broadband network where all Americans, 

whether urban, suburban, or rural have access to quality communication services. 

Although our rural areas are sparse in population, these people are critical in our 

nation’s economy and security. 

We believe that RUS telecom programs, along with the other programs I outlined 

earlier in my statement, will continue to help enable America’s rural, communitybased telecommunication system providers meet the broadband needs of our nation’s 

rural citizens. 

We emerged in these markets where no one else was willing to go. We understand 

these markets and what their needs are. We are committed to these markets because our systems are locally owned and operated. As part of this effort, we look 

forward to continuing to work with this Subcommittee and the RUS to provide rural 

America with affordable and robust communications services. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

I want to particularly welcome Eddie Miller, who is from my 

home State of North Carolina and Director of Community Development with the North Carolina Association of Electric Co-ops. We 

have worked together often. 

Eddie, thank you for coming today. You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF RALPH E. ‘‘EDDIE’’ MILLER, DIRECTOR OF 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, NORTH CAROLINA

ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES, RALEIGH, NC 

Mr. Ralph MILLER. Chairman McIntyre and esteemed Committee 

Members, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak 

today about a subject that has been the focus of my professional 

life for the past 40 years. I would also like to thank Congressman 

McIntyre and Congressman Kissell for their continued support of 

USDA Rural Development programs as well as the 26 rural electric 

cooperatives in our state. 

Having worked for USDA Rural Development for 34 years and 

now the North Carolina Association of Electrical Cooperatives, I 

have experienced firsthand the positive impact that the Federal 

commitment has had on our rural areas. 

I cannot imagine what conditions would be like without the technical and financial assistance provided by USDA that has enabled 

rural communities to build essential services to support their populations. For many communities and rural people, USDA Rural Development has been the only reliable source of financing and has 

been a true partner in their development. 

USDA Rural Development State Director Randy Gore and his 

staff are doing an excellent job serving the people of North Carolina. We at the cooperatives consider him our most important economic partner. 

48

I know that all governmental budgets are under extreme stress, 

but I hope that the programs that mean so much to our rural communities will be competitive in the decision-making process. I am 

looking forward to the 2012 Farm Bill and next year’s appropriations. I see a continued need for financial and technical assistance 

in our rural communities. 

Most if not all of the programs that are offered by USDA Rural 

Development were originated to provide affordable capital to our 

rural communities. Low-wealth communities depend on the funding 

provided by USDA Rural Development to support essential community services. 

I have provided detailed comments on most of the USDA programs in my written statement. Due to time, I will only comment 

on a few programs. 

The Community Facilities Program has supported more critical 

needs for our rural communities than any other program, with the 

exception possibly of the Electric Service Program. It has the flexibility to fund first responders, schools, medical and other services 

that support the quality of life for rural citizens. 

The Guaranteed Business and Industry Loans and the Intermediary Relending Programs are critically needed to support the 

job creation in our rural communities. Funding needs to continue 

at the current level and increase, if possible. 

The program known as the REDLG, Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants, which is made to co-ops, provides an essential economic development tool that they use to help recruit 

businesses. 

Agriculture is the mainstay in most of rural America, and the 

Value-Added Producer Grant Program helps develop programs to 

keep more or develop more income for the farmers off of the agriculture. The Rural Utility Service Water and Waste Disposal Program is the main funding source for much of rural America. It allows communities to provide health improvements for its residents 

and provide support for fire departments. 

Very little economic development can be accomplished without 

proper infrastructure. In the Electrical and Telecommunications 

Loans and Guarantees, the Federal Government created the partnership between electric cooperatives and the REA to meet the 

power needs of underserved rural areas. That partnership has been 

very successful and must continue if electric cooperatives are to 

meet their goal of providing dependable service at an affordable 

price. 

It is important to maintain the guaranteed FFB Generation Loan 

Program and its funding, since it is an essential tool used by cooperatives in providing affordable service to rural America and 

North Carolina. 

Without the access to RUS programs, electric generation cooperatives, such as NCMC, will be forced to access more expensive 

sources of capital for its members’ future power supply needs, resulting in an increased cost for its members. Affordable electric 

power is a key consideration in the location of businesses and job 

creation. With the assistance of RUS programs, electric cooperatives can continue to support our rural communities’ economic development efforts by providing dependable and affordable power. 

49

I have made a lot of comments about the various programs in 

USDA from my experience with it in my written statement, but 

that concludes my presentation at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ralph Miller follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RALPH E. ‘‘EDDIE’’ MILLER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT, NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES, RALEIGH, NC 

Chairman McIntyre and esteemed Committee Members, I would like to thank you 

for the opportunity to speak today about a subject that has been the focus of my 

professional life for the past forty years. I would also like to thank Congressman 

McIntyre and Congressman Kissell for their continued support of the USDA Rural 

Development programs as well as the 26 rural electric cooperatives in our state. 

While preparing for this testimony, I came to realize that my life story has been 

one totally wrapped up in the field of rural development. I was born in Perquimans 

County, one of many low wealth areas of eastern North Carolina where the greatest 

export is the children who have to leave home to find good employment opportunities. While I did not know it at the time, the work I performed for my father’s building company during summer school breaks was the construction of low income housing financed by the Farmers Home Administration, the predecessor agency to USDA 

Rural Development. 

Upon graduation from NC State University in 1970, I was employed as an Assistant County Supervisor with Farmers Home Administration in Chatham and Randolph Counties. In that role I provided technical and financial assistance to farmers, 

local governments, businesses, developers, builders, potential home owners, nonprofits organizations and a host of others that achieved the mission of the agency. 

I left FmHA and returned home in 1976 to become an owner of a Chevrolet Dealership and a small general construction company. While it was great to return home 

and to contribute to the community, it became apparent to me that there was no 

future for small businesses due to the crisis in the farm economy and historically 

high interest rates. 

In 1982, I returned to Farmers Home Administration and had the honor of serving as the Assistant to the State Director during five Administrations and four State 

Directors. In that role, I gained experience in the delivery of all USDA Rural Development programs as well as programs provided by other Federal and state agencies. 

With the support of our Congressional delegation, North Carolina continues as a 

national leader in the delivery of services to our rural communities in all program 

areas. The USDA Rural Development programs and finance opportunities have 

evolved over the years to meet the changing needs of rural communities and their 

residents. 

On many occasions, I’ve used the analogy of a builder who has a large tool box 

of tools or programs with an annual supply of materials or funding that can be used 

to build a community. A successful USDA Rural Development employee is one who 

has knowledge of all agency programs plus those of other resource providers in his 

toolbox then uses that information to select the best tools/programs to meet the 

needs of the community. 

In April 2009, I retired from USDA Rural Development. I currently serve as the 

Vice President of Member Services and Community Development for the North 

Carolina Electric Member Corporation. My responsibilities include the management 

of community development programs offered by our statewide organization plus I 

serve as an interface with USDA Rural Development and other organizations that 

provide economic development programs to North Carolina. 

The North Carolina Association of Electric Cooperatives has 26 member cooperatives that provide electric service to nearly a million members over 93 counties in 

our state. Each of those 26 cooperatives has an economic development program that 

offers a variety of services including funding and technical assistance in the economic development areas. 

In April of this year, NCEMC hosted an Economic Development Resource Conference. USDA Rural Development State Director Randy Gore and his staff worked 

closely with the electric cooperatives and we have worked together to spread information about the benefits of these programs throughout the state. My goal is to provide information, education, and guidance to the cooperative staffs and their directors regarding the opportunities and resources available from the USDA Rural Development. 

Looking forward to the 2012 Farm Bill and next year’s appropriations, I see a continued need for financial and technical assistance in our rural communities. Most, 

50

if not all, of the programs that are offered by USDA Rural Development have originated to provide affordable capital to our rural communities. Low wealth communities depend on the funding provided by USDA Rural Development to support essential community services such as water, sewer, and first response services. If Electric Cooperatives are to continue to provide affordable and dependable power to 

members, they require access to affordable financing for its generation, transmission 

and distribution systems. For this to happen, USDA Rural Development must continue to support our rural communities in the areas of housing, energy, businesses, 

utilities, and communications. 

I will give my comments by Agency 

Rural Housing Service: 

The Direct Single Family Housing Program (502). This program has allowed 

thousands of low and very low income people to become home owners. But due to 

budget restraints, program funding has not met the demand. For a number of reasons, it appears that the need for housing is being met through the purchase of mobile homes and manufacture housing. While the housing units may meet the needs 

of the families, the location of the homes has created problems in many communities. Development for manufactured housing sites has not keep up with the demand. There is a great need for a program that would encourage developers to build 

subdivisions or mobile home parks with quality management and good living environments for low income residents. 

The Guaranteed Single Family Housing Program (502). Due to the large expansion of this program and the elimination of the energy standards requirements, 

the financing of some older housing stock could result in higher energy bills for the 

borrowers. I would recommend increased review and oversight. 

Single Family Housing Grants and Direct Housing Loan (504). This cost effective government program assist very low income home owners. It allows elderly 

homeowners to improve the health and safety conditions of their home in turn making them more suitable for elder living. This assistance allows the homeowners the 

option to reside in their homes longer instead of more expensive housing provided 

by care facilities. 

Rural Rental Housing Loans (515). New construction funding has been limited 

for many years. In North Carolina there are 628 properties containing 22,662 rental 

units. Of those properties, 395 properties are over 20 years old and 246 properties 

are no longer bound by restrictive use provisions and could be sold off the program. 

There continues to be a need for these properties. I suggest that the demonstration 

program for Multi-Family preservation and revitalization be continued. This will assist in improving the properties and keeping them available for low income housing. 

Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing, Housing Preservations Grants, Farm 

Labor Housing—I have no recommendations. 

Community Facilities—North Carolina is the national leader for this program. 

In my opinion, this program has supported more critical needs for our rural communities than any other program with the exception of the electric service program. 

It has the flexibility to fund first responders, schools, medical, and other services 

that support the quality of life for our citizens. 

Rural Business and Cooperative Service: 

Guaranteed Business and Industry Loans—This is a very important rural 

jobs program. I suggest continued high levels of funding and reduced fees in high 

unemployment areas. 

Intermediary Relending Program—This is the gift that keeps on giving. The 

funds are loans that are collected then relent to create more jobs. Jobs are a top 

priority for all; therefore, I suggest higher funding levels. 

Rural Business Enterprise Grants and Rural Business Opportunity 

Grants—Both of these grants are good programs that could utilize additional funding. 

Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants—These are loans and 

grants made to cooperatives for economic development projects. This is a good program and provides a great tool for the cooperatives. I am working with the North 

Carolina Electric Cooperatives to expand use of the program along with the NCEMC 

Development Loan programs. 

Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grants—Agriculture is a major industry in our rural areas, it is important that we find ways 

to expand the income potential. There needs to be increased marketing efforts for 

the program with emphasis to the limited resource farmers. 

51

Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Loans 

and Grants—A very good program that has assisted a number of farmers, however, 

it needs to be adequately funded with more non-farm business outreach. 

Rural Utilities Service: 

Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants—This program is the main 

funding source for much of rural America. It allows communities to provide health 

improvements for its residents and provides support for fire departments. Very little 

economic development can be accomplished without the proper infrastructure providing adequate water and waste disposal service. To support health and job creation, I recommend increased levels of funding. 

Rural Broadband Loans and Loan Guarantees—Traditional loan programs 

will not work in most of the underserved areas of rural America. The programs offered under the Stimulus funding which provide grants up to 75% will be effective. 

I would like to thank USDA Rural Development for the award to French Broad 

Electric Membership Corporation. Lumbee River Electric Membership Corporation 

has recently filed for funding as well. 

Electric and Telecommunications Loans and Guarantees—The Federal 

Government created the partnership between electric cooperatives and REA to meet 

the power needs of underserved rural areas. That partnership has been very successful and must continue if electric cooperatives are to meet their goals of providing 

dependable service at an affordable price. It is important to maintain the guaranteed FFB generation loan program and its’ funding since it is an essential tool used 

by Cooperatives in providing affordable service to rural America and North Carolina. Without access to the RUS program, electric generation cooperatives such as 

NCEMC will be forced to access more expensive sources of capital for its members’ 

future power supply needs resulting in an increased cost for its’ members. Affordable electric power is a key consideration in the location of businesses and the creation of jobs. With the assistance of the RUS programs, electric cooperatives can 

continue to support our rural communities’ economic development efforts by providing dependable and affordable power. 

