[Senate Hearing 106-756]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-756
NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
__________
MARCH 8, 2000
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-661 WASHINGTON : 2000
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina TOM HARKIN, Iowa
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
PAUL COVERDELL, Georgia THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas MAX BAUCUS, Montana
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois J. ROBERT KERREY, Nebraska
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas
RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania
Keith Luse, Staff Director
David L. Johnson, Chief Counsel
Robert E. Sturm, Chief Clerk
Mark Halverson, Staff Director for the Minority
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, March 8, 2000, National Rural Development Council..... 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, March 8, 2000......................................... 35
Document(s) submitted for the record:
Wednesday, March 8, 2000......................................... 81
----------
Wednesday, March 8, 2000
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS
Craig, Hon. Larry E., a U.S. Senator from Idaho, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural
Revitalization, of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry....................................................... 1
Conrad, Hon. Kent, a U.S. Senator from North Dakota.............. 10
----------
WITNESSES
Panel I
Conti, Eugene A., Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.............. 4
Fox, Dr. Claude, E., Administrator, Health Resources and Services
Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services... 7
Long-Thompson, Jill, Under Secretary for Rural Development, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC...................... 2
Panel II
Black, David, E., Deputy Secretary for Community Affairs and
Development, Pennsylvania Department of Community and economic
Development.................................................... 23
Fluharty, Chuck, Director, Rural Policy Research Institute
(RUPRI), Columbia, Mo.......................................... 14
Graham, Bill, Mayor, City of Scottsburg, Scottsburg, IN.......... 16
Grant, Cornelius, Executive Director, North Dakota Rural
Development Partnership, Bismarck, ND.......................... 21
Hudson, Tom, President, Tom Hudson Company, and Chair, Idaho
Rural Partnership, Moscow, ID.................................. 19
Landkamer, Colleen, Commissioner, First District, Blue Earth
County, Mankato, MN............................................ 26
----------
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Craig, Hon. Larry E.......................................... 36
Leahy, Hon. Patrick.......................................... 37
Black, Dave, E............................................... 72
Conti, Eugene A.............................................. 40
Fluharty, Chuck.............................................. 53
Fox, E. Claude............................................... 45
Graham, Bill................................................. 59
Grant, Cornelius............................................. 69
Hudson, Tom.................................................. 63
Landkamer, Colleen........................................... 76
Long-Thompson, Jill.......................................... 38
Documents Submitted for the Record:
List of PA Rural Development Council Presenters,
Teleconference Sites, submitted by David E. Black.......... 82
Serving Rural America, The Rural Transportation Initiative,
submitted by Colleen Landkamer............................. 94
U.S. Department of Transportation Rural Program Guide,
submitted by Colleen Landkamer............................. 113
NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural
Revitalization, of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:42 p.m., in
room SR-332, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E.
Craig (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Craig and Conrad.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
IDAHO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, AND
RURAL REVITALIZATION, OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
Senator Craig. Good afternoon, everyone. The Subcommittee
on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization is called
to order. Thank you for your patience. I was running a bit
late.
I also want to thank you all for being here today to
discuss the National Rural Development Partnership. Many of you
are here in Washington, DC. this week for the NRDP's annual
National Rural Policies Conference. I am glad that we are able
to coordinate this hearing with your meeting.
As many of you know, the National Rural Development
Partnership, better known as the Partnership, was established
under the Bush administration in 1990 by Executive Order 1272O.
The Partnership is a nonpartisan interagency working group
whose mission is ``to contribute to the vitality of the Nation
by strengthening the ability of rural Americans to participate
in determining their futures.''
We are here today to learn more about the National Rural
Development Partnership. We will hear from individuals
representing Federal, State, county, local, and tribal
governments, as well as the private sector, about what has
happened in the last decade since the Partnership's formation
and where the Partnership is headed in the future. Through this
hearing, the Committee will learn how the Partnership works and
what, if anything, needs to be done to improve it.
The rural and urban areas of our country face many of the
same problems, but they suffer different kinds of impacts. I
represent the dominantly rural State of Idaho. Our rural areas
cover about 88-percent of the State, but they are home to only
about 36-percent of the population. I regularly hear from
individuals concerned about the condition of rural America and
the impacts of Federal decisions on our ruralness.
For example, management decisions by the Federal Government
on these lands directly impact the livelihood and daily
activities of many of the citizens who live in rural Idaho.
However, the impacts of Federal decisions on rural areas go far
beyond those of land management agencies.
I support programs that bring communities together to
develop solutions to their problems. I believe the Partnership
can and does do this. However, I have heard concerns that not
all departments and agencies participate in the Partnership,
and that financial support is lacking in many instances.
With that in mind, I welcome all of our panels here today
and look forward to hearing their testimony. I would like to
remind the panels that their entire testimony will be a part of
the record, and so I would hope that they could hold their
statements within the 5-minute range, as I have attempted mine.
I will also tell you that I think some of my colleagues will be
joining me this afternoon.
It is also timely that we convene because, at a time when
the general economy of our country is very robust, much of
rural America is not sharing in that kind of wealth. Whether it
is the state of agriculture today, or whether it is a logging
community or a mining community, in my State many of those
communities are experiencing as much as 14- to 16-percent
unemployment, while statistically my State almost shows full
employment.
This is the schism that exists today in an economy that is
significantly different that the kind of economies we have had
in the past, and therefore our ability to effectively measure
it and understand it does not demonstrate to us here in
Washington those kinds of statistics. I think that part of this
hearing is reflective of that concern. So let me ask our first
panel, who are now seated, to proceed.
It is a pleasure of mine to have Jill Long-Thompson, Under
Secretary for Rural Development, United States Department of
Agriculture. Jill and I once served in the House together; we
were colleagues over there. Also, Eugene A. Conti, Assistant
Secretary of Transportation Policy, Department of
Transportation, and Claude E. Fox, Administrator, Health
Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and
Human Services. So, Jill, if you would start, welcome to the
Committee.
[The prepared statement of Senator Craig, can be found in
the appendix on page 36.]
STATEMENT OF JILL LONG-THOMPSON, UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL
DEVELOPMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Long-Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
inviting me here today to discuss the National Rural
Development Partnership as well as the State Rural Development
Councils. If it is agreeable to you, I will submit my written
testimony for the record and talk briefly.
Senator Craig. Without objection.
Ms. Long-Thompson. As you and I have discussed, in the 36
States where we have councils, they play a very important role
in coordinating and streamlining the efforts and the resources
of agencies and programs of Federal, State, and local
governments, as well as the private sector. And, as you
mentioned very eloquently, the initiative was born in 1990 and
is the result of an executive order of the President.
The reason that the executive order was issued was that
then Under Secretary Roland Valour. He developed this very
framework in response to the numerous complaints that he was
receiving that nowhere in the Federal Government was there the
needed focus on rural development, that there was considerable
focus on production agriculture and the agriculture sector of
the world economy, and particularly during the 1980s when we
had very low commodity prices.
By the time that he was holding this position in 1990, that
economy had started to rebound. But all during that time local
communities across the country were being very successful with
individual rural development initiatives, but their efforts
were not very well coordinated, and there was just no focus at
the Federal level in a way that could really help them to
achieve their objectives efficiently and cost effectively.
So, out of that concern and his leadership, this initiative
was born. Now, to date, 10-years later we have 36 States that
have Rural Development Councils and we have a number of other
States that are seriously looking at forming councils. In fact,
we have four States that, right now, are just about ready to
put councils into place. The bulk of the funding, as you know,
for the councils is Federal, although there has to be at least
a 25-percent contribution from the States in which the councils
exist.
When I first took this position--now, there was little
standardization in the relationship between the Federal
Government, including the Department of Agriculture, and the
State Rural Development Councils. Each council existed as the
result of the formation in its State, but the relationship with
USDA was based on individual cooperative agreements between
USDA and that State, which we still have. But the funding
levels for each of the councils varied depending upon the
cooperative agreement that was reached between USDA and that
State, and there was also a disparity; in some States, the
executive directors of the councils were Federal employees, and
in some cases they were not.