This concludes my presentation. Thank you again for the opportunity to address 

the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

Dr. Ayers. 

STATEMENT OF VAN H. AYERS, ED.D., BOARD MEMBER, DELTA 

LAND AND COMMUNITY; AGRICULTURE AND RURAL

DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI

EXTENSION, BLOOMFIELD, MO 

Dr. AYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am Van Ayers. I am a cofounder and board member of a notfor-profit organization called Delta Land and Community, and also 

am an Agricultural and Rural Development specialist with the University of Missouri Extension Service. 

Delta Land and Community is active in rural development 

projects, focusing on the Mississippi River Delta region, in which 

Missouri is a part. My office is located in Bloomfield, Missouri, 

which is in Stoddard County. I serve the Boot Hill region of the 

state, which is the extreme southeast corner of Missouri. 

The prevalent agriculture is southern, with corn, cotton, soybeans and rice produced in the county. Also my brother and I are 

partners in a beef farm located in Bedford County, Tennessee. 

Over the past 25 years, I have been actively involved in rural development issues in southeast Missouri. I have worked with farmers and farmer groups and applied and obtained for producers several of the grants administered by USDA Rural Development. I 

have experience with the VAPG, REAP, RBOG and Community Facilities Grants at the grassroots, working with farmer and farmer 

groups. The nonprofit I helped start is HELP, where farmers reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:39 Oct 14, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-55\58018.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
52

ceive nearly all the VAPG grants awarded in the State of Arkansas. 

Based on 25 years of working with USDA in Rural Development 

programs, I have seven specific recommendations to improve Rural 

Development programs. 

First of all, focus more of the VAPG on the planning grants. I 

am a strong advocate of these type of grants. I prefer that the majority of VAPG funds be made available to this effort in lieu of

working capital grants. It is my opinion that in most cases if an 

enterprise is viable, funding is obtainable from an assortment of 

other sources. 

Second, allow the farmer time to be included as a match for 

VAPG. There is a 50 percent match requirement for funds with 

VAPG. Securing the match has been problematic. However, I prefer 

that the match requirement, specifically for the planning grant portion, but not for working capital grants, be altogether eliminated. 

If it cannot be eliminated altogether, then at the very least there 

should be a liberal provision for counting the time and expertise of 

the farmer entrepreneur. 

Third, past VAPG grant reports should be assembled in an online 

reference library. Information obtained through the VAPG grants 

at this time is now proprietary. If the information from the planning grants is not to be used, which has happened to be the case 

several times, especially if the project is not feasible, then at least 

this information should be placed in the public domain. 

Fourth, allow REAP to cover 50 percent of the cost and move the 

VAPG energy feasibility proposals to REAP. Within REAP there is 

a feasibility grant program. As with all of REAP, the grant will 

cover 25 percent of the project cost. This will help rationalize limited government resources, allowing VAPG to concentrate on food, 

fiber, and forestry projects with energy projects supported through 

REAP. 

Fifth, carve out a part of Community Facilities Grants for farmers markets. I suggest that these funds be allocated to Community 

Facilities Grants specifically for farmers markets. I am here this 

week in Washington to review the Farmers Market Promotion Program grants. There were over 500 applicants from all corners of 

the United States, and as I began to review these proposals, it became clear that there is a great need for this program throughout 

the U.S. 

However, those proposals that were written from urban areas 

with the better grant writers had a greater chance of being funded, 

or seemed to have a greater chance of being funded. This is not uncommon. This raises the issue of fund distribution inequity for all 

of USDA grant programs. 

Six, a less complex grant application process is needed for both 

VAPG and REAP. A three-page proposal for REAP and VAPG 

grants less than $25,000 actually would be ideal. 

My final and most important recommendation is to establish a 

national program to train enterprise facilitators to help farmers in 

underserved areas develop proposals for these programs. This is 

what I do within my job position at the University of Missouri Extension. 

53

There is an inequity of grant funds distribution with both VAPG 

and REAP programs. Local rural development offices are not necessarily versed in these, and other grants offered through USDA 

through their own agency. The context for these grants is usually 

at the state office. Neither the Ag Innovation Centers nor the Rural 

Cooperative Development Centers have had a major influence on 

my activities. 

To develop a good grant application, at the end of the day someone must write it, and the ability and the desire to do so sometimes 

is often lacking, especially in some rural areas. 

USDA should do what it can now to develop a nationally coordinated initiative for enterprise facilitators, and if the Department 

finds a new authority or dedicated funding is required, Congress 

should take this up in the next farm bill. 

In conclusion, the development of rural enterprises by utilizing 

commodities and resources at the local level is a sure-fire way to 

improve the local economy. 

With this, I conclude my comments. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ayers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VAN H. AYERS, ED.D., BOARD MEMBER, DELTA LAND AND

COMMUNITY; AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST, UNIVERSITY OF

MISSOURI EXTENSION, BLOOMFIELD, MO 

I am Van H. Ayers, a co-founder and board member of a not for profit organization called Delta Land and Community, and an Agriculture and Rural Development 

Specialist with the University of Missouri Extension Service. Delta Land and Community is active in rural development projects focusing on the Mississippi River 

Delta Region, in which Missouri is a part. My office is located in Bloomfield, MO, 

which is in Stoddard County, MO. I serve the Bootheel region of the state, which 

is in the extreme southeast corner of Missouri. The prevalent agriculture is Southern, with corn, cotton, soybeans and rice produced in the county. Also, my brother 

and I are partners in a beef farm located in Bedford County, Tennessee. 

Over the past 25 years I have been actively involved in rural development issues 

in Southeast Missouri. I have worked with farmers and farmer groups and applied 

and obtained for producers several of the grants administered by USDA-Rural Development. I have experience with the USDA, Value-Added Producers Grants 

(VAPG), Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) or 9007 grants, Rural Business 

Opportunity Grants (RBOG) and Community Facilities Grants at the grassroots, 

working with farmers and farmer groups. I have also worked with other USDA 

grant and loan opportunities. The nonprofit I helped start has helped farmers receive nearly all the VAPG grants received in Arkansas. 

Based on 25 years working with USDA rural development programs, I have seven 

specific recommendations to improve rural development programs. First, focus more 

of VAPG on planning grants. The Value-Added Producers Grants, of which I have 

written five separate proposals, with three funded, is one of the more progressive 

and effective programs offered by USDA. This program offers to farmers and farmer 

groups the opportunity to develop an idea, create an enterprise and help the local 

rural community. Within VAPG there are two types of grants, the planning grant—

which is used to plan the enterprise by funding feasibility studies, business plans, 

attorney fees etc., and working capital grants. I have only worked with planning 

grants. I am a strong advocate of these type grants. I prefer that the majority of 

VAPG funds be made available to this effort in lieu of working capital grants. There 

may be specific legitimate reasons why a VAPG working capital grant makes sense 

in a given instance, but generally speaking I would lean the program more in the 

direction of planning grants. It is my opinion that in most cases if an enterprise 

is viable, funding is obtainable from an assortment of other sources. 

Second, allow farmer time to be included as match for VAPG. There is a 50% 

match requirement for funds with VAPG. Securing match is problematic. We have 

been able to do so, for the projects in which I have assisted, by utilizing my time, 

with the University of Missouri as match. At the least, farmers’ and participants’ 

time should be allowable to be used as match. The farmer/entrepreneur who develops a new enterprise usually knows more about that industry than anyone else. His/

54

her time and expertise are crucial to success of each VAPG. However, I would prefer 

that the match requirement for the planning grant (but not for working capital 

grants) be altogether eliminated. If it cannot be eliminated altogether, then at the 

very least there should be liberal provision for counting the time and expertise of 

the farmer/entrepreneur. 

Third, past VAPG grant reports should be assembled in an on-line reference library. Information obtained through the VAPG grants is now proprietary. However, 

if the information from planning grants is not to be used, especially if the project 

is not feasible, then at least this information should be placed in the public domain. 

But I suspect there would be relevant information from other grant programs useful 

to the public and to academicians that could be in a reference library without compromising any confidential proprietary information. 

Fourth, allow REAP to cover 50% of costs and move VAPG energy feasibility proposals to REAP. Within REAP there is a feasibility study grant program. As with 

all of REAP, the grant will cover 25% of the project costs. An applicant can use the 

VAPG also for an energy project feasibility study, but VAPG will fund 50% of the 

project cost. The feasibility study grant program of REAP should be raised to cover 

50% of project cost, similar to VAPG, instead of 25%. Energy feasibility grants could 

then be moved to REAP. This would help rationalize the limited government resources, allowing VAPG to concentrate on food, fiber, and forestry projects with energy projects supported through REAP. 

Fifth, carve out a part of Community Facilities Grants for farmers markets. I suggest that funds be allocated in the Community Facilities Grant specifically for farmers markets. Farmers markets are popping up around the United States; they are 

a local economic activity with low capital investment but with both positive health 

and economic effect. The Community Facilities grants applications are filed at the 

local USDA–RD field office. I am here this week in Washington to review Farmers 

Market Promotion Program grants. There were over 500 applicants from all corners 

of the United States. Clearly, this is a popular program. As I began to review these 

proposals, it became clear that there is a great need for this program throughout 

the U.S.; however, those proposals were written from urban areas, with the better 

grant writers, had a greater chance of being funded. There were proposals that expressed a great need, but will not be funded because they did not hit all the evaluation components in the writing. This seems unfair and reflects the basic problem 

of the lack of adequate personnel resources in rural areas. This raises the issue of 

fund distribution inequity for all USDA grant programs. 

Sixth, a less complex grant application process is needed for both VAPG and REAP. A three page proposal for REAP and VAPG grants less than $25,000 would 

be ideal. For a VAPG grant, it typically takes a full week of work to complete an 

application. 

My final and most important recommendation is to establish a national program 

to train enterprise facilitators to help farmers in underserved areas develop proposals for these programs. This program could do the greatest to help rural America. There is also an inequity of grant funds distribution with both the VAPG and 

REAP programs. Missouri did well with VAPG until this year, when the evaluation 

criteria were changed. Nebraska does very well with the REAP grants. Tennessee 

does not receive many of either of the grants. Local Rural Development offices are 

not necessarily versed in these and other grants offered through their agency. The 

contact for these grants is usually at state office. As part of my Extension duties 

I have promoted these and other USDA–RD programs, and facilitated grant applications. Neither the Ag Innovation Centers nor the Rural Cooperative Development 

Centers have had a major influence on my activities. The need for good enterprise 

facilitators is greater than either of these programs can deliver. To develop a good 

grant application, someone must write it, the ability and desire is oftentimes lacking. USDA should do what it can now to develop a nationally coordinated initiative 

for enterprise facilitators, and if the Department finds new authority or dedicated 

funding is required, Congress should take this up in the next farm bill. 

In conclusion, the development of rural enterprise, by utilizing the commodities 

and resources at hand in a rural community, is a direct and sure fire way to improve the local economy. As we move into a green economy, one needs to remember 

that green grows in rural America, and not in urban centers or suburbia. Wealth 

generated by these efforts should stay local. To develop value in rural America, and 

ensure equity of distribution of USDA grant and loan funds into the poorer rural 

areas of the United States, there is a need for enterprise facilitators to facilitate locally owned value-added agriculture enterprises. Within Extension, there are some 

of us doing this. I suggest there be a national effort to fully fund enterprise 

facilitators, and place these people in rural America charged with working with the 

local populace to develop enterprises. These facilitators would write and assist in 

55

writing VAPG, REAP and other grants. This is what I do, and I believe it will work 

and reduce the inequity of grant distribution, while increasing the economic viability of rural America.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you for your timely presentation, and thanks to all of you. 

Most of you, if not all of you, have touched on some difficulty for 

applying for a Rural Development loan or grant. I know that, in 

particular, Mr. Higginbotham, Mr. Miller, you all talked about your 

concerns, and one of you actually mentioned about the process of 

having to fill out information for the loan and then the grant and 

not combining it. I believe, Mr. Miller, you referred to that. 

Is there an element of the process that you would change if you 

had the power to do so, and if so, what is it? What would help 

streamline the process for those applying? I welcome any of you to 

comment on that. 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. One thing I would change, especially for 

intermediaries that have a proven track record, if we could even 

streamline the process for them, maybe an abbreviated application. 

They have a proven track record, they have the reports on time, 

they can keep the money deployed. Streamline a process for that. 

Also other possible changes could be whether that could be considered a zero percent loan on the IRP, or maybe half of it grant, 

half of it one percent. But just some kind of process, or even maybe 

a set-aside program, so the individual states could say we have 

these intermediaries that are successful, they have been doing this 

for 10 years. Let’s set aside some money for them on an annual 

basis, semiannual, whatever the time-frame may be, to shorten up 

that time-frame. To say okay, we need an injection of capital now, 

we have all of our money out. Then the time line to get these next 

dollars would be quicker. So just basic streamlining. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Anybody else with specific suggestions on ways to make the process easier? 

Mr. BEAULAC. I just want to agree with what my colleague said. 

We have been actually asking USDA to institute what is referred 

to as a Preferred Lender Program for those intermediaries who 

have been in the program for a number of years, who don’t have 

to go back through the rigors of being a new applicant each and 

every time they go back to the program for additional resources. So 

I absolutely agree with his suggestion. 

The CHAIRMAN. Anyone else? 

Dr. AYERS. I just want to add once again, a shorter grant process 

would be desirable. I will state definitely on the REAP proposals, 

the ones I dealt with in southeast Missouri, essentially the producers hired a grant writer on their behalf to actually submit the 

proposal. The REAP is somewhat of a difficult proposal to write. It 

takes several days to do so. The applications I have seen, at least 

one I know specifically, is about an inch thick and it takes a lot 

of work to get this thing submitted. So anything they can do to 

shorten the grant process would be definitely beneficial, and I 

would also say so for the VAPG. Both of them. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Would any of the other panelists would 

like to comment on simplifying the process? 

56

I would encourage the suggestions you have made, for them to 

be submitted to Rural Development at USDA. I want to ask in the 

audience, is there anyone still here from USDA Rural Development, or did they all depart with the Under Secretary? 

We want to make sure, and I will ask the Clerk if we will make 

sure the record of this panel is forwarded to the Under Secretary. 

I am happy to sign a cover letter if staff will prepare that to point 

out specifically some of the complaints, concerns, and suggestions 

you have made. 

But I would also encourage you on the panel to not just think, 

‘‘Oh, by my saying it here today, somebody out there somewhere 

ought to hear this.’’ I would ask if each of you would be willing to 

make that suggestion directly to the Under Secretary. 

Are you willing to do that, Mr. Miller? 

Mr. Ed MILLER. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Higginbotham? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Beaulac? 

Mr. BEAULAC. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bahnson? 

Mr. BAHNSON. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller? 

Mr. Ralph MILLER. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Ayers. 

Dr. AYERS. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would encourage you to do that and to do it 

right away within the 10 day time period that we stated earlier at 

the beginning of the hearing. 

Mr. Conaway, do you have questions? 

Mr. CONAWAY. I do. Thank you very much. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here today. I appreciate your making the trip to D.C. to visit with us. Just a couple 

of quick questions. 

Mr. Beaulac, you said that there has not been a single default 

in the program. At what level is that? The intermediary level has 

not defaulted on any of their applications, or the underlying loans 

to the intermediary have not defaulted? 

Mr. BEAULAC. Oh, no. The USDA that has had this Intermediary 

Relending Program for a number of years has never experienced a 

default in terms of the borrowers it has had from its own program. 

In other words, I have been an intermediary since 1975——

Mr. CONAWAY. So you get funds from USDA and then you turn 

around and lend them to anyone else. You make enough on the 

spread to cover your losses and still pay back? 

Mr. BEAULAC. That is exactly right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller and Dr. Ayers, you both mentioned 

community facilities. First off, Dr. Ayers, did I understand you correctly, that you are promoting the idea that we take taxpayer 

money to train taxpayers to write grants to get access to taxpayers’ 

money? 

Dr. AYERS. Repeat that again, will you? 

Mr. CONAWAY. What I heard you say is that you are pitching this 

idea that we need to have a nationwide program to teach taxVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:39 Oct 14, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-55\58018.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
57

payers—we take taxpayer money to teach taxpayers to write grants 

to get access to taxpayer money. 

Dr. AYERS. It already happens. Essentially, when you write a 

VAPG grant, most of the grant writers, for example, cut themselves 

in for some type of income, if you will, possibly for facilitating the 

grant, possibly working a proposal. I work with RC&D and their 

facilities and grants and so forth. So it is out there. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Yes, but—okay. The tension between technical—

well, Community Facilities Grants, Mr. Miller, you have said 

that—well, the issue is should they use—should farmers markets 

be included at the same level of importance and priority with hospitals and doctors, or first responders and all the other things the 

Community Facilities Grants are used for? Are farmers markets as 

important as first responders? Dr. Ayers or Mr. Miller? 

Dr. AYERS. I can’t answer that. 

Mr. CONAWAY. But you asked us to answer that, because you just 

pitched specifically setting aside, carving out monies under Community Facilities for farmers markets. And in order to set a priority, we have to decide which is more important. Is it more important to take really scarce—and it is going to get much more 

scarce—taxpayer dollars and fund help for first responders, or a 

weekly farmers market. Which is better? 

Dr. AYERS. Once again, I mean, it is impossible to answer that 

because you have to go through a process at the local community 

to determine which one of those they would prioritize. So I am not 

here to state which one is better. 

Mr. CONAWAY. But didn’t you testify, Dr. Ayers, that you want 

a separate set-aside specifically for farmers markets? 

Dr. AYERS. Absolutely. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Isn’t that a tactic decision that they are at least 

as important? If you are going to carve out a specific money that 

would otherwise go to first responders, as an example, and do 

farmers markets? Aren’t you telling me that you believe farmers 

markets are equally important as——

Dr. AYERS. I think farmers markets are important. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Everything is important. I don’t want to discount 

that. Okay. 

Mr. Miller, did you want to comment on that? 

Mr. Ralph MILLER. When I was with USDA, we put higher priorities on first responder projects. Demonstrations have pretty much 

done that in the past. But we also financed some farmers markets 

using the Rural Business Enterprise Grant program. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Bahnson, you mentioned in your written testimony an overbuilding issue in Oregon. Could you flush that out a 

little bit for us, what happened there? 

Mr. BAHNSON. I am sorry, can you ask me that again? 

Mr. CONAWAY. In your written testimony you made reference to 

an overbuilding issue with respect to one of the broadband grants 

in Oregon. Could you just flush that out a little bit for us? 

Mr. BAHNSON. I am from Michigan, so this is as best as I understand it. But I understand there were two providers already in that 

area, and yet it was funded. Even though the field rep recommended it not be funded, it still was funded. 

58

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. How did that happen? What mechanically 

went on there? And maybe you have to get back to us for the 

record. But it seems to me like one of the issues we talked about 

a year ago in here, we wanted to make sure that we didn’t duplicate service or that we didn’t advantage someone to step into a 

market that already had existing coverage, that that was not really 

the intent of these programs. What I am hearing you say, at least 

one time across the United States, it looked like that happened. 

So if you could get back to us in more detail on how that decision 

was made and why the decision-maker thought that was appropriate. 

Mr. BAHNSON. I would be happy to do that. 

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Kissell. 

Mr. KISSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you everyone 

for being here today. A special thanks to Mr. Eddie Miller from 

North Carolina and the years of dedication and work he has done 

for our state. 

Dr. Ayers, in following up just a little bit with what Mr. 

Conaway asked, and in your testimony, would you agree with the 

statement that there is an inequity of resources made available to 

communities based upon their ability to write grants. Therefore, 

those that have more resources to write better grants, get more resources in the end game maybe, irregardless of whether there is a 

balance of that money based upon needs or not. 

Mr. Ralph MILLER. Absolutely. Yes. 

Mr. KISSELL. I think that is something we need to take into consideration as we look forward, that that ability to write grants 

doesn’t reflect the needs within the communities in balancing that 

out. 

Mr. Miller, you talked about in your written testimony a lot 

about housing. Are there any additional thoughts you would like to 

give us there in terms of where we need to go there in the rural 

areas? 

Mr. Ralph MILLER. Well, basically there were three areas. 

One, the direct Single-Family Housing 502 Program when I first 

started with the agency was a growth program. It was a lot of 

money, subsidized interest rates, and we were able to finance a lot 

of rural homes. Because of the cost to the budget and the subsidy 

factor, that program has been cut substantially. 

I think we don’t like to identify it, but if you ride through rural 

North Carolina, low-income people will be in manufactured housing 

and mobile homes. And I have suggested over the years that some 

program be developed, either by state or Federal Government, 

similar to the Multi-Family Housing Program where you would 

have a developer go in and build a quality site where they could 

put their own mobile homes or whatever on there, and manage it 

and maintain it with the management company keeping it into a 

good living environment. 

The other thing on the 504 Program, where you are financing 

health and safety things for the elderly, a lot of times you can 

make a small grant to improve the health conditions of the home 

so people can live there longer, not go into expensive rest homes 

59

that the government ends up paying for. So it can be a cost saver 

for the government versus a cost expense. 

The final thing on the Multi-Family Housing Program, there is 

a lot of—there has not been a lot of funding for new construction, 

and there are a lot of older homes that are manufactured, not manufactured, older apartment complexes that are 20 years old or 

older. A lot of them are off the required list that they stay on the 

program. And there is a preservation program. There has been a 

demonstration pilot for the last 4 years that helps rewrite their 

loans, to get the reserves up, to do the repairs and to keep those 

apartments available for low-income rural people. So I would encourage that to be made permanent since we are not putting more 

money into the program to any extent. 

Mr. KISSELL. And Mr. Miller, also in your written testimony you 

addressed a lot of different individual specific areas. With your experience through the years in many aspects of Rural Development 

and many programs, and with your affiliation with rural co-ops 

which means so much in so many areas, especially in North Carolina, especially in districts like mine, in your oral testimony you 

also talked about a lot of programs that are working well. 

Are there some programs you would like to draw our attention 

to that you just feel like are not working as well and that we 

should take a little extra time looking at and say, ‘‘Hey, how can 

we make these programs work?’’

Mr. Ralph MILLER. The Guaranteed Multi-Family Housing Program, if you are looking at numbers of loans made, it has grown 

tremendously over the last 2 or 3 years, and it is probably the only 

100 percent financing out there. It is a good program. But with 

that much growth that quickly, plus the elimination of the energy 

requirements which results in financing a lot of older homes with 

higher energy costs for the moderate-income homeowner, that 

might be something that can cause you some problems down the 

road. 

Mr. KISSELL. Thank you, sir. Once again, thanks to everybody for 

coming. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to recognize that the Chairman of 

the full Committee, Mr. Peterson, has joined us. We welcome him 

to sit in on our Subcommittee. We will proceed with questions from 

the panelists, but we welcome the Chairman’s questions or comments at this time. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and 

the Members for doing this. 

You know, as long as they brought up this 504 Program, it is 

hard to keep these numbers straight, but I have been getting a 

bunch of complaints in my district about this program. I actually, 

back before I got in Congress, I actually was part owner of one of 

these deals and did the books for it, so I know enough about it to 

be dangerous. 

But they are having problems in my area, apparently, finding 

enough people that qualified to get into these deals. They have 

60

apartments sitting empty and they can’t do anything about it. They 

would like to convert the thing because the demographics of the 

community have changed and they don’t have enough low-income 

people to fill the apartment, but they can’t get out of the deal and 

they are stuck. 

They might be in this preservation thing, I don’t know; but they 

are stuck, and the people that own it are 80 years old and nobody 

wants it. And I have gotten three or four different folks that have 

been in these things that are saying it is not working the way it 

should. 

Have you got something similar going on in North Carolina or 

not? 

Mr. Ralph MILLER. In North Carolina, I guess because of oversight of the staff, they have been pretty consistent. They have 

worked with pretty well-respected developers and they do not have 

the problems with the program that a lot of other states have. Most 

of our developments in North Carolina were 24 or more units. I 

think in some of the states they have something like quad-plexes 

and this type of thing. 

Mr. PETERSON. These are eight-plexes that are owned by just ordinary people that maybe have one or two of these in a small community, that when they first built them the community was pretty 

rural and fairly low income. They were close enough to a growth 

area where the demographics of the community have changed, and 

now they are having problems and they can’t, because of the rules, 

they can’t make the thing work. They don’t know what to do with 

them. 