So one of the things that we have worked to do since my
coming on board is to have some kind of standardization, so
that the councils get equitable treatment from the Federal
Government. And, as a result of that, we have tried to better
standardize the cooperative agreements. All of the directors
are now in a contract relationship with the Federal Government.
At the same time that we have worked to do that, we have
had a major restructuring, as you know, in the Department of
Agriculture, and I think it has actually enhanced the potential
for the Rural Development Councils to be successful at tying
together the initiatives at the various levels and in the
private sector. Our, what were formerly our State Directors for
Farmer's Home Administration are now Rural Development State
Directors, and they are, as you know, appointed by the
President of the United States, and they work very closely with
the Rural Development Council Directors in the 36 States where
we have the councils.
Since the restructuring in the Department of Agriculture,
some of the burden of responsibilities for the Rural
Development Councils has changed, as a result of us now having
State directors that have the responsibility of rural
development. But I think that has enhanced the potential for
working together, and I think we have seen a number of
successes as a result of that.
Also I would like to say that in addition to the
relationship that exists, the individuals who are involved in
the Rural Development Councils in the 36 States that have them
are really outstanding individuals. I could have a bit of a
bias. The Chair for the National Executive Committee is Mayor
Bill Graham from Scottsburg, Indiana, who has an outstanding
reputation in the State of Indiana for the work that he does in
rural development.
But we do have, I just think, a very strong network across
the country. The challenge for us is, in these times of reduced
budgets, coming up with the funding. Since we do not have any
direct authority over the councils themselves, it is difficult
to find the money when other money that we have is allocated
for a specific purpose.
In this particular fiscal year, in Rural Development at
USDA, we had to put in place a 21-percent cut in our
administrative budget, and we mirrored, or duplicated, mirrored
that with the Rural Development Councils. Well, the Rural
Development Councils have pretty small budgets, so a 21-percent
cut can be quite significant.
So it appears to me that if we are going to continue to
have a good, successful working relationship, and if they are
going to continue to be effective, and if we are going to be
successful in expanding them to the 50 States, there needs to
be some kind of legislative foundation for the initiative, and
we also need to figure out some way that there can be
consistent funding. The way we fund now is to just look for the
money, and as my colleagues will tell you, a lot of the time we
are writing letters back and forth, placing phone calls,
strong-arming each other, saying ``How are we going to come up
for the funding for this initiative?'' It is a real challenge.
But, by being an executive order, and by us having no
authority, and by them having no accountability to us, it
really is quite a challenge.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Long-Thompson can be found
in the appendix on page 38.]
Senator Craig. Well, Jill, thank you very much. We will go
through the full panel before I ask any of you to respond to
questions, if that is all right.
Now, Eugene Conti, Assistant Secretary for Transportation
Policy, Department of Transportation. Secretary. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF EUGENE A. CONTI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
TRANSPORTATION POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Conti. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you,
also, for asking us to be here today to talk about a subject we
are all very interested in and committed to.
One of the first jobs Secretary Slater asked me to take on
is to coordinate our department's efforts in rural areas, so I
have been aware of and involved with the National Rural
Development Partnership since my appointment. As you also may
know, Secretary Slater grew up in a very rural area in
Arkansas, so he is very sensitive to these issues and reminds
me very often, and makes sure that I am doing a good job here.
The Partnership provides DOT with a valuable channel for
communication with a broad spectrum of local rural officials
and activists who help shape and implement transportation
programs related to those local community economic development
efforts. I want to emphasize that we believe transportation is
a key, in most cases, to local economic development. We are
really aware of no other mechanism, other than the councils,
that gives us such direct and ongoing access to those local
officials who can help us as we seek to respond to some of the
transportation challenges we face.
As you mentioned and others know, rural America faces very
serious transportation challenges. Residents of rural areas and
small towns often suffer from isolation and reduced access to
transportation alternatives. The National Rural Development
Partnership brings together the organizations, the State and
local representatives, business interests and residents to help
deal with these critical issues.
The Partnership collaborated with us when we put together
our Rural Transportation Initiative, which Secretary Slater
announced in May of 1999. The Initiative is a comprehensive
approach to help America's rural communities fully enjoy the
benefits of the Nation's growing economy and improvements in
transportation safety and mobility. The Partnership acted as a
sounding board for policy and program ideas for the Initiative
and helped us disseminate its products, a brochure and a
program guide, to rural stakeholders, copies of which have been
provided to the Subcommittee.
The Department has been an active member of the Partnership
since its inception, and continues to receive important support
and guidance from the Partnership. As a result of the increased
cross-program cooperation and collaboration generated by the
councils, DOT focuses its limited program resources more
effectively and provides services more efficiently.
We used the Partnership in developing our surface
transportation reauthorization proposal, and will continue to
use it as we carry out TEA-21 programs involving rural
interests, including focusing on a very critical issue, which
is greater involvement of local rural officials in Statewide
planning processes. As you know, our transportation planning
process emphasizes getting local participation. It is a very
structured process, and in a lot of the States it is difficult
to do the Statewide process unless you reach out to rural
officials. So, we are emphasizing that all States need to do a
good job of reaching out and involving local officials in that
process.
In Illinois, for example, the Rural Development Council's
Transportation Committee completed a 2-year Statewide rural
public transportation study that identified barriers to more
effective transportation services all across rural Illinois.
the Committee will meet with the Illinois DOT to review the
report's recommendations and discuss implementation
opportunities.
As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Chairman, the Idaho Rural
Partnership has also supported the involvement of rural
officials in the Statewide planning process. The Idaho
Partnership's executive director was the facilitator for the
Idaho Transportation Planning Task Force, which brought
together the Idaho Department of Transportation, the
Association of Idaho Cities, the Idaho Association of Counties,
and the Idaho Association of Highway Districts to resolve
differences concerning local transportation planning. The task
force successfully developed a consultation process that
balances the needs of all the parties involved, and makes sure
that everyone is involved in that decision making process.
In Connecticut we have another good example. In 1996 the
Connecticut Rural Development Council co-sponsored a successful
public forum, ``Designing Roads and Bridges to Preserve
Community Character,'' which brought together the Connecticut
DOT, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. DOT, local
government, State and congressional representatives, historic
preservationists and environmentalists, all to discuss how to
make those programs work better, to develop alternative design
guidelines, and again, to consult very heavily with local
community groups about these issues.
Tourism is also a vital part of the Nation's economy, and
transportation plays in that, and particularly in rural areas
can be very much a boost to the local economy. The department
is trying to improve coordination and cooperation between
transportation and tourism practitioners on the Federal, State
and local level. The National Partnership has been an important
player in that effort.
For instance, in Utah, the Rural Development Council
facilitated the public information gathering process for the
National Park Service as they developed a draft management plan
for Zion National Park and Zion National Canyon. The South
Western Utah Planning Authorities Council process facilitated
discussions about transportation needs for the Park and worked
with the National Park Service to develop a consolidated
transportation hub and visitors center which will open this
year in May.
In conclusion, let me just say that the Department has been
a strong and consistent supporter of the Partnership. We
believe that the Partnership is a valuable resource not only to
our department, but also to rural America. We strongly support
its role in bringing together partners from the public and
private sectors to help rural communities improve their
economies and quality of life.
That concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, and I
have submitted a written statement for the record. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conti can be found in the
appendix on page 40.]
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Now, let me turn to Claude Fox, Administrator, Health
Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and
Human Services. Administrator Fox, welcome before the
Committee.
STATEMENT OF CLAUDE EARL FOX, M.D., ADMINISTRATOR, HEALTH
RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Dr. Fox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HHS appreciates the
opportunity both to be here and to support rural health as well
as this Partnership, and you also have my prepared statement.
Senator Craig. Yes.