Mr. Ralph MILLER. There is a processing agency you can go 

through and determine whether or not it is needed in the community. If it is not needed in the community, they can allow the developer to take it off the program and to pay it off and take it to other 

housing. In a lot of cases, like you say, elderly owners that have 

it and they want to get rid of it, there are a lot of management 

companies and all that are buying up projects and getting Federal 

and state tax credits to go rehab them——

Mr. PETERSON. Low-income housing tax credits, you mean? 

Mr. Ralph MILLER. Yes. There is a process, they can take them 

off that program if the agency deems they are not needed for the 

community. 

Mr. PETERSON. Who makes the decision? Is it made at the state 

rural development level, or is it made in Washington? 

Mr. Ralph MILLER. It would be made at the state level. 

Mr. PETERSON. The State Director has the authority——

Mr. Ralph MILLER. To the best of my knowledge, yes, sir. 

Mr. PETERSON.—to deal with this? All right. 

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for joining us. 

Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Beaulac, your testimony cited some reasons, cited some of 

the reasons credit is not available through traditional banks. Since 

the banks set guidelines based on sound lending practices, do you 

see any dangers in the government offering credit where best pracVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:39 Oct 14, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-55\58018.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
61

tices in the private sector would otherwise prevent loan applications from moving forward? 

Mr. BEAULAC. I am trying to understand the question. I am 

sorry. Could you repeat it? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Sure. Businesses applying for loans in the private sector, and, unfortunately, they go to a bank, they go to the 

bank and based on best practices, they are denied that credit, and 

yet they would qualify in the public sector. I guess the question is: 

are there any times that this is actually putting those businesses 

in kind of a precarious or dangerous situation fiscally? 

Mr. BEAULAC. I think just the opposite is true. I think if you talk 

to a number of commercial bankers where we work, they actually 

welcome the collaboration between their private capital and what 

we could bring. For example, in an IRP program or an RBEG program or SBA program, where we might be able to take a second 

position behind their first-position loan. 

So lending has really been constricted lately, and the underlying 

standards, or the underwriting standards have really become so incredibly strict that banks just don’t want to do as much of the deal 

as they did before. So they welcome some other sort of leveraged 

participation in the loan. 

So the number one source of the growth in our lending portfolio 

is actually collaboration with banks, and many of those are just referrals from banks, and oftentimes the bank stays in as part of the 

deal. I think what you are seeing is really a very strong growth in 

that tradition, where intermediaries, noncommercial lenders, nontraditional lenders, work in collaboration with financial institutions 

and it is a great model. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Higginbotham, in your testimony you stated support for 

USDA’s Regional Innovation Initiative. What are the specific elements of this initiative that you support? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. I think what I support about this initiative 

is, first of all, it is going to bring communities together, to work 

together, to find a way to promote their assets on a regional basis, 

to better be competitive in the region, in the state, globally. It is 

just going to force rural areas to come together, work together, 

manage their assets to be competitive. 

Mr. THOMPSON. You also mentioned that the flexibility going into 

the Rural Business Program helps you expand in dynamic economic conditions. Can you describe in greater detail what provisions help you respond to changing economic needs and how those 

flexibilities are utilized in practices? 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM. The USDA funding is flexible enough that, 

depending on the type of business that needs a business loan, 

whether it is retail, commercial, the ever-changing economy, those 

funds are flexible enough that we can go into a lot of different industries and businesses——

Mr. THOMPSON. Thanks. 

Mr. HIGGINBOTHAM.—and create jobs. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Ed Miller, Eddie Miller, being specific here, 

you highlighted—actually, I was kind of interested in the rest of 

the story. In your testimony you highlighted a grant that you received for Rural Business Enterprise to conduct a market study. 

62

What was the result of that study and has the water bottling 

project been able to move forward? 

Mr. Ed MILLER. Good news on both counts. The result of the 

study was very favorable. And, of course, they hired a professional 

to do this study. It came back very positive. And they are now 

going through the studies, the water studies themselves, to make 

sure that those are okay, because the Tribal Council is very, very 

strict about anything being taken from their wells, their property. 

So they themselves now are making sure that the water quality 

and availability is there. 

But that is what they are doing right now, and they are actually 

paying for that study themselves. They will get the money themselves to pay for that. And if that comes back positive, then they 

intend on moving forward. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Cassidy. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Dr. Ayers, you are the man when it comes to getting grants; yes? 

Dr. AYERS. The VAPG we applied for this year was turned down. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Well, on the other hand, I am going to disagree 

with Mr. Conaway’s kind of thrust a little bit, because I can actually see that an impoverished, poorly educated rural community 

versus one which is almost a bedroom community for something 

further away, but of higher-income people, would be at a relative 

disadvantage. And in fact, when you say that some states, for example Tennessee, didn’t get any of these grants, and others, like 

Mr. Higginbotham’s state, do extremely well when it comes to 

REAP, it is either an indictment or endorsement of the local agents 

who are the facilitators of these grants. Is that a fair statement? 

Dr. AYERS. My opinion is there are not enough people in the 

rural communities facilitating these grant proposals, and working 

with groups of farmers and groups of producers to produce good 

proposals. 

Mr. CASSIDY. But on the other hand—and I have looked at your 

grants—they all seem valid, I am not criticizing that, you seem capable. Not every community has someone so capable, that is obvious; and Nebraska has done a bang-up job. So clearly I accept what 

you are saying. Not every community has such. 

The question is: How do we replicate those who successfully do 

so? Fair statement? 

Dr. AYERS. I think there needs to be some type of national initiative of facilitators. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, why do we need to focus upon state agents? 

Because it still seems like I was in Louisiana and I was going to 

develop more REAP funding, I would go to Nebraska and hire 

somebody away, offer them a package of some sort, better football 

games, et cetera, et cetera.

To what potential could we just make this online? Why do we 

have to invest in local officials when that is always going to be subject to who is there, as opposed to something online where folks can 

do—and we can have some sort of quality control, et cetera?

Dr. AYERS. When you are working on proposals, especially if you 

are working with farmer groups, you engage those people in a procVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:39 Oct 14, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-55\58018.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
63

ess to get a good proposal together. One of the inherent problems, 

especially in a rural community or a rural area, is that even 

though we have people with like interests maybe pursuing the 

same idea or the same concept, they don’t necessarily know each 

other. And online, yes, there is a possibility some of that, some of 

the new technology or whatever is out there possibly has the potential of helping out. 

But at the end of the day, you have to sit down with that group 

of producers and group of farmers, and work together and go 

through a process, engage them in their ideas and their concepts 

before you start writing the proposal. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Does that require the person to be local, with an 

organic understanding of what potential lies within the community; 

or does it just require somebody that has experience at facilitating, 

to identify resources and to say come together, let’s figure out how 

to do these together? 

Dr. AYERS. I would say both. There needs to be some technical 

ability of the people in the field working with these proposals, and 

also some skills with those people as facilitators in their roles. 

However, you can obtain the technical side. That is obtainable. 

Typically there is expertise all over the United States that you can 

tap into that exists with that process. 

One of the other drawbacks is, especially my experience with 

VAPG grants—and I worked with the University of Missouri—the 

University of Missouri doesn’t have all the answers. In fact, the 

majority of our grant funds I wouldn’t say were farmed out, but 

were contracted by the producer groups with outside entities that 

were private. These people have the expertise, if you will, at times 

to come up with the type of information that is needed. 

So in reality, I have utilized the University of Missouri resources 

really very little. Most of it has been on the private side of the 

fence, which actually for a lot of things is better because they 

themselves have the expertise. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Okay. 

Now, Mr. Conaway, again, was wondering about the economic potential of farmers markets, and your kind of endorsement of such, 

I don’t know. What is the economic potential of farmers markets? 

Is it a cottage industry which, yes, it is nice, it makes people feel 

good, reconnects them, know their farmer, that sort of thing; or is 

it no, this is a potential booming business where we can bring significant dollars into the rural area locally? 

Dr. AYERS. I would say it is more of the latter. Whether it would 

be significant dollars, I don’t know. It depends upon the community. And I am not fixed on farmers markets. It is just I happen 

to be here reviewing the proposals. But the point is——

Mr. CASSIDY. Can I interrupt you just for a second? Because, 

again, I am going back to this thing I saw in Birmingham where, 

again, next to a housing project, they set up something on a vacant 

lot and now they are providing organic vegetables, home grown, to 

all the high-end restaurants in town. I don’t know what their book 

of business is. 

Has anybody done a study on that so that we can know, is that 

a valid business model that we want to encourage because it 

brings—you see where I am going with that? 

64

Dr. AYERS. You are asking me? 

Mr. CASSIDY. Yes, sir. 

Dr. AYERS. When it comes down to the farmers markets studies, 

I do not have that knowledge and I do not know the literature on 

that, if you will. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Can anybody else deal with that? Off the top of 

your head, if somebody has got something to offer on that, I would 

be interested. 

Mr. Ralph MILLER. In part of our state, a gentleman or company 

came up with a website where farmers hook up with restaurants 

in the Charlotte area. That seems to be pretty successful. It is like 

a farmers markets online. 

Dr. AYERS. I will reiterate a couple of things. In Missouri, we are 

having a movement in the state. I am working with farm-toschools. Actually right now there is a program going on, there are 

some problems with that, but we are having some people, especially in the metro areas, working to move some of the produce 

from the local producers into the urban areas, both with restaurants, also with a farmer-owned facility up in St. Louis. There 

are also some groups out of Kansas City. So some of this is going 

on. 

One of the problems is that we aren’t replicating this in some of 

the rural areas where, in my opinion, it needs to be done. And, 

quite frankly, I lived in Boot Hill, Missouri, for 9 years, and the 

quality of produce in Portageville, Missouri, was quite below that 

of even a place like Cape Girardeau, which is where I am living 

now. So the inherent question to ask is why, when even when we 

have some of this production locally. 

So there are some problems out there of really moving some of 

the local produce into both the local schools, and then also for the 

local consumers. The farmers market is just really one of the ways 

to do that. It can be extremely simple, or it can be very complex. 

I think there are some extremely good facilities, for example, in 

North Carolina, which their state, I know as a fact, have taken up 

initiatives to promote the farmers markets throughout their state. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Okay. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Cassidy. 

Mr. Conaway, do you have an additional question? 

Mr. CONAWAY. I just have one quick one. Ed Miller, it seems to 

me like your community is a prototype for the broadband, roll-out 

stimulus money, whatever it was. Can you give us a couple of seconds on why your community still doesn’t have broadband access, 

even with all the billions of dollars that we provided for rural 

broadband? 

Mr. Ed MILLER. That is a very good question. To give you another idea, our county is 70 miles long. It is a very long county for 

Virginia. It is long and narrow. And in order to actually do the application for the first round of funding, I actually had to go outside 

of the county to somewhere that had high-speed Internet in order 

to input the application. I had to spend a week doing it. 

So that is a good question. We are trying as hard as we can. We 

are working with a major national partner, Cox Communications. 

And, like I say, we were very surprised when we got the letter from 

65

the first round saying that we didn’t demonstrate that we were 

rural. We don’t know how else to demonstrate it. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Was it because of the fixed distance between 

major communities? 

Mr. Ed MILLER. I am assuming so. We weren’t told that specifically. I am assuming so. When I asked someone in the state office 

that was very high up in the state office, ‘‘What does this mean,’’ 

I was basically told to attend a meeting of the higher-up folks at 

USDA that was going to be in Blacksburg, Virginia, and they unfortunately had to cancel that meeting because of the weather. So 

I have really never been able to get the letter in front of anybody 

at a very high level to explain that to me. I don’t know. 

Mr. CONAWAY. But you are in the second round. 

Mr. Ed MILLER. Yes, sir. We submitted for the second round. 

Mr. CONAWAY. And you will know here soon if you qualified 

under that? 

Mr. Ed MILLER. I am hoping so, yes. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kissell. 

Mr. KISSELL. Mr. Bahnson, you indicated in your talking points 

that with certain changes in procedures and policy, that in rural 

areas we would see high-speed Internet that is very slow in rural 

areas versus really high speed in more urban areas. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Are there specific policies there you would 

like to identify that we really need to be careful of? 

Mr. BAHNSON. I think you are talking about the broadband plan 

that has been put forward by the FCC. They identify 4 megabytes 

per second as what they want to provide throughout the country. 