Dr. Fox. If I could just make a few opening comments, I was
born in a rural hospital, I grew up in a rural community. I
received my medical education in a rural State. My first
practice was in a rural community. I also chaired the Alabama
task force chartered by the Alabama Legislature to look at
rural health. And the Agency that I oversee within Health and
Human Services actually administers the rural health policy for
the department, so we have the responsibility for the entire
department to look at the policy issues across the department,
including HCFA and elsewhere.
As I am sure you know, health is important for a lot of
reasons, not the least of which is the economic benefits to the
community, and health is often the largest employer, or second
largest employer only to education. HHS is absolutely committed
to this partnership, and I think we have and will continue to
demonstrate ways. One, the most visible way, is we put almost
$500,000 a year into this partnership, and we plan to continue
to do so. The second is that the current Chair of the National
Council is Dianne McSwain, who is with HHS. And, third, we have
the active participation of a number of departments and
agencies within HHS, including my own Office of Rural Health
Policy.
Let me say personally, I think for the value of the council
and why it needs to continue to exist, one of my dilemmas,
having come from local and State government in rural
communities, is to try to think about how, as we put different
Federal assets into the community, how do we make sure that the
whole is better or greater than the sum of the parts? And I
think often we put things into the communities without the
right hand knowing what the left hand does.
I think one of the values of this council is for us to be
able to talk across agencies. It is not because of ill will,
but we just sometimes don't have an opportunity to do it. This
offers the chance, on issues like the Children's Health
Insurance Program, to talk about how we can coordinate on
outreach, and we have done that across Federal partners. It
offers us the opportunity, on issues like TANF and the
implications for TANF for rural communities, to talk about what
we can do to make sure that we protect rural communities
wherever possible. It offers the opportunity, for the Critical
Access Hospital Program that we oversee, in trying to help
rural hospitals survive, to make sure all the Federal partners
are working together wherever possible.
It is for those and other reasons that we think the
Partnership provides both a forum and venue for Federally,
those of us here, to talk, but also to make sure that we hear
and we do reality checks with rural communities through these
local councils. We think this Partnership is very valuable.
Again, we will continue our participation, and I look forward
to any questions you might have today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fox can be found in the
appendix on page 45.]
Senator Craig. Mr. Fox, thank you very much. while I may
direct my questions specifically to one of the three of you,
all three of you are certainly invited to make comment, if you
feel it appropriate and it fits your agency, your knowledge of
the Partnership, and the issues at hand.
Secretary Long, in your statement you note that the lack of
consistency in funding and the lack of legislative foundation
providing policy guidance and direction has been problematic
from the very beginning of the initiative. Will you expand on
this? And, with these thoughts in mind, would you support a
line item for the partnership within USDA and other
departments' budgets? Or how do you propose to deal with the
lack of consistent funding? Also, what do you believe needs to
be done legislatively to provide more direction and guidance
while maintaining the flexibility necessary to meet the diverse
needs of rural communities?
You gentlemen may certainly wish to comment on that also.
Ms. Long-Thompson. Well, I think that the structure of this
initiative, which is a great idea with great objectives and has
had success in 36 States, they are very valuable to rural
communities, but with the current structure I think a line item
in the appropriations bill would be a mistake. And I think it
would be a mistake for one primary reason, that being, since
the councils are not under the authority of any agency or
department in the Federal Government, I think that would be the
first place that appropriators would look to cut funding in
times of working very hard to balance the budget.
We have a difficult time, as you know, coming up with the
salaries and expenses levels that are needed to administer the
program levels that we have. Just in the time that I have been
here, as you know, we have increased our program level
significantly and at the same time we have considerably fewer
number of employees for oversight. So I think it would become a
very vulnerable line item and would probably be eliminated
within a very short period of time, if not the very first year.
I think that structurally, and I don't have the answer
here, but I think that structurally, if there are going to be
Federal dollars spent, if you are consistently going to fund a
particular initiative, then there has to be some kind of
accountability back to the Federal Government. It is only good
management, and that is not the way this is set up.
It as set up, I think initially when it was established
this way, it was probably the very best approach you could
have. Since that time, we have restructured in the Department
of Agriculture and we have a very different structure that we
are working with out in rural communities. We have Rural
Development State Directors that did not exist in 1990.
So, I think that there needs to be some kind of
accountability. I know, as an Under Secretary who has to take
responsibility for the entire Rural Development budget, and can
be and am held accountable by you, as I should be, and even
more significantly by the taxpayers of this country, I need to
be able to have some kind of authority over where the money is
going and how it is being spent. So I think you would want some
kind of authorizing language that would have to be a critical
component of any changes.
Senator Craig. The character of its creation, the executive
order, basically kind of puts the idea out there, creates a
broad structure but does not create by law a defined policy
structure. Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Long-Thompson. That is right. And when we have in Rural
Development what is a 21-percent cut in administrative
expenses, we have a very difficult time, even in a large
agency, when you have an obligation to make that uniform across
those areas that we are funding. That really hurts the Rural
Development Councils that have very small budgets to begin
with.
Senator Craig. Gentlemen, would either of you wish to, or
both of you, comment on the base question?
Mr. Conti. I would be happy to add to Secretary Long's
answer and to really support her, in particular because we have
a situation in the Department of Transportation where we have
been able to fund the Partnership about $500,000 a year for
several years. That money was no longer available taken from
the Highway Trust Fund when TEA-21 was technically corrected.
The administrative take-down-what is called the administrative
take-down out of the Trust Fund for both Federal highways and
for the State highway departments-was rearranged and changed,
and the administrative budgets of the Federal Highway
Administration in particular were fairly squeezed because of
that take-down.
We also got a prohibition in 1999 from the House
Appropriations Committee that we could not transfer this
$500,000 to the partnership, and that prohibition was extended
in the fiscal year 2000 budget. So, we are at a point where,
unless we take it from some other agency, Within the
Department, we really don't have the resources to support the
Partnership at that level.
In fiscal 1999 I took $50,000 out of my administrative
budget, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of $2,000,000;
so $50,000 is a fairly good contribution from that size budget,
but it was about as much as I was able to do from my office. We
have requested in the fiscal 2001 budget, which is up here for
consideration, $500,000 again for the Partnership, but that may
be subject to the same treatment that it has received in the
last couple of years.
So we do have a problem in assuring the consistency of
funding, and I think that is an issue we would love to work
with you on, with the caveats Secretary Long mentioned, that we
don't want to create targets for other people.
Senator Craig. Thank you. Administrator Fox.
Dr. Fox. Mr. Chairman, we don't have a position on the line
item of funding. I think we put up $422,000 a year and we plan
to continue to provide at least that. The Partnership has been
very valuable to us.
I would say that it is not a command and control function,
and one of the values of the Partnership is, it is a convening
dialogue across Federal agencies with the local councils. I
would, quite frankly, defer to the local councils if they felt
there was any need to change the administrative structure. I
mean, we are doing it for them anyway.
Senator Craig. OK. We have been joined by my colleague,
Senator Kent Conrad, who is a valuable member of this committee
and probably one of rural America's clearer voices. Kent, will
you wish to make comment?
STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Conrad. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
thank you very much for holding this hearing, and a special
welcome to Jill Long-Thompson.
Every year, Mr. Chairman, I do a thing we call
``Marketplace'' in North Dakota, and it has developed into
quite an event. We had about 5,000 people there this year, and
we have a series of display booths that show people what are
things that are working to diversify a farming operation, to
build jobs in a community, to attract new economic development
to a region.
And, then we have a series of classes as well, this year
nearly 150 different classes that were held, many of them,
about a third of them on technology this year, and many of them
were completely over-subscribed. I mean, you would go into the
classes, classrooms were packed. And Jill Long-Thompson has
come before, was there this year. We very much appreciate it,
your presentation and your contribution to that program.
I think the reason I raised it, Mr. Chairman, is because,
as you know so well, these rural States have been very hard hit
by the agricultural crisis. We have been beset by low prices,
bad weather, and a very, very straitened financial
circumstance.
The result is, on many of the main streets of cities and
towns in my State, and I am sure it is true in your State as
well, there are really hard times out there. Anything that we
can do to help generate economic activity, or plans for
attracting economic activity, that is a plus, and I want to
make sure that we are doing everything possible in terms of
Federal Government involvement that can be productive.
I have found Jill Long-Thompson's office very sincerely
motivated to make a positive difference in this area. I think
her own background on a farm probably has something to do with
this sincere motivation, because you don't have to talk very
long about the problems that we are having with her, and she
knows exactly what we are talking about.
I would just like to go back to the suggestion that the
chairman made, whether it would be helpful to have a line item.
I am on the Budget Committee, and I am on the Finance
Committee, and I have learned, through sometimes bitter
experience, it does make a difference. And I know that the
panelists here have had a chance to respond to that, but I just
wanted to add my voice that I think it would be a useful thing.
If I could----
Senator Craig. Let me add, I asked the question about a
line item in the context of the current structure of the
program. It is an executive order that created it. We did not
by a law create it, nor did we define it in a clear way, as to
its role and its relationship. So I am concerned because the
agencies in part have, because of its flexibility, been able to
fund it to some extent. How do we create consistency, I think
is what I am interested in, and stability, therefore
predictability, coming out of this program.
Senator Conrad. Well, I think you make a very good point,
because that is critically important out on the ground. If you
have something that is there 1-year and it is not there the
next, that is very disruptive to any kind of long-term plan.
I would just like to ask Jill Long-Thompson, could you tell
us what you see happening out across the country? You have a
special perspective because you don't just come to my State,
and you don't just go to the Chairman's State, you are out
around the country. Could you just give us a brief thumbnail on
what you are seeing out there across the country?
Ms. Long-Thompson. Well, there are some rural communities
that are doing very well right now, but in many rural
communities, particularly those that are more isolated and not
as close to regional centers, they are having a very, very
difficult time. North Dakota has a number of communities that
there is a lot of work going on within the communities, but
without having some kind of larger economy to tie into, they
face a real challenge.
What I think is particularly valuable about the Rural
Development Councils--and in this job, like in your jobs, you
hear all sides of an issue. The councils are often criticized
for spending the bulk of their energy on meetings within the
State and national meetings and otherwise, but the reality is
they don't have program dollars to administer. And in the rural
community that I come from, having an opportunity to meet with
folks from various Federal agencies, as well as State agencies,
as well as interact with private foundations, that is a real
opportunity.
My home town, our mayor is a part-time mayor. We don't have
a staff of folks who have Master's Degrees in public
administration and a specialty in grant writing. So when you
have some kind of method----
Senator Conrad. It is written over the kitchen table.
Ms. Long-Thompson. Late at night after work, exactly. And
so when you have some kind of initiative that brings these
folks together, these meetings can be very, very valuable. But
the real challenge is, with regard to the funding, if there is
not a legislative structure that establishes accountability
between the Federal Government that is providing the funding
and the entity that is receiving the funding, in this case the
Rural Development Councils, I think it would be very difficult
to have sustained support for a line item. And so I think that
if you have one, you have to have the other.
Senator Conrad. Can I ask you just a very specific--Mr.
Chairman, might I just ask a final question?
Senator Craig. Sure.
Senator Conrad. A very specific question to Jill about the
intermediary relending program. Our problem in North Dakota,
one of our problems is that so many Federal programs are based
on unemployment, and our problem is not unemployment, our
problem is no employment. Our unemployment rate shows it is
very low. Our employment rate, in the State of North Dakota,
Mr. Chairman, hovers around 2-percent.
Senator Craig. Two-percent.
Senator Conrad. That doesn't mean that we have got some
burgeoning economic activity going on, it means people vote
with their feet and they leave town when they don't have a job.
It is pretty hard to make it through the winter without a job.
We have an awful lot of people who are badly underemployed.
One of the things we have tried to do is get the various
programs to relate to out-migration, and it has come to my
attention on the IRP funding, that the application scoring only
looks at out-migration over the past 10-years. In our State, we
have been subject to out-migration for the last 100-years. We
are one of the few States in the Nation that is going down in
population, and I would be very interested in getting a change
in the scoring so that, if you have a place that has had
consistent out-migration for decades, not the just the last 10-
years, that is taken into account. Would that be something we
could work together on?
Ms. Long-Thompson. Yes, I think it would just require a
regulatory change. It would just require a regulatory change,
and I will, when I get back to the office today, I will start
working on that.
Senator Conrad. I would appreciate it, because I do think
it would be a realistic way of assessing where real need is, I
think.
I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Thank you. I might say that maybe some of
those folks have discovered Idaho, but I will leave it alone.
Senator Conrad. Mr. Chairman, let me just say our people
like to go South, and I am not talking South Dakota. Something
to do with our winters, I think
Senator Craig. If anybody representing Senator Daschle is
here, I would hope that word gets back to him.
In the 1996 farm bill, Section 381(1)(l), for the creation
of the Rural Development Interagency Working Group to
coordinate, make recommendations and evaluate all Federal rural
development efforts, the conference report language for the
bill indicated an expectation that National Rural Development
Partnership would be the foundation upon with the Interagency
Working Group is established. The report also provided for a
role for State Rural Development Councils. What is the status
of this Interagency Working Group? Was it ever established by
the Secretary as instructed in the farm bill, and has it
interacted with the Partnership?
Ms. Long-Thompson. I want to check on a couple of things.
Senator Craig. OK.
Ms. Long-Thompson. It has been functioning informally, and
we have submitted a report to Congress, and it is based on
input from a number of sources. It has been interagency, as
directed by law.
Something else that we now do that has been helpful in this
whole process, is our State Directors for Rural Development at
USDA are required to write strategic plans for their respective
States, and the strategic plan is for USDA Rural Development
Administration of our programs. But in writing that strategic
plan, they have worked with the Rural Development Councils in
the 36 States that have them. They have also worked with a
number of other entities in their States, and we have brought
that information together, and that was a part of the report
that was--or was used in compiling the report that was
submitted to Congress.
Senator Craig. We recognize that there are 36 States. Our
goal was that this would be a national program, nationwide. It
is obvious that not all are participating. Why isn't there a
council in each State, and what might be able to be done to
achieve that goal?
Ms. Long-Thompson. We have worked to encourage States to
form Rural Development Councils, not only us at USDA, but the
Partnership, and not just the national Partnership, but the
councils themselves have worked in outreach. I believe it would
be a more powerful network if there were one in existence in
every State, and we have pushed for that, as I mentioned in my
testimony. We have four States that we expect will have
councils fairly soon.
But ultimately we don't have control over it because it is
an executive order without legislative direction. There is no
authorization, and so ultimately it falls on the responsibility
of the States to determine whether or not they want to have a
council. And, as you know, the governors play a particularly
strong role in that because they are the ones who appoint the
director for each council in each State.
Senator Craig. OK.
Ms. Long-Thompson. But we are working on that. And I will
tell you it is a double-edged sword, because at the same time
that you want there to be one in all 50 States, because of the
gained influence from that, that means you have to divide the
resources that you have among a larger number of councils. So I
still think the right decision is for it, if it is truly going
to be national, there should be one in every State if the
States want them. But in a true Federal-State partnership, you
leave a lot of that control to the State level, and it is up to
them to make that determination.
Senator Craig. Your presence here obviously says all of
your agencies are involved in the partnership, and you have
some success stories. Do you feel that the all-agency and
department approach in contributing is adequately being done in
the Partnership with both money and time at this point, and
what do you believe can be done to increase participation in
the Partnership?
Obviously, transportation is key, the kind of programs that
USDA has is key, that can contribute to economic development.
Health care is critically important to rural America,
especially the foundation of health care if we are to have the
ability to draw new development, new jobs, into a region. But
the Partnership has been somewhat limited in its participation
at this level. Any suggestions?