Then they go on to talk about providing 100 megabytes to 100 million households, and the households they are talking about are in 

urban areas. So you are starting to set up a digital divide between 

rural and non-rural areas in the country. 

So I mean, the difference between 4 megabytes and 100 megabytes is huge. They are telling us by 2015 people are going to want 

100 megabytes in their home as far as how much broadband they 

want. The applications that are coming in today are going to require that. 

So in rural areas if you can only get 4 megabytes, if that is the 

threshold that is set, you are going to be at a severe disadvantage 

if you are in a rural area versus a suburban or urban area. 

Mr. KISSELL. Not having a whole lot of knowledge about the services provided, what would have to be done in the rural areas to 

make sure that doesn’t happen, so that we can have equal access 

throughout the nation, which is my understanding of what we 

wanted to do to begin with? 

Mr. BAHNSON. I think it is very simple. You just don’t create that 

definition in that plan. You don’t say that 4 megabytes is enough. 

You treat the whole country the same. Just because you are in a 

rural area—going back to the fifties, when they said everybody 

ought to be able to have a telephone, so they put together ways to 

make that happen. I think what we are saying is, ‘‘You know what? 

Everybody ought to have broadband and everybody ought to be 

able to have the same affordable broadband.’’

66

But in this particular document, there is a very clear definition 

of what is acceptable in rural areas and what is acceptable in suburban areas. 

Mr. KISSELL. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Anything else, Mr. Cassidy? 

Mr. CASSIDY. Following up on that, I don’t understand this, so I 

am asking this not to challenge but for elucidation. It is my understanding that if you are at prime time in the urban area and you 

have, however many people accessing it, that really that increased 

capacity is more because there is an increased population. And if 

everybody accesses simultaneously, it slows down. It is a pipeline, 

if you will. And presumably in the rural, almost by definition, in 

fact by definition, there are fewer people so therefore per capita access would be about constant. Is that an incorrect understanding? 

Mr. BAHNSON. I think it depends on the backbone that is serving 

that particular area. If what you are saying is true in an urban 

area, it is only because the provider there doesn’t have enough 

backbone to haul back to the Internet. 

I can tell you that 4 megabits in a school, or 4 megabits in a library, or 4 megabits in a business is not enough to conduct the 

kind of quality experience you want on the Internet. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Okay. Mr. Eddie Miller, again, this is something I 

don’t know, so I’m asking hoping you do. 

I thought in the stimulus package funding there were certain 

provisions that if you accepted money for energy projects that you 

are required to have a certain energy efficiency inherent in the 

housing stock. Now that is about the level of my understanding. 

Because I am struck by that. That comes to mind, that little tidbit 

tucked way back there, because you mentioned how the energy requirements have been stripped from the issues you spoke of. Can 

you connect those to me? 

Mr. Ralph MILLER. The 502 guaranteed Housing Program is an 

ongoing program that has been with USDA for a number of years. 

There used to be a requirement that they have certain insulation 

and so forth in the houses if USDA was going to finance it. Approximately 2 or 3 years ago, because of pressures from realtors 

and so forth, they did away with that requirement. So that means 

that a home that is 30 years old that doesn’t have insulation can 

be financed with a Federal Government loan. Which means that 

115 percent of median income is the maximum income for the applicant. So they will move into that home and have high energy 

bills. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Presumably, though, a lower mortgage as well, correct? 

Mr. Ralph MILLER. Lower mortgage maybe. There is not a maximum on the mortgage itself. It is the maximum on what they can 

pay for based on their income and their ratios. 

Mr. CASSIDY. But that is connected into the mortgage amount. 

Mr. Ralph MILLER. Right. In other words, their income ability to 

pay determines how much mortgage they can carry. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So if the home is cheaper because someone does not 

have to retrofit it, then in a sense there might be a balance, right? 

67

You have a little bit higher utility, but you have a lower mortgage, 

so the aggregate between the two is a constant. 

Mr. Ralph MILLER. Well, if they get a 100 percent loan and they don’t have much money in the bank and they get a $500 or $600 

electric bill, it gets out of balance pretty quick. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

I would like to thank all the panelists and the audience who has 

been with us and the staff for their good work. Thank you all for 

your attendance today at this important hearing. 

Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today’s hearing 

will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material and supplementary written responses as indicated previously 

from any witness to any question posed by a Member. Members 

likewise have the same amount of time to submit any additional 

comments. 

The hearing of this Subcommittee is about to conclude, but let 

me remind each of the panelists that you did make a commitment 

to make known your concerns to the Under Secretary of Rural Development. Please copy us so that we will see for the record that 

you did do that within the next 10 days. 

And, again, I remind the Committee staff to please prepare the 

request I made earlier for my signature as well to go to the Under 

Secretary. 

With that, travel safely. God speed. May God bless all of you. 

This hearing of the Subcommittee on Rural Development, Biotechnology, Specialty Crops, and Foreign Agriculture is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

68

69

* Note: dues to printing constraints the witness’s statements will not be reprinted here as an 

attachment. 

SUBMITTED LETTER BY HON. MIKE MCINTYRE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM NORTH CAROLINA

October 7, 2010

Hon. DALLAS P. TONSAGER, Under Secretary for Rural Development,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.

Dear Under Secretary Tonsager:

On July 20, 2010 the Subcommittee on Rural Development, Biotechnology, Specialty Crops, and Foreign Agriculture convened a hearing on rural development programs in advance of the 2012 Farm Bill. You appeared before the Subcommittee on 

the first witness panel to discuss the administration of rural development programs. 

The second witness panel was comprised of rural development stakeholders who discussed the current farm bill and provided suggestions for reauthorization of that 

legislation. 

During the second witness panel, I encouraged those witnesses to communicate 

their suggestions on farm bill reauthorization as it relates to rural development directly to you and stated my intention to send a transcript of the second witness 

panel to you, as well, upon completion. 

In the meantime, I have included copies of each witness’s opening statement for 

the July 20 hearing * and encourage you to consider their views on the application 

process and agency response for various rural development programs. I am ready 

to work with you during the upcoming farm bill to ensure that the concerns of these 

and other rural stakeholders are addressed. 

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to working with you on these 

issues in the future. 

Sincerely,

Hon. MIKE MCINTYRE, Chairman.

SUBMITTED LETTER BY HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM PENNSYLVANIA

November 17, 2009

Hon. LAWRENCE E. STRICKLING, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information,

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Washington, D.C.;

Hon. JONATHAN ADELSTEIN, Administrator, 

Rural Utilities Service (RUS), 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.

Dear Assistant Secretary Strickling and Administrator Adelstein:

The Small Business Committee appreciated the testimony provided during the October 28, 2009 hearing on ‘‘The Recovery Act and Broadband: Evaluation of 

Broadband Investments on Small Businesses and Job Creation.’’ Your remarks offered critical insight into the importance of broadband for small businesses. The testimony also allowed the Committee to more clearly understand the role of 

broadband in stimulating the economy and creating jobs. 

The strong applicant interest in both the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) 

and the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) suggests that these 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act programs offer significant opportunities 

for expanding broadband throughout the country. However, despite the interest expressed in these programs, many concerns have been raised by small businesses 

with respect to their implementation. As NTIA and RUS complete the first round 


11155102
70

of funding and seek comment on the second round rules, we ask that the following 

recommendations be considered. 

Advancing the Recovery Act Objectives and Goals 

To ensure that new infrastructure projects reach communities with the greatest 

need, prioritization should be given to areas without access to broadband. It is the 

Committee’s recommendation that funds should be targeted to areas which are first 

‘‘unserved’’ and only then to ‘‘underserved’’ areas, if funding remains. 

Second, the Committee urges improvements to the website used to display applications and receive comments from the public, including existing service providers. 

It is our understanding that the procedures for using this website are confusing and 

time/resource consuming, particularly for small businesses. Without such changes, 

the Committee is concerned that awards will be issued with an inaccurate or incomplete picture of existing service. 

Additionally, as was raised during the Committee’s hearing, Members are concerned by the process that existing service providers must undergo to demonstrate 

where broadband service is already provided. A formal process should be implemented to reconcile conflicting data received from an applicant and from existing 

service providers. This will ensure fairness and accuracy for all parties involved. 

Challenges Associated with Program Requirements 

The nature of the BTOP/BIP application process has created many barriers to 

small business participation. Among the greatest challenges include the following: 

the complex application process, a 10 year limitation on the sale of award funded 

facilities, a matching contribution requirement, and a first lien rule. Before a second 

round Notice of Funds Availability or NOFA is issued, the Committee suggests that 

revisions be made to maximize participation among small firms. 

It is the Committee’s recommendation that NTIA and RUS should examine the 

challenges associated with the current application process. The significant paperwork and data collection requirements have made the application process very expensive for many small firms. As James Gleason, President and CEO of NewWave 

Communications testified, the up-front costs included $50,000 to support the data 

requested in the application and $30,000 to defend his company’s existing service 

territory. These investments come without any guarantee of receiving a grant or 

loan award. 

In addition, the 10 year limitation on the sale or lease of award funded facilities 

creates a significant barrier for small firms. To ensure that firms can continue to 

grow and innovate, the Committee believes this provision should be modified. Applicants should also have greater flexibility to use revenue generated through a BTOP/

BIP award. The rules currently limit an award recipient from using subscriber revenues to cover expenses such as technician installation costs, marketing costs, advertising costs, and other expenses associated with running a business during the initial 3 years. This serves as a disincentive for many small firms to apply. We hope 

the agencies will modify this provision to, at the very least, clarify that program income refers to profits and not gross income. 

A high matching contribution requirement also seems to serve as a barrier for 

participation among small firms. Applicants to BTOP are required to provide a 

matching contribution of at least 20 percent towards the total project cost. The Committee urges NTIA to consider a formal waiver process for small firms, so that the 

matching requirements could be lowered or eliminated. 

Furthermore, the requirement that RUS hold an exclusive first lien on applicant’s 

assets may present a conflict for some firms. The Committee recommends revising 

this requirement to ensure that an applicant can participate without violating the 

terms of already existing loan agreements. During the first round of funding, this 

requirement prevented many companies from participating. 

Definition of a Remote Area 

The high cost associated with providing service in the most remote parts of the 

United States is a significant roadblock to many small telecommunications firms. 

Such costs may be difficult for these companies to justify given the limited return. 

To address this concern, Congress appropriated funding to support the expansion of 

telecommunications service into rural America. Under the first round of funding, 

‘‘remote’’ is defined as ‘‘an unserved, rural area 50 miles from the limits of a nonrural area.’’ Any rural area not meeting the definition of ‘‘remote’’ is eligible for at 

best, a 50 percent grant and 50 percent loan combination. 

As written, the definition of ‘‘remote’’ and the BIP loan-grant cost structure limits 

the amount of grant funding available to rural providers. The Committee recommends that the rules established in a subsequent round of funding modify or remove the definition of ‘‘remote.’’ 

71

The Committee appreciates the willingness of both agencies to address the concerns of small businesses. As NTIA and RUS move forward with the process, we 

ask that these recommendations be considered as a way to strengthen the program 

and support the needs of small businesses. Furthermore, the Committee requests 

that your agencies provide updated statistics on small business participation and 

once available, data on how much funding is awarded to small businesses.

Sincerely,

Hon. NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ (D–NY), 

Chairwoman,

House Committee on Small Business; 

Hon. SAM GRAVES (R–MO), 

Ranking Minority Member,

House Committee on Small Business; 

Hon. DENNIS MOORE (D–KS), 

Member of Congress; 

Hon. ROSCOE G. BARTLETT (R–MD), 

Member of Congress; 

Hon. HEATH SHULER (D–NC), 

Member of Congress; 

Hon. W. TODD AKIN (R–MO), 

Member of Congress; 

Hon. KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER (D–PA), 

Member of Congress; 

Hon. STEVE KING (R–IA), 

Member of Congress; 

Hon. ANN KIRKPATRICK (D–AZ), 

Member of Congress; 

Hon. MARY FALLIN (R–OK), 

Member of Congress; 

Hon. BOBBY BRIGHT (D–AL), 

Member of Congress; 

Hon. BLAINE LUETKEMEYER (R–MO), 

Member of Congress; 

Hon. DEBORAH L. HALVORSON (D–IL), 

Member of Congress; 

Hon. AARON SCHOCK (R–IL), 

Member of Congress; 

Hon. KURT SCHRADER (D–OR), 

Member of Congress; 

Hon. GLENN THOMPSON (R–PA), 

Member of Congress; 


11155050 11155051 11155052 11155053 11155054 11155055 11155056 11155057
72

Hon. YVETTE D. CLARKE (D–NY), 

Member of Congress; 

Hon. MIKE COFFMAN (R–CO), 

Member of Congress; 

Hon. JOE SESTAK (D–PA), 

Member of Congress; 

Hon. JASON ALTMIRE (D–PA), 

Member of Congress; 

Hon. GLENN C. NYE (D–VA), 

Member of Congress. 