Ms. Long-Thompson. I would then go back to what I said
initially, which is some kind of legislative authorization with
accountability.
Mr. Conti. I think we would support that as well, Mr.
Chairman. I think there are good examples where it has worked
well. Again, from our department's perspective, it is very
important to involve people at the local level in the rural
areas in these important transportation decisions, and we see
good examples of where that has really helped create better
transportation projects and really helped local economies. So
we would support strengthening that relationship.
Ms. Long-Thompson. One other suggestion would be more money
appropriated from Congress. That would help.
Dr. Fox. Mr. Chairman, two comments. One, it is my
understanding that we could do with perhaps a little broader
participation across the Federal Government on the National
Council, that is one thing that perhaps is limiting us. And
obviously if they participated, they would hopefully bring some
money to the table. And that also is impacting, I understand
there are four States that would like to have a council today
but are limited by the lack of funding, so it really is an
issue in many ways of--I mean there are a lot of other issues
as well, and I don't want to minimize those, but funding is a
major issue.
Ms. Long-Thompson. May I follow up on that, too?
Senator Craig. Sure, Jill.
Ms. Long-Thompson. Because I have spoken with Mayor Graham
and with others about requiring a greater match on the part of
the States, but that would be quite a burden on the States, and
there are many that believe that, that would literally kill
some of the councils in some of the States. So I think that is
an important point to have on the record.
Senator Craig. My last question to all of you, then: Should
the Partnership continue? And if it is to continue, should we
legislate it?
Ms. Long-Thompson. The answer to the first question is,
without hesitation, yes, it should continue, and I think I
unhesitatingly say yes, there needs to be some kind of
legislative authorization to make it as successful as it can be
across the country.
Mr. Conti. I would concur with those remarks, I think that
is correct.
Dr. Fox. Absolutely. It is a valuable tool, and I think we
would be pleased to work with the Congress if you wanted to put
this in statute.
Senator Craig. OK, well, thank you very much for your
presence here today. If I have additional questions, I will
submit them to you in writing and you can respond to them in
your leisure. Thank you very much for taking time to be here
today. Thank you very much.
Now, our second panel: Chuck Fluharty, Director, Rural
Policy Research Institute; Bill Graham, Mayor of City of
Scottsburg; Tom Hudson of the Tom Hudson Company; Cornelius
Grant, Executive Director, North Dakota Rural Development
Partnership; Dave Black, Deputy Secretary for Community Affairs
& Development, Pennsylvania Department of Community and
Economic Development; and Colleen Landkamer, Commissioner,
First District, Blue Earth County. Where is that?
Ms. Landkamer. Minnesota.
Senator Craig. Minnesota. Thank you all for being here.
With that, we will start out in the order in which I have
introduced you all to the hearing room. Chuck Fluharty,
Director, Rural Policy Research Institute. Thank you for being
here. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF CHUCK FLUHARTY, DIRECTOR, RURAL POLICY RESEARCH
INSTITUTE (RUPRI), COLUMBIA, MO
Mr. Fluharty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask my
full testimony be included in the record.
Senator Craig. Without objection.
Mr. Fluharty. I appreciate that. First of all, I would like
to express appreciation to you and the Subcommittee for this
opportunity. I do have testimony, I was asked to go into the
full overview of ``the new rural reality,'' and I think you
know that is primarily why RUPRI works with the U.S. Congress
across a broad range of issues.
In the interest of time I would, unless you have specific
questions, Mr. Chairman, like to just say generally what that
reflects is what the old rural sociologist once said: ``When
you have seen one rural community, you have seen one rural
community.'' We are a highly diverse rural America. It makes it
therefore difficult to craft national programs. It is why an
occasion like the Partnership is so critical.
Our rural economy is growing. It is fragile and uneven.
Three-fourths of our counties in the United States are rural,
that are growing. However, of those only four out of ten are
getting most of the growth and, as you know, our historic
extraction industry counties are lagging. Generally, we still
have huge challenges in human and social capital, but we are
benefiting from an expansion in the economy of our country, and
significant pockets of significant growth exist, and I would be
happy to take any questions you have.
I would like, however, just to offer a few comments. One of
my great gifts is the ability to travel, not only around the
country but to other countries, and learn how their public
culture is working with the private sector in rural
development. I would just like to offer four or five
perspectives on this moment.
I think it is really critical, Mr. Chairman, that we get an
emergent rural perspective from this Congress. I think the fact
that Under Secretary Long-Thompson and Assistant Secretary
Conti and Administrator Fox are here is recognizing there is an
emergent understanding of the unique rural differential.
The second thing I would like to ask is that you continue
to think about how critical this Subcommittee is. We know that
the farm gate and Main Street are inextricably linked from now
on, and I think the potential for your leadership to continue
in looking at integrative role policy efforts out of this
Subcommittee is so very critical. We are very enthused on the
House side there is a Congressional Rural Caucus forming which
is bipartisan. And I think because of the growing suburban
context in the policy culture, it is critical for leaders like
yourself to continue to offer these opportunities. We commend
you for it. I think it will be critical.
I would like to offer three or four perspectives, at the
end, from RUPRI's understanding of where rural policy is, that
does relate to the partnership. I think it is really critical
that we build a more integrative community, common sense,
grassroots-based sense of how public policy is going to move in
rural communities. And I think the National Rural Development
Partnership, if we didn't have it now, we would be creating it
to do just exactly that.
I think there really is a need for a new rural pragmatism.
We are not going to have a national rural policy. We need to
build community rural policies, and I think to take that to
scale, we are going to need to think about what leadership in
this Congress can do to accomplish that.
I will list five areas where I think globally rural policy
is moving to address specific public policy opportunities in a
private sector world. The first is the digital divide. It is
absolutely critical. There is a legislative and regulatory
component to that. There is very, very clearly in that regard a
private sector link, and I think the Partnership is doing very
meaningful work in States to do that.
Second, we have got to look at private sector based
regional economic strategies in IT. Many of these States are
doing that and are working with congressional committees there.
third, we really need to support rural entrepreneurship, and
that is starting to happen. It is not just equity and venture
capital, but it is also systems of support. The councils are
doing that.
The last two issues, we really do need to continue to
address what is going on in the Ag sector, how those challenges
and shifts are occurring. councils are engaged in that. The
last issue is the whole area of the rural landscape: land use,
environmentally appropriate new business and infrastructure.
And, finally, how do we build social and institutional capital
to make sure our best and our brightest do not leave?
In closing, I think that is all about local leadership, and
I think we really need to craft new rural, new governance
opportunities for leaders like Mayor Graham, Colleen Landkamer,
and councils. If we didn't have a Partnership, we wouldn't be
doing that, Mr. Chairman.
I think this 10-year experiment is at a very different
place than it was, as is rural America today. And I really do
think you will continue to provide, hope you will continue to
provide leadership to think through legislatively ``How do we
sustain this?'' It is unique in our country, and reflects
global trends in building public, private philanthropic
linkages that are community-based.
I really do thank you again, and the Committee, for your
time today. This is a wonderful moment to begin this dialogue,
and we thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fluharty can be found in the
appendix on page 53.]
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much for those
comments.
Now, Mayor Bill Graham with the City of Scottsburg. Mayor,
why don't you pull that microphone around so that we can hear
you?
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL GRAHAM, MAYOR, CITY OF SCOTTSBURG,
SCOTTSBURG, INDIANA
Mayor Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee. I would like to say I am very honored but very
humbled to be here today. And I am Bill Graham, and am here
today wearing several hats. I am the Mayor of the city of
Scottsburg, Indiana, a community of 6,300 people; I am the
Chairman of the Indiana Rural Development Council; and I am
also Chair of the Executive Committee of the National Rural
Development Partnership.
I would like to give you an overview of how work on the
Partnership supports the Indiana Council, how these
organizations benefit communities like Scottsburg and other
States.
The National Partnership provides foundations for success.
It has the unique ability to connect the efforts of Federal
agencies by coordinating resources. All of these agencies have
programs that benefit the quality of life in rural America. The
work of the NRDP is exceptional, however, because no other
structure exists to provide coordination of these services to
the State and local levels.
Along with Federal agencies, the Partnership brings in
representatives of State, local, and tribal governments, as
well as the private sector. All partners come to the table as
equals and participate in decisionmaking. We are also equals in
doing the work and in celebrating our successes. We are not
about taking credit, but instead we work together for the
mutual benefit for all. The Partnership does not have advocate
for new programs or bigger government. Instead, we focus on
building bridges, using the foundation to make better rural
communities across the country.
The Partnership provides a forum that allows us to network
with our counterparts from around the country. This network
results in sharing the experiences and good examples that take
place in each of the member States. I have taken many ideas
home from the national and State meetings and put them to use
to make my community a better place to live.
Limited resources certainly minimize our effectiveness. Our
communities and States look to the National Partnership for
leadership through issues. It is important that we continue to
provide these services for the betterment of our rural areas.
The Indiana Rural Development Council is the only Statewide
entity working exclusively to alleviate the disparities in
Indiana. Our agency's purpose is to coordinate the efforts of
citizens and governments to meet the economic and social needs
of rural Indiana.
The council does not operate as a State agency, nor are we
a Federal agency. Our council operates at the discretion of the
leadership of our governing board, which is comprised of 28
representatives from each of the five sectors. We also add
State legislators appointments, and we recently added
representatives from the U.S. Senate and Congress' offices.
The council is not a funding source for communities. We
operate on $87,000 a year to date. The work of the council is
done through task forces, and some of these have been the
Environmental Infrastructure Working Group, helping communities
identify potential funding sources for water and wastewater
projects and other infrastructure projects.
We also have a Housing Task Force which assists the
communities in researching all of their housing assistance.
This is known as IHART, Indiana Housing Assistance Review Team,
to help applicants identify partners who can assist in
providing affordable, safe and sanitary housing.
The Community Visitation Program is one of my favorites.
The community visits allow a team of resource providers to
listen to elected officials as well as community residents, to
allow key problem areas and resource needs to surface in an
informal, open setting. Rural communities, although they may be
about the same size, differ greatly when it comes to needs. We
are able to provide a handbook to these elected officials
reporting not only what we have heard throughout our visits,
but also listing resources available to them if they wish to
take action on these resources.
I can go on and on, but as a Mayor I would like to say how
important it has been to me to serve in the Indiana Rural
Development Council and to serve in the National Rural
Development Partnership.
I picked up my paper before I left home, and we have a
local paper in Scottsburg, Indiana, and it is called ``The
Giveaway,'' and it just comes out every Wednesday, so I haven't
got the latest copy but this is the latest copy before I left
Scottsburg.
Page 1 on ``The Giveaway''--and I only bring this to show
you the kind of issues that we face in small rural communities
and as a local elected official--on page 1, ``Workforce Center
is designated as a `one-stop center' for support services in
Scott County.'' And why our Workforce Center was designated as
a one-stop is through my participation in the Indiana State
Council and the National Rural Development Partnership, and my
effort to make sure that our county was a one-stop center.
Page 5, ``Domestic situation results in shooting at local
school and liquor store-two dead.'' Very devastating to a small
community with a population of 23,000 people in the whole
county, but very real rural issues that we deal with.
Page 9, ``Purdue Extension Service offers stress management
workshop for farmers and rural residents.'' And this maybe
might have been one of those most sickening to me, is the fact
that we are looking like we have already give up on the farm
crisis and those folks are going to lose their farm, not
looking at programs like risk management and other things, as
to how much they might be keeping their farm.
Special insert, ``Basketball Mania Preview.'' Basketball
still prevails very high in the State of Indiana.
There is no educational degree or training I can get to
prepare me for dealing with these issues, no State or Federal
Government that can provide all the services we need to assist
our communities with all these things. To be effective, local
leaders need to network to find proper resources to assist
them. The National Partnership, through the work of the State
councils, provides this nonpartisan forum.
I would really like to thank all of those who has been our
partners and our supporters, and would really like to thank
this group, but the Under Secretary, Jill Long-Thompson, and
USDA Rural Development has certainly been a faithful partner to
us, and all the other Federal funding agencies who have been
here today, I personally want to say thanks for standing by and
helping us. I must conclude, but I will submit my testimony,
and thank you again very much for allowing me to be here.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Graham can be found in the
appendix on page 59.]
Senator Craig. Mayor, thank you very much for that
heartfelt testimony, and thank you for your leadership at both
the State and national level.
Now, let me turn to Tom Hudson of the Tom Hudson Company of
Moscow, Idaho. Folks, that is not ``Moscow,'' that is
``Mosco.'' Tom, welcome before the Committee.
STATEMENT OF TOM HUDSON, PRESIDENT, TOM HUDSON COMPANY, AND
CHAIR, IDAHO RURAL PARTNERSHIP
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for that
clarification. I appreciate it. I would also like to thank you
for your efforts in organizing this very important session. It
is a privilege to be here.
I am the Chairman of the Idaho Rural Partnership and the
principal of Tom Hudson Company. I have been a rural
development practitioner for 21 years, and am proud to be a
fifth generation rural Idahoan. I share this background to
emphasize that rural development is really not just my vocation
but also my heritage and my mission in life, so I take my time
with you very seriously today.
In the precious time that I have with you, I would like to
emphasize four key points. First, American rural communities
and lifestyles are in peril. Second, a strategic public-private
partnership is needed to restore and sustain a stable rural
economy. Third, our State and National Rural Development
Partnerships are by far the most effective means for
undertaking this effort. And, fourth, the current linkage to
our valued Federal partners lacks two essential elements: Our
funding is unpredictable, and there is no systematic commitment
to a long-term relationship.
As someone from the private sector, I have developed my
commitment to the Idaho Rural Partnership carefully. I am
supposed to be in business to make money. Six years ago I chose
to volunteer my time with this organization because I found
that it wasn't just unusual in the State, it is actually
unique. Hundreds of people from all walks of rural life and
government are working together as a team on rural issues and
collaborating very effectively, building a series of
outstanding successes.
The Idaho Rural Partnership operates from the principle
that the residents of a community are best qualified to
determine what constitutes progress in their communities. It
follows to us that the best role for our partnership, then, is
to inform and advise our rural communities and businesses; to
increase their capacity for helping themselves; to link rural
people with programs and resources that can help them address
their needs; and, finally, to guide governmental partners in
filling the gaps in rural service.
Frankly, speaking, I came prepared today to outline and
brag about, about 20 or so recent successes at Idaho Rural
Partnership. Most of these projects have specifically helped to
improve business conditions and helped to stabilize or create
jobs. However, in the brief time that I have with you, I will
just say simply that the projects we have completed address
important facets of agriculture----
Senator Craig. If you have, go ahead and give us a couple
of examples. I think for the record it would be important to
understand the kind of projects or the character of the
projects involved. Please take time to do that.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you. I appreciate that. There are so many
partners in Idaho, it is difficult for me to pick anybody
else's favorite reliably, but I can tell you that my own
personal one relates to a project that has taken just about 2-
years to undertake, incorporating the insights of nearly every
partner we have on our board. It is related to the biological
control of weeds, which as you may well know, in Idaho is a
very serious issue. Just on an annual basis, we lose 30,000-
acres a year to yellow star thistle.
So we have our State Agriculture Department, Department of
Commerce, Labor, so many different agencies that have a
particular interest in this. Idaho Rural Partnership, led by
our executive director, Dick Gardner, began a process a couple
of years ago to engage all of these different agencies,
nonprofit organizations, and in fact our tribes, in trying to
address and identify a system that can successfully begin to
push back on our dramatic noxious weeds problem.