SUBMITTED LETTER BY HON. JONATHAN ADELSTEIN, ADMINISTRATOR, RURAL

UTILITIES SERVICE, USDA 

January 8, 2010

Hon. NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ (D–NY), 

Chairwoman,

House Committee on Small Business, 

Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairwoman Vela ́zquez:

Thank you for your letter of November 17, 2009, cosigned by your colleagues, to 

the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) regarding the Broadband Infrastructure Program 

(BIP) and the Broadband Opportunities Program (BTOP). 

On December 17, 2009, the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service 

(RUS) issued a portion of its first round of funding awards under the Broadband 

Infrastructure Program (BIP). Roughly $2 billion will be made available on a rolling 

basis over the next 75 days to bring high-speed Internet to rural communities that 

currently have little or no access to advanced services. 

Along with NTIA, the RUS issued a Request for Information (RFI) on November 

16, 2009, seeking public comment on the first NOFA. Comments received came from 

a wide cross section of industry, public interest, government, investment and not for 

profit entities expressing a wide variety of concerns and suggestions for how to construct the second NOFA. 

Many of the issues which you raised in your correspondence on November 17 were 

shared by other commenter’s regarding the need to enhance eligibility among small 

businesses seeking funding. We have taken these concerns into account and they 

will be addressed in our second NOFA, which will likely be published by the end 

of January. 

We also take note of your concern regarding the need to prioritize those areas currently lacking in broadband service. Proposed broadband projects for unserved areas 

generally face obstacles in ensuring both financial viability and sustainability. While 

we work to award funds to unserved areas, we also work to ensure wise and prudent use of taxpayer dollars. We are looking at several funding methods to better 

address these challenges and welcome any future discussion on this objective. 

We also recognize your concerns regarding the eligibility requirements contained 

in the first NOFA and the potential challenges they may pose on small businesses. 

The RUS will streamline these requirements to encourage small business participation. 

Furthermore, we acknowledge your concerns regarding the limited definition of 

‘‘remote’’ in the first NOFA. The primary objective in establishing the parameters 

of this definition was to maximize funding opportunities for the most rural 

unserved. However, we will be altering this definition in the second NOFA to reflect 

the concerns expressed by Congress and the public to ensure that remote popuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:39 Oct 14, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-55\58018.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN

11155058 11155059 11155060
73

lations of less than 50 miles from an urbanized area are also eligible for 100 percent 

grant funding. 

Again, thank you very much for your comments and your interest in the RUS 

broadband initiatives program. We look forward to working with you as we continue 

to invest in rural communities. 

A copy of this letter will be sent to your colleagues. 

Sincerely,

Hon. JONATHAN ADELSTEIN, 

Administrator,

Rural Utilities Service. 

SUPPLEMETARY INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY MARK BAHNSON, GENERAL MANAGER, 

BLOOMINGDALE COMMUNICATIONS, BLOOMINGDALE, MI; ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL

TELECOMMUNICATIONS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION

March 9, 2007

Hon. MIKE JOHANNS,

Secretary,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.

Dear Secretary Johanns:

I write today with deep concerns about the Rural Utilities Service Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program and the recent awarding of a loan to 

CTURN Corporation. Knowing of the substantial efforts put forth by NTCA members to deploy broadband throughout Oregon, I fail to see a legitimate public interest in awarding a loan to serve the communities of Philomath, Newport, Canby, 

Stayton and Sublimity. At a time when the program is under increased scrutiny in 

the Federal courts and Congress, this loan leads our members to question whether 

NTCA should continue its support of the program in the future despite almost half 

of the loans awarded going to NTCA members or subsidiaries. 

From its inception as a pilot program initiated by President Clinton, to the legislative effort by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) to formalize it, to its ultimate authorization through an amendment to the farm bill by Rep. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), 

NTCA has been one of the foremost advocates of the broadband program. During 

debate of the farm bill, NTCA worked as part of a small coalition to ensure this 

provision stayed in the bill in spite of the jurisdictional objections of Rep. William 

J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, then Chairman of the House Commerce Committee. Soon after 

publication of the program’s operational regulations, NTCA and the Rural Utilities 

Service (RUS) staff hosted a webcast to illustrate how the program would be advantageous to our membership. 

Likewise, NTCA has been an honest broker in trying to tighten the program’s regulations where they were deficient. Upon publication of the regulations, we believed 

they were flawed such that unless an NTCA member responded to a competitive 

loan application with its own accurate broadband numbers, the numbers filed by a 

potential competitor would be considered accurate. While the respective RUS field 

representative is supposed to verify such numbers, NTCA believes it is in our members’ best interest not to wait until a loan is filed against them, but for RUS to have 

broadband information already on file. As such, NTCA sent a memo to our members 

asking them to send all broadband deployment information to RUS on a preemptive 

basis. According to NTCA members that followed-up on information submitted, the 

then-director of the broadband program stated unless the company already had been 

filed against, its information would be discarded. While this person is no longer 

leading the broadband program, NTCA cannot help but wonder how much information was discarded that would have aided in RUS’ effective management of the program. 

While field representatives are responsible for verifying such information, NTCA 

members that have been awarded loans or that have had loans filed against them, 

state this has rarely—if ever—occurred. In the case of the CTURN loan, neither 

Canby Telecom, Pioneer Telephone Cooperative, nor Stayton Cooperative Telephone 

Company were ever contacted by a field representative or U.S. Department of AgriVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:39 Oct 14, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-55\58018.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN

11155061
74

culture (USDA) employee. This alone raises serious questions regarding the decision 

made by staff comprising RUS’ loan review committee. 

Our main concern with the CTURN loan is the treatment of NTCA members’ information submitted to RUS through the legal response notice. Submitted via e-mail 

and fax, the information provided by Canby Telephone stated more than 99% of the 

community of Canby had broadband available through Canby Telephone. Similar 

broadband numbers also were submitted by Stayton Telephone in the communities 

of Stayton and Sublimity. Like Stayton and Canby, Pioneer also has the ability to 

provide broadband to more than 99% of each of the communities it serves. 

I, along with other rural telecommunications leaders, testified on June 27, 2002, 

in a public hearing at USDA on the need for addressing the limitations of the RUS 

Infrastructure Program and how the new broadband program could assist NTCA 

members as they continue to provide advanced telecommunications services to the 

most remote areas of the country. I doubt that anyone in the public hearing could 

have foreseen RUS providing loans to serve communities where broadband already 

was available at reasonable prices to virtually 100% of the community through an 

incumbent local exchange carrier. 

NTCA is aware of the proposed change in regulations currently under review at 

the Office of Management and Budget, and that the program certainly would be 

subject to amendment when Congress begins discussion of a new farm bill. To this 

end, NTCA suggests that the notification process undergo significant changes. First 

and foremost, at a minimum, the general field representative (GFR) must meet with 

the manager of any communications provider impacted by a proposed loan application or the recipient of a competitive loan application. Once the GFR visits each entity, the GFR must submit a report to the Administrator and RUS senior staff stating the current level of broadband availability, speeds and pricing information for 

each of the impacted entities. RUS senior staff should be required to contact all entity managers to verify the GFR’s report. While the program is supposed to be operating in a similar practice, the CTURN loan indicates otherwise. 

While the program’s legal notice is the accepted government practice, the CTURN 

loan and others have shown the notification process to be less than ideal. According 

to one NTCA member, a notice to serve his community in southern Iowa never appeared in the hometown paper, but rather a paper in Nebraska. Only when contacted by a representative of an RBOC that also was impacted by the competitive 

loan, was our member aware of the competitive application. Referring again to the 

CTURN loan, our members in Oregon were not aware of any notice in their local 

newspapers. To obtain information on the competitive loan, members from Oregon 

contacted several US senior staff, as well as their Member of Congress regarding 

public notices issued by CTURN. Rather than answer questions, RUS staff treated 

every minimal inquiry as a request covered under the Freedom of Information Act. 

To end such past problems, NTCA suggests that any communications provider impacted by a proposed loan application or the recipient of a competitive loan application be notified through formal certified mail, as well as e-mail. In these communications, the competitor must include the current level of broadband deployment 

in the community as well as current speed and pricing information that will be included in its loan application. As this information is currently required in the application through Schedule E, this should not be a difficult task. It also should end 

the current practice which requires NTCA members to file a FOIA request to obtain 

such information. 

Once every entity has been contacted, receipts or copies of receipts from certified 

mail should be kept on file at RUS and available for public or electronic viewing 

upon request. NTCA believes this will put more responsibility on a competitor to 

provide accurate information, as opposed to the current system requiring NTCA 

members to respond to an application with faulty or inaccurate information. 

On behalf of NTCA’s members in Oregon, I ask you to review the CTURN loan 

application and the information submitted to RUS by CTURN, and compare it to 

the information submitted by Canby Telephone Association, Stayton Cooperative 

Telephone Company and Pioneer Telephone Cooperative. Should the information 

submitted by CTURN state the communities of Philomath, Canby, Stayton and Sublimity had broadband availability to less than 99% of their served communities, 

then the loan was made on inaccurate and faulty information. I further ask you to 

provide an explanation as to how the approval of this broadband loan is in accordance with 7 CFR § 1738.11(a) and (b)(1), (2), and (3) in each of the communities of 

Philomath, Newport, Canby, Stayton and Sublimity. 

I hope that our suggested changes will be incorporated into the regulations currently under revision. As Congress begins debate on reauthorization of the 2007 

farm bill and the broadband program, NTCA looks forward to working with USDA 

and RUS to identify any additional issues of concern in the RUS TelecommuniVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:39 Oct 14, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-55\58018.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
75

cations and Broadband Programs. As always, we look forward to working with 

USDA in our commitment to providing advanced telecommunications services to 

rural America. 

Sincerely,

MICHAEL E. BRUNNER, Chief Executive Officer,

National Telecommunications Cooperative Association. 

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

Questions Submitted by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in Congress from Minnesota 

Response from Hon. Dallas P. Tonsager, Under Secretary for Rural Development, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Question 1. Definitions of Rural: When do you expect the report on the various 

definitions of rural to be submitted to Congress? 

Answer. It is our expectation that the report will be provided to Congress in the 

late Summer to early Fall. The report is currently under development, and will incorporate the outcomes of ‘‘rural area’’ considerations in rulemaking for other farm 

bill provisions.

Question 2. Outdoor Recreation: In the Strategic Plan referenced in the Under 

Secretary’s testimony, there is an outdoor recreation element whereby the Secretary 

seeks to promote hunting, fishing and other outdoor activities. Does the Secretary 

intend for Rural Development to play a role in fulfilling these goals? If so, have specific Rural Development program(s) been identified that would play a part in this 

element of the Strategic Plan? 

Answer. Secretary Vilsack expects all agencies within USDA to support the President’s America’s Great Outdoors initiative to build a 21st century conservation 

agenda while creating economic opportunities. While the Rural Development Mission Area doesn’t offer a solely tourism-focused program, there are several programs 

within RD that can be used to enhance outdoor tourism and recreation facilities in 

rural areas. The Business & Industry Loan Guarantee Program (B&I), the Intermediary Relending Program (IRP), and the Rural Micro-entrepreneurship Assistance Program (RMAP) could potentially offer opportunities to finance outdoor tourism businesses. Which is the most appropriate becomes a matter of scale and capacity of the business owner. A small entrepreneur wanting to start a trail-riding, 

river-guiding, or outfitting business might turn to an intermediary offering financing under RMAP or IRP. A more established venue seeking expansion funding, such 

as a marina operator at a rural lake or the owner of a hotel or hunting lodge might 

ask his or her lender to seek out the B&I program. 

Rural Development also has financed state and county fairgrounds in some 20 

states through the Community Facilities program, available to municipalities, 

tribes, and nonprofit organizations. For many rural counties, the fair is the largest 

tourism event of the year, offering millions of visitors who no longer have a firsthand understanding of agriculture—particularly children—a chance to get close to 

farm animals and learn about where their food comes from.