In the course of that 2-years, we successfully created a
conceptual feasibility study, then went into full-fledged
business planning with assistance from our outstanding partners
in the Economic Development Administration. Ultimately, the Nez
Perce Tribe, with assistance from the Department of Agriculture
and the University of Idaho Extension, as well as many other
members of the Partnership, put together an entirely new tribal
enterprise focused on biological control of weeks. They are now
up, fully running, and as a full-fledged business, addressing
problems not just in our State but all over the intermountain
Northwest, creating highly valuable jobs within the Nez Perce
community, a very stressed community in Lapwai with a high
level of unemployment which has exceeded 50-percent in recent
years, and these are jobs in the area of horticulture science,
forestry, and entomology. I think this is an outstanding
example of the kinds of things that can go on, and I have
others that I would be happy to share with you.
Note that our projects are creatively funded using agency
and private sector investments. Both the Idaho and National
Partnerships are not about massive new spending programs, as
our national Chair has shared with you, but rather we are about
making existing programs more effective by working together. In
a sense, the State Rural Development Councils often work as a
glue to link and bind diverse sets of organizations together.
We feel that the job of the Idaho Rural Partnership has
only just started. As with many Western States, the economic
health of Idaho communities varies widely. As you pointed out
earlier, we have communities that are growing, some communities
growing substantially, to the degree that with 8- to 12-percent
growth annually, they just struggle to keep up with it. But
more often we find that our rural resource dependent
communities are just fighting to remain viable.
And, similarly, the job of the National Rural Development
Partnership has just begun. To be more effective, we need to
expand the principle of collaboration. I think all of us in the
36 States represented currently feel that we need this in all
50 States. It also means that funding councils is needed at a
level where they can actively management a larger number of
collaborations.
I am excited about this hearing because I believe one
important partner has not really been invited to participate in
the past 10-years of the National Rural Development
Partnership, and that is namely the U.S. Congress. You have the
ability to recognize collaboration as the most effective way to
get progress accomplished on the ground, and the NRDP is the
most effective way to lead this effort.
Together, we have the ability to allow Federal field staff
to participate fully in our State councils, and as you may
know, they can't all do that today. You have the ability to
encourage more Federal agencies with rural priorities to invest
financially in the NRDP, and you have the ability to build
bridges across the vertical flows of Federal funding streams.
We in Idaho invite you and we urge you to build upon this
outstanding job that we in Idaho see as being attained by the
National Rural Development Partnership. We would like you to
help us engage our Federal partners strategically and
systematically in our mission to sustain your rural economies
and communities.
Finally, I would say we look forward to continuing this
important dialogue with Congress on rural partners, and I thank
you very much for this chance to speak with you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hudson can be found in the
appendix on page 63.]
Senator Craig. Tom, thank you very much.
Now, let us go to Cornelius Grant, executive director,
North Dakota Rural Development Partnership. Mr. Grant, welcome
before the Committee.
STATEMENT OF CORNELIUS GRANT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTH DAKOTA
RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
Mr. Grant. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the North
Dakota Rural Development Council and our fellow State Rural
Development Councils in 35 States located across rural America,
I initially wish to express appreciation to this distinguished
committee for affording the opportunity to discuss the common
bounds of the partnership, and then to describe several
relationships unique to North Dakota.
The National Rural Development Partnership is a network of
established and emerging rural institutions that work together
to strengthen rural America. Each of the State councils is
comprised of active volunteer members from a broad range of
rural development organizations which are served by a full-time
executive director. States may differ on how they are organized
and on the rural issues they decide to address.
The North Dakota Rural Development Council is governed by
an 18-member board of directors, five derived from the private
sector, including the chairman, who is appointed by the
governor of the State. Other board members are elected by their
peers to represent community/local government, major
communities, tribal governments, and State and Federal
agencies. One or more of our board meetings are held in field
locations, in regional centers, or on one of the State's four
Indian reservations.
I am an enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Band of
Chippewa Indians, and was born and reared on the Turtle
Mountain Reservation located in north central North Dakota.
With pride I say that I am also a retired 35-year veteran
career civil servant.
It is my understanding that I am one of two Native
Americans presently serving as council executive directors, the
other being Chuck Akers from Alaska. Also, we have at least one
board of directors chairman in Quentin Fairbanks of the
Minnesota Rural Partners, and one co-chairman, Donna Hair of
the Oklahoma RDC.
I mention these factors to underscore the inclusive intent
of the State Rural Development Council concept, and as one of
the stated goals of the North Dakota Rural Development Council,
to forge new and proactive partnerships.
The NRDC and councils in general, and our counterparts in
the other 35 States at this time, are charged with the primary
responsibility to bring together State, Federal, local and
tribal governments and the private and public sectors in
meaningful forums, offering opportunity to join forces,
cooperate in new ways, and devise strategic action plans to
address common issues or concerns, ultimately to strengthen
representative communities and rural America itself.
The council is not intended to be a new rural development
program, a source of funds, a project clearinghouse or a
lobbying organization. The goal is to make existing programs
work more effectively to meet the needs of local communities.
The council's role is to complement, reinforce and enhance
these efforts by serving as a facilitator, expediter, convener,
coordinator, and where appropriate, initiator.
The North Dakota Rural Development Council is a relatively
new organization, but we are gaining visibility and stature as
we proceed with our Annual Work and Strategic Plan. The first
opportunity in this regard was to become part of the State's
team to assist the recovery efforts necessitated by the 1997
winter blizzards and flood, which brought devastation to large
numbers of Red River Valley communities in eastern North Dakota
and three of the four Indian reservations in our State.
Two years ago the council entered into a partnership
agreement with the North Dakota Department of Emergency
Management, wherein local meetings would be held in the 14
counties and four Indian reservations, to better acquaint the
two parties to emergency management matters and the
availability of State EM training and supportive service.
Responsibilities were to encourage and assist the design of a
local awareness campaign, and ultimately formulate mutually
acceptable operations and hazard mitigation plans. At this
juncture each of the four tribal governments have designated EM
contacts who are attending State-sponsored training sessions
and are working closer with their neighbors on a defined
cooperative response basis, neighbor-to-neighbor.
In early 1998 a new Leadership North Dakota initiative was
announced by the governor's office and, more importantly, the
NRDC was pronounced to be the lead entity in this special
effort. The council and partners developed a multistate
strategy built around high visibility statewide events,
including the use of interactive television broadcasts to 12-
sites, including the two tribal community colleges. At this
event we had over 200 participants.
The second event was a six-hour seminar presented by the
best-selling author and motivational speaker, Tom Peters. This
event was attended, free of charge, by over 5,000 community
leaders and interested citizens.
The first annual Leadership Development Conference was
attended by nearly 1,000 participants, who were welcomed by
showcase community betterment booths and leadership building
classes and materials.
A direct offshoot of the Leadership Initiative was a charge
to the NRDC and many partners to develop a common format and
process for community strategic planning. Seventy facilitators
from every geographic region in our State have received the
necessary training and are so certified. As a prerequisite to
this free training, each committed to assist at least one
community in their area to complete an acceptable strategic
plan.
Later this month we are scheduled for a one-day refresher
course and additional group dynamic skill-building exercises.
Selections are currently being made for active participation by
at least 30 communities and the 4 Indian reservations, to be
assisted as necessary to complete satisfactory community
strategic plans.
These activities are noted as tangible examples of the
power of proactive partnerships, such as those forged by the
NRDC and a large number of individuals and organizations who
are dedicated toward enhancing the quality of life and standard
of living in North Dakota. My counterparts in the other 35
States have accomplished as much, or in many cases much, much
more, through the auspices of the State Rural Development
Council concept.
Your demonstrated interest in the State Rural Development
Councils is sincerely appreciated. Thank you again for the
opportunity to describe what the North Dakota Rural Development
Council is all about, and on behalf of rural America, our
ambitions for the future.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grant can be found in the
appendix on page 69.]