Question 3. Recovery Act and Broadband Awards: How many of the first 

round Broadband Incentives Program awards under the American Reinvestment 

and Recovery Act were made to entities who were already participating in the Rural 

Utilities Service broadband loan and grant programs, or who had participated in the 

past? 

Answer. Under our first Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) made 68 awards totaling $1.067 billion. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) provided four statutory priorities for the RUS 

Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP); one of which was priority for current or 

former RUS Title II borrowers. Of the 68 awards, 40 were to current or former Title 

II borrowers. In many cases, these existing Telecommunication Cooperatives had 

build-out plans developed for the future. The grant portion of the BIP program provided them the opportunity to expedite broadband deployment to these underserved 

rural communities which would not be financially feasible with RUS or private sector loan financing.

Question 4. National Broadband Plan: To what extent were the Rural Utilities 

Service and Rural Development consulted by the Federal Communications CommisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:39 Oct 14, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-55\58018.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN

11155103
76

sion regarding the National Broadband Plan? Did Rural Development register any 

objections regarding the urban/rural desired speed difference of 100 megabits per 

second versus 4 megabits per second? Is the Department concerned this difference 

may exacerbate, rather than close, bigger digital divide? 

Answer. The Federal Communications Commission is an independent Federal 

Agency. As such, neither RUS nor Rural Development consulted with the FCC in 

its development of the National Broadband Plan. Since its release, FCC and RUS 

have been in close communications regarding the potential impacts of the Plan for 

rural America. USDA continues to support the need for high-speed broadband in 

rural America at equal levels to those in urban areas.

Question 5. B&I Loan Guarantees: What is the average response time from 

USDA on a request for a loan guarantee in the Business & Industry loan guarantee 

program? 

Answer. The average response time for a B&I loan is 30–60 days. We recently had 

a customer survey completed by an independent source, which indicated an excellent rating of 81/100 percent.

Question 6. Economic Conditions: Has Rural Development seen an increase in 

late payments or delinquencies on loans across its programs in the past year? If so, 

what programs are seeing the largest increase in delinquencies? 

Answer. We are seeing increases in delinquencies of greater than one year in the 

single family housing programs; beginning in the fourth quarter of 2008 at approximately $700 million to just under $1.8 billion in the third quarter of 2010. Delinquencies in the business programs began increasing in the third quarter of 2009 and 

are currently under $400 million; increasing from slightly over $200 million. We are 

not seeing increases in the utility programs. 

Questions Submitted by Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in 

Congress from Texas 

Question 1. Mr. Tonsager, the stimulus bill (P.L. 111–5) places no obligation on 

agencies to specifically post signs and billboards touting where projects are located. 

Rather these requirements are agency driven, and even specify the size of a logo 

which recipients must include on a sign. Last year your Administrator of the Rural 

Utilities Service (RUS), Mr. Adelstein, was unable to provide any guidance as to 

how much taxpayer money would be spent on signs. Deputy Under Secretary Cook 

responded to similar questions by stating: ‘‘USDA, under its existing farm bill 

program and now the Recovery Act program, must approve any and all proposed expenditures proposed by the applicant.’’ Could you please tell this Subcommittee how much funding USDA has approved for signs under the stimulus bill? 

What is the maximum amount per project, and what is the grand total USDA will 

be approving for signs with the ‘Recovery Act’ logo? 

Answer. It is customary that project signs identifying the Owner, Contractor, Engineer, and Funding Agencies be displayed during project construction on many federally funded projects. In Rural Development, we require project signs be displayed 

on our construction project. This requirement is not unique to Recovery Act projects. 

Construction signs are considered an eligible project cost under our regulations. Specific cost data related to signage is not tracked in our automated systems.

Question 2. Mr. Tonsager, USDA’s online reports show that only 2.9% of funds 

have actually been disbursed for USDA’s community facilities, business programs, 

and infrastructure projects under the stimulus. When do you anticipate all funds 

made available to rural development programs under P.L. 111–5 will be disbursed 

(outlayed)? 

Answer. $310.9 million of the $4.36 billion in budget authority provided to Rural 

Development under the Recovery Act has been outlayed as of July 30, 2010. Rural 

Development programs outlay funds at different rates depending on the program. 

Funds obligated through the Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program 

typically outlay in 2 to 3 months after the date of obligation. Timelines for major 

construction projects tend to be longer. Budget authority associated with guaranteed 

programs other than Single Family Housing typically outlays in 2 to 3 years. Direct 

programs that involve major capital expenditures will all be outlayed no later than 

September 30, 2015, pursuant to Recovery Act. Many of our construction projects 

use interim financing to begin construction activities, which typically take between 

3 and 5 years. Outlays of funds from the Rural Development do not occur until the 

project is substantially complete. We are actively working to ensure that all projects 

move to construction and are completed in a timely manner.

Question 3. Mr. Tonsager, Secretary Vilsack recently testified that USDA has obligated $17.2 billion, and spent $14.1 billion of the $28 billion given to USDA through 

the stimulus bill (P.L. 111–5). However, only 3% of USDA stimulus funds spent 

77

have gone to infrastructure and other non-nutrition programs. Could you provide 

this Committee with a list of each infrastructure project that has broken ground, 

and which includes the amount of funding which has been outlayed to each of those 

projects through USDA? 

Answer. The requested list is attached, see p. 80.

Question 4. Mr. Tonsager, how much do you anticipate any single organization 

might spend on audits required by RUS under the stimulus bill’s broadband program? 

Answer. Audits are required to ensure that loan or grant funds, whether obligated 

through the Recovery Act or through regular appropriations are spent properly. 

Under our Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP), RUS will be funding applications 

from less that $1 million to over $100 million. As such, it is difficult to determine 

an average that an organization may spend on audits. We believe that the costs of 

audits required by Recovery Act awardees will generally be comparable to that of 

non-Recovery Act RUS loans and grants.

Question 5. Mr. Tonsager, many of our constituents have complained about the 

lack of transparency in how the stimulus bill is being administrated. In fact, your 

own testimony which cites data corresponding to the latest financial report on July 

9, 2010 does not match what is publicly available. Could you please explain why, 

near the end of its authorization, reports on the stimulus bill still provide such conflicting information? 

Answer. Rural Development continues to work hard to ensure transparency in our 

Recovery Act implementation activities. In my testimony I provided the latest information on Rural Development projects that have been cleared for obligation. Of the 

projects cleared, not all have been announced or obligated, but will be soon. We 

produce weekly reports on our obligations and outlays to date that are posted on 

the Recovery.gov website. In addition, press releases for these cleared projects are 

forthcoming and will provide the public additional information regarding approved 

projects. However, until all cleared projects are obligated, there will be a difference 

between what is cleared and what is obligated and outlayed.

Question 6. Mr. Tonsager, earlier this year Secretary Vilsack made it clear that 

USDA has no intention of implementing the rural broadband program included in 

the Farm Bill until USDA’s Rural Development agency has finished implementing 

the stimulus bill. When do you intend to fulfill your obligation to implement the 

Farm Bill? Can you please explain to the Subcommittee why USDA has failed to 

implement the broadband loan program, even when Congress provided adequate resources to fulfill these obligations? 

Answer. USDA is fully committed to implementing the rural broadband program 

loan included in the Farm Bill. The ability to receive a substantial grant under the 

stimulus program refocused the attention of broadband applicants almost exclusively to the stimulus program. In addition, RUS has learned invaluable lessons in 

loan and grant origination through our two Notices of Funding Availability and from 

our colleagues at the Commerce Department. As such, we are re-drafting our Farm 

Bill regulations to take advantage of the successes learned through BIP and plan 

to publish the Farm Bill regulations as an interim rule, with a request for comments before the end of the year.

Question 7. Mr. Tonsager, through your testimony and through other updates 

given to this Subcommittee, USDA has indicated that once the farm bill broadband 

loan program is implemented, priority will be given to applications received under 

the stimulus bill. Does this mean you intend to replicate the costly and burdensome 

rules you promulgated under the stimulus and apply them to the broadband loan 

program included in the 2008 Farm Bill? 

Answer. Through our Recovery Act broadband programs, RUS will award approximately $3.6 billion awards, by leveraging its budget aurhority of $2.5 billion with 

a loan component. This was accomplished in less than seventeen months. RUS has 

learned a tremendous amount about how to process loans and grants in a more expedient manner and RUS plans to implement some of these features into our regular loan and grants programs. 

RUS believes the application process to implement the Recovery Act programs 

was important to ensure that these invaluable taxpayer resources were used prudently and judiciously to bring the economic and social benefits of broadband to 

rural America. It should be noted that the Recovery Act programs were implemented under a competitive process during which RUS staff could not assist individual applicants with the application process. Our Farm Bill broadband program 

is not a competitive process, and therefore, RUS can provide one-on-one customer 

service to applicants therefore minimizing up-front application costs.

78

Question 8. Mr. Tonsager, USDA’s Rural Development Agency is pursuing the 

Healthy Foods Financing Initiative to provide incentives to build grocery stores in 

rural communities. Could you update this Subcommittee on exactly how USDA intends to spend scarce rural development funds, when specific program guidelines 

might be available for public comment, and what your timeline will be for implementing this initiative? 

Answer. USDA’s proposed 2011 budget includes a funding level of $50 million that 

will support more than $150 million in public and private investments in the form 

of loans, grants, promotion, and other programs designed to create healthy food options in food deserts across the country. Of that:

• If provided, $35 million in FY 2011 discretionary funding would remain available until September 30, 2012, for financial and technical assistance; and

• $15 million in existing funds shall be made available for technical or financial 

assistance and shall come from a set aside of up to 10 percent of the funds 

made available through selected RD and AMS programs. These program funds 

will be administered under existing program regulations and requirements but 

will target strategies aimed at enhancing food access in low income areas, or 

food deserts.

The USDA programs outlined in the President’s FY 2011 budget, which are central to the HFFI, can and do provide low interest loans and grants to support 

healthy food access initiatives. 

The Rural Development Mission Area offers several financing programs that can 

be brought to bear on the question of availability of food, depending on the applicant 

(for-profit, nonprofit or municipality or tribe), and the purpose of the funding. Within the Business & Industry Loan Guarantee Program of RBS, there is a statutory 

set-aside of 5% of Budget Authority for financing local and regional food systems. 

Within that, priority is given to projects that benefit urban, rural, or tribal underserved communities. RBS also operates the Intermediary Relending Program, which 

provides 30 year financing at 1% interest to qualified intermediaries, who relend 

those funds at their own rates and terms. RBS’ Rural Business Enterprise Grant 

program has been used to assist in financing several food-related projects, including 

renovations to a grocery store. RBS programs are limited to rural areas, defined as 

anywhere except cities, towns, and unincorporated areas of greater than 50,000 population and adjacent urbanized areas. 

The statutory limit on the loans to intermediaries under the Intermediary Relending Program is $2 million, regardless of the number of ultimate recipients 

served, and the statutory limit on loans to rural microentrepreneurs under the new 

Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP) is $50,000 (RMAP is a 2008 

farm bill program that will roll out for the first time this year). RMAP also is limited to businesses with fewer than ten employees. While these limits may be adequate to serving projects in rural areas, they would preclude reaching out to urban 

areas that can best be served by larger projects, such as the recently constructed 

grocery store that is now serving the Anacostia area of Washington, D.C. 

The RHS Community Facilities programs are available in cities, towns, and unincorporated areas of 20,000 or less population. The suite of financing options includes 

direct loans, grants to leverage loans, and loan guarantees. 

The Marketing Services Division of AMS administers the Farmers Market Promotion Program (FMPP). The grants, authorized by the FMPP, are targeted to help 

improve and expand domestic farmers markets, roadside stands, community-supported agriculture programs, agri-tourism activities, and other direct producer-toconsumer market opportunities. 

Approximately $5 million is allocated for FMPP for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 

and $10 million for Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012. Entities eligible can reside in both 

urban or rural areas and include agricultural cooperatives, producer networks, producer associations, local governments, nonprofit corporations, public benefit corporations, economic development corporations, regional farmers market authorities and 

Tribal governments. Under the 2008 Farm Bill, FMPP is mandated to utilize 10 percent of total funding for new EBT projects at farmers markets.