Senator Craig. Mr. Grant, thank you. A gathering of 5,000
is more of a ``happening'' than a meeting, isn't it?
Mr. Grant. It was a very exciting time.
Senator Craig. Must have been.
Mr. Grant. And I emphasized the motivational part, but we
were trying to build leadership.
Senator Craig. Well, congratulations. That is a marvelous
story.
Mr. Grant. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Now, let me turn to Dave Black, Deputy
Secretary for Community Affairs and Development, Pennsylvania
Department of Community and Economic Development.
Mr. Black.
STATEMENT OF DAVID E. BLACK, DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS AND DEVELOPMENT, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, HARRISBURG, PA
Mr. Black. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
pleasure to be here this afternoon. My name is David Black. I
am Deputy Secretary of what we call DCD, serving the residents
of Pennsylvania. My responsibilities include oversight of
Pennsylvania's development efforts in three primary areas:
local government; community development, which we refer to
affectionately as community building; and entrepreneurial
development. I also serve in the capacity as Governor Ridge's
alternate to the Appalachian Regional Commission, which has a
largely rural focus.
Prior to serving in State government, I did serve as a
county commissioner in rural Pennsylvania, northwestern
Pennsylvania, Clarion County. I had the opportunity also to
serve as chairman of the Northwest Regional Planning and
Development Council, serving eight counties in rural
northwestern Pennsylvania with delivery of both State and
Federal programs.
What I would like to do today is just share with you a
little experience from my prior life, and then perhaps talk a
little bit of how this integrates with what is going on with
the Rural Development Council in Pennsylvania.
During my time in service in county government, which
started in the mid 1980s through the mid 1990s, it was a very
difficult time in many rural places throughout the country. In
northwestern Pennsylvania, we were largely a natural resource
based rural area, coal, timber, oil and gas, and there were
certainly difficulties in the economy in general, but specific
difficulties with the local economy. We had to pool together
regionally, work locally, try to figure out a way to shift our
local industrial base while the national economy was going
through a shift as well.
To make a long story short, through a lot of phone calls, a
lot of meetings, a lot of local effort, a lot of outreach, we
did manage to do that, did manage to get things turned around
in our county. However, the recovery I think, in looking at
what is in place now with the Pennsylvania Rural Development
Council, might have happened a little sooner, it might have
happened a little quicker, and I think probably would have
happened with a lot less consternation on the part of local
elected officials, had the Pennsylvania Rural Development
Council been in place.
The Rural Development Council in Pennsylvania dates back to
1992, shortly after the executive order was signed. Since
Governor Tom Ridge has assumed office in 1995, the council was
moved from a regional office of one of our State agencies to
the State Capital in Harrisburg; it was removed from a State
agency, became part of the governor's executive office; and was
elevated to the stature of the governor's office and recently
became part of State government through an executive order
issued by Governor Ridge.
The council enjoys a stronger efficacy role because of this
position in State government, and has access to expanded
resources within State government. In addition to the Federal
funding, State government, we do provide approximately $180,000
a year in State funding to help the council carry out its
mission.
The mission of our council in Pennsylvania is relatively
simple: convening, facilitating, coordinating, educating, and
advocating. The Pennsylvania Rural Development Council has
sought to open lines of access and communication throughout
rural Pennsylvania. We largely use telecommunications
technology through 10-sites located throughout the Commonwealth
to establish four, at least four meetings a year to discuss a
number of issues. These are live teleconferencing, so not only
do people have the opportunity to hear State and Federal
officials, but they also have the opportunity to exchange
information and learn from their peers.
Having been on the presenter side of some of these forums,
they have been very lively. It was, as a former elected
official, it was one of the first times that I actually took a
hit via telecommunications at one of these meetings, but it
was----
Senator Craig. But they can't throw things.
Mr. Black. They can't throw anything but, as you probably
could appreciate, verbal jabs do hurt occasionally.
Senator Craig. Yes, I have been there.
Mr. Black. But it was, it has been a very good mechanism
and a great opportunity for people to share information using
telecommunications. Pennsylvania is a very large State, and to
get from the furthest corner of the State to the State Capital
is about 6-hours.
We have had a number of very important presentations, and
included in my testimony is detailed information of the
presentations we have had. A couple of interesting ones that I
would like to mention here, in the limited time I have left, we
did have presentations on our transportation planning relative
to TEA-21. We did have a presentation on Governor Ridge's
Keystone Opportunity Zone program, which I believe the rural
outreach helped this program to be very successful in its first
year, creating 3,000 jobs Statewide, but notably 2,000 of those
3,000 jobs were in rural parts of the State.
We have talked about Federal safe drinking water law. We
have talked about electric choice; Pennsylvania was one of the
first States to use electric choice. We have also had
discussions on Governor Ridge's ``Link to Learn'' program,
which is an outreach to school districts to provide
telecommunications and e-commerce capabilities in school
districts.
Through this extensive outreach, the Pennsylvania Rural
Development Council has been a great tool. The Pennsylvania
council does not do the development work, but it helps to
enable it to happen. It increases the opportunity to share
experiences across rural Pennsylvania on a peer-to-peer basis,
it increases accessibility to Federal and State government
officials on programs to aid development. That creates a sense
of camaraderie among rural Pennsylvanians, so that they know
that they are not alone and they are not forgotten.
Thank you for the opportunity to be with you this
afternoon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Black can be found in the
appendix on page 72.]
Senator Craig. Well, Mr. Black, thank you very much.
I was, I guess, surprised some months ago when I heard the
trivia question asked, ``Which is the most rural State in the
Nation, and which is the most urban State in the Nation?'' We
westerners, because of our large landscapes and oftentimes
small communities, sparsely populated, view ourselves as often
the more rural, but by definition we are not; you are. And I
found that most interesting, but I guess it is a matter of the
spread of populations as it results to the numbers of people.
Mr. Black. Outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, we are a
largely rural State.
Senator Craig. That is right, and of course the most urban
State in the Nation, that none of us would probably have
guessed, is Nevada, because all of the population is in one
spot, nearly. The rest of the State is Federal.
So when it comes to rural development, in the times I have
had the privilege of driving across your State, I am always
impressed by the spread of the population and the number of
people who do live in, by definition, a rural environment,
significantly different in a much more uniform way than we find
it clustered in our western States.
Thank you very much. Now, our last presenter this afternoon
is Colleen Landkamer, Commissioner, First District, Blue Earth
County. Wonderful name.
Ms. Landkamer. It is a beautiful name, beautiful county. We
would love to have you there.
Senator Craig. Now, I would assume that is very fertile
land, or is it clay?
Ms. Landkamer. It is clay. That is where the blue comes
from. When the Indians came through, it is a grayish tinge, and
so they call it ``blue earth.''
Senator Craig. Thank you. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF COLLEEN LANDKAMER, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DISTRICT,
BLUE EARTH COUNTY, MANKATO, MINNESOTA
Ms. Landkamer. Thank you, Senator Craig. I appreciate you
allowing me to testify before your committee today. My name is
Colleen Landkamer. I am the Chair of the Blue Earth County
Board of Commissioners in Minnesota, and I also Chair the
National Association of Counties Rural Action Caucus.
As an elected official from Blue Earth County, I have
served for several years on the board of directors of the
Minnesota Rural Partners. In fact, the executive director of
Minnesota Rural Partners is here today, Marcie McLaughlin.
Minnesota Rural Partners does not distribute money nor
administer any programs. Rather, through an information-based
``learning while doing'' approach, Minnesota Rural Partners
addresses complex rural problems from a Minnesota, not a
Washington, DC. perspective. They do this in a very efficient
manner by convening the varied partners, building those
critical inter-and intragovernmental relationships, promoting
strategic partnerships, making better use of existing
resources. Frequently they intervene in a problem-solving mode.
They are making a difference in rural America, they are
improving the quality of life, and they are representing a new
model of governance.
Now, Minnesota Rural Partners