Question 9. Mr. Tonsager, Section 6018 of the 2008 Farm Bill requires that USDA 

submit a report to this Committee, which assesses how the various definitions of 

‘rural’ have impacted the implementation of programs. This report is now past the 

statutory date by which it was required. Do you intent to submit this report to the 

Committee before you write the rules on the broadband loan program? 

Answer. The report is under development.

Question 10. Mr. Tonsager, your testimony highlights the ‘‘Regional Innovation 

Initiative’’ which would pull scarce funding from about 20 existing programs, totalVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:39 Oct 14, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-55\58018.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
79

ing $280 million. Under the 2008 Farm Bill, provisions were included with distinct 

authorizations to provide resources for rural communities to pursue regional strategies in development initiatives with leadership provided by USDA. Could you please 

update this Subcommittee on the status of USDA’s implementation of the Rural Collaborative Investment Program? What is unique about the Regional Innovation Initiative that sets it apart from what Congress authorized in the farm bill? 

Answer. While the USDA has successfully supported different types of regional 

strategies in the past, our Regional Innovation Initiative provides a multi-agency 

approach with a clear and consistent focus. The Regional Innovation Initiative contained in the FY11 Budget proposal will focus on twenty programs that have the 

greatest potential to incentivize regional strategies and create a coordinating mechanism within USDA to ensure that the programs work together to support the best 

regional strategies. While USDA has the authority to support Regional Strategies 

within current program authority, we lack a formalized mechanism to support this 

effort throughout the Department for years to come. 

USDA recently solicited applications utilizing the Rural Business Opportunity 

Grant, receiving over 400 applications with limited funding available. There is a 

clear need for a more focused approach to addressing the needs of communities. 

USDA is particularly interested in applications that will establish ‘‘best practice’’ 

projects in the area of regional economic and community development. The concept 

here is to examine a variety of governance structures (e.g., industry led versus government led,), varying place-based assets (e.g., National Forests), geographic diversity and community driven approach. There is a diversity of project type. It includes 

exploring rural/urban connections versus purely rural, exploring local/regional food 

infrastructure and comparing with energy infrastructure, and other variables. 

USDA through its initial work recognizes the rural-urban linkages in a global 

economy and recognize that a greater policy focus and more attention should given 

to local variations which cannot be done in isolation of the wider dynamics of national and international economic activity. The USDA believes that the Regional Innovation Initiative in the proposed FY11 budget will complement USDA in implementing the Rural Business Investment Program (RBIP) so it’s most effective for 

rural America.

Question 11. Mr. Tonsager, in April of this year USDA and the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) signed a Memorandum of Understanding to coordinate 

projects in 17 states. Could you please explain what the specific goals will be? What 

was the rationale for choosing those specific states? Which specific programs are 

similar between USDA and SBA? What are the specific roles of the agencies involved? Will these efforts require rulemaking or other formal guidance? How will 

you measure success? 

Answer. The purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with SBA is 

to encourage and enhance access to business/entrepreneurial services by our clients 

in rural communities. SBA has many programs that can benefit rural areas and the 

goal of the MOU is to increase awareness on the part of both agency’s staffs so that 

when a potential client is identified (by whichever agency), that client can have full 

access to the most appropriate program available to meet their need. None of the 

two agency’s programs are identical, but our clients could benefit from closer coordination and understanding. 

The initial 17 states are a pilot working group (initially suggested by SBA) and 

modified based on the experience/interest of our respective staffs in those offices. 

The intent is to identify best practices and expand to all offices. 

The MOU’s initial focus includes joint appearances before potential client groups, 

sharing of program information, and consideration of joint financing (if the needs 

of a specific client present an appropriate opportunity). The MOU provides the option for the agencies to more closely coordinate finance program activities should 

both agencies determine that it is mutually beneficial; however we are still in the 

initial phases of implementation. Success will be measured by increased awareness 

of our staff to the opportunities available for serving our clients, as well as increased outlets for information about our programs.

Question 12. Mr. Tonsager, USDA is pursuing a Memorandum of Understand with 

the Small Business Administration, as well as a Regional Innovation Initiative. Are 

the two regional coordination efforts connected? Can you please provide precise examples of what each involved agency is doing to fulfill both initiatives? How are 

they similar and what unique activities are being pursued under each initiative? 

Answer. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with SBA and the Regional 

Innovation Initiative (RII) are separate efforts. That does not mean that where commonalities and opportunities exist, we will not assemble endeavors. The MOU with 

SBA leverage programs in USDA that support small businesses to encourage and 

80

enhance access to business/entrepreneurial services by our clients in rural communities. The RII implements rural development programs in a more regional approach based on locally developed, comprehensive strategic plans by identifying 

needs or issues, establish priorities, and determine what program linkages and sequences that need to take place to address those needs. Both initiatives use RD programs to provide service to improve everyday life in rural America and encourage 

economic development. We are in the initial phase of implementation of the MOU. 

Through RII, we are reviewing our programs and funding announcements for opportunities to emphasize regional strategies in the project proposal.

Question 13. Mr. Tonsager, you outlined in your testimony how dire the economic 

situation is in many parts of rural America. You also support creating regional food 

systems that will ‘‘keep wealth in rural communities.’’ Can you please explain how 

poor communities will benefit from only focusing inward to re-circulate economic activity rather than securing new capital flows? Would it not be better for them to 

tap valuable national and international markets to infuse new capital into our rural 

communities? 

Answer. USDA recognizes that national and international markets are critical to 

rural development—whether it’s for the export of food, fiber and fuel or for tapping 

into online markets via broadband—and assisting farmers, rural businesses and 

communities with accessing these markets is an absolute priority. In addition to 

this, our nation’s farmers and ranchers have the ability to transform natural resources into economic wealth—what was once seed, soil, water and fertilizer can become a valuable commodity. It is for this reason that local and regional food systems 

offer communities the markets to grow and multiply the economic benefits of agriculture internally while interacting with national and global markets.

Question 14. Mr. Tonsager, in September, USDA launched the ‘‘Know Your Farmer—Know Your Food’’ initiative. What is USDA hoping to achieve through this program? How will USDA measure results from this initiative? 

Answer. The overall mission of the ‘‘Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food’’ initiative is to create thriving rural communities and generate and maintain jobs, both 

on and off the farm. As we know, so many jobs are connected to agriculture, like 

processing, distribution and small businesses, and supporting local and regional food 

systems is an important way to achieve rural economic development. 

The initiative is also focused on connecting, or reconnecting in some cases, consumers with how their food is grown. Since so many Americans are not directly engaged in farming, there is a vital need for an education on American agriculture.

Question 15. The performance measure for ‘‘Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food’’ 

is the Local Foods Index (LFI). USDA’s Economic Research Service is developing the 

LFI as an addendum to the Food Environment Atlas. The LFI will be a measure 

of access to local foods in the food environment.Mr. Tonsager, USDA has included 

the Community Facilities (CF) program, a program created to provide funding for 

‘‘essential community facilities,’’ in the ‘‘Know Your Food, Know Your Farmer Initiative.’’ Given how limited the funds available for this program are, how much do you 

intend to spend on local food efforts from CF accounts? What are your criteria for 

deciding to build a farmers market rather than a fire station in poor, rural communities? 

Answer. Improvements to community facilities such as school kitchens, farmers 

markets and food banks offer one avenue for ensuring that rural residents fulfill 

their basic needs, such as putting food on the table, while also enabling the development of new markets for producers in those communities. All CF applications, regardless of the type of community facility, are evaluated and scored according to existing criteria.

Question 16. Mr. Tonsager, the USDA website for the ‘‘Know Your Food, Know 

Your Farmer Initiative’’ lists many rural development programs which have nothing 

to do with local food initiatives. Is it the intent of USDA to use funds from all the 

programs listed? Will farmers who want to form a cooperative be denied assistance 

if their intent is to market products nationally or to export commodities? Could you 

please provide details on exactly which programs will be drawn into the ‘‘Know Your 

Food, Know Your Farmer Initiative,’’ how much money will be set aside from each 

program, and what the specific, extra qualifying criteria will be for successful applicants? 

Answer. Secretary Vilsack launched the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative in order to better connect consumers to producers, and convened a task force 

of employees to examine how USDA supports producers in accessing local and regional markets. This initiative compliments USDA’s efforts in helping producers access national or international export markets, by supporting producers in accessing 

yet another profitable market avenue. The Know Your Farmer website serves as a 

81

resource for these entrepreneurial producers and as an effective outreach tool for 

the Department. The website highlights USDA programs that, within their existing 

authorities, might be of use to rural constituents seeking to profit from these local 

and regional markets. All applications received by the Department are evaluated 

equally with respect to the authorities and goals of the appropriate program. 

Simply put, Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food website is a communications 

mechanism to raise the visibility of USDA programs that connect consumers with 

producers, as well as the programs that can generate economic growth in rural 

America by growing local and regional markets. USDA recognizes that local and regional markets are just one option available to producers and are committed to supporting all farmers and cooperatives, regardless of their size, location, product, or 

the markets to which they choose to sell.

Question 17. Mr. Tonsager, what do you anticipate would be the effect of raising 

fees for the Business and Industry Loan Program? How does the cost of capital 

under this program compare to the cost of capital through commercial lending, on 

a national average? 

Answer. The regulations governing the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan 

Program require that two types of fees be charged: an annual renewal fee to be paid 

by the lender based on the unpaid balance of the loan at the end of the year (which 

may be passed on to the borrower) and a one-time guarantee fee to be paid by the 

borrower at loan closing. The current annual renewal fee is set at 1⁄4 of 1 percent 

and the current guarantee fee is 2 percent. In the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 

Budget, the guarantee fee is scheduled to rise to 2.88%. Due to the current state 

of the credit market, a small increase to either the annual renewal or guarantee 

fee should not drastically affect the program. 

With regard to cost of capital, commercial lenders and the Rural Business-Cooperative Service have two separate goals with regard to lending money that makes it 

impossible to compare the two. The goal of a commercial lender is to ultimately turn 

a profit by lending money at a rate, higher than the rate on which it obtains its 

funds. The government’s goal is to guarantee quality loans to businesses in order 

to fund projects that create or preserve quality jobs and/or promote a clean rural 

environment with the expectation of payment in full.

Question 18. Mr. Tonsager, what is the average length of time it takes for lenders 

to receive a response from USDA Rural Development when submitting applications 

for guaranteed loans? How much does it vary across programs, and what are the 

key determining factors for such variations? 

Answer. RD Instruction 3575–A requires that that all CF guaranteed loan applications must be approved or disapproved not later than 30 days after receipt of a complete application. If National Office approval is required, the response must come 

within 30 days after receipt in Washington. The key problem here is receiving a 

‘‘complete application’’ from the lender. Once the required documentation is received, CF makes it a practice to meet the required time-frames. In the National 

Office, the policy is to complete the review of direct and guaranteed loans within 

2 weeks. 

When SFH Guaranteed Loan Program funding is available, requests for funding 

are frequently completed within 24–48 hours. Actual time frames vary from state 

to state depending on human capital resources and program volume. 

The average response time for a B&I loan is 30–60 days. We recently had a customer survey completed by an independent source, which indicated an excellent rating of 81/100 percent. As it relates to time-frame differences, variations are due to 

problematic and technical complexity of applications.

Question 19. Mr. Tonsager, USDA held several events this year to receive feedback from lenders who participate in guaranteed loan programs. What are some of 

the key issues raised by participating lenders, and how is USDA addressing these 

concerns? 

Answer. Response to key issues raised by lenders participating in the Business 

and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program are being addressed by the Agency in a 

short term and long term perspective. 

The Agency has implemented some immediate administrative changes in response 

to lender feedback and in an effort to ensure consistent program delivery on a national basis. The agency is planning to potentially revise regulations to improve the 

program operations..

82

ATTACHMENT


11155062
83


11155063
84


11155064
85


11155065
86


11155066
87


11155067
88


11155068
89


11155069
90


11155070
91


11155071
92


11155072
93


11155073
94


11155074
95


11155075
96


11155076
97


11155077
98


11155078
99


11155079
100


11155080
101


11155081
102


11155082
103


11155083
104


11155084
105


11155085
106


11155086
107


11155087
108


11155088
109


11155089
110


11155090
111


11155091
112


11155092
113


11155093
114


11155094
115


11155095
116


11155096
117


11155097
118


11155098
119


11155099
120


11155100
121

Æ


11155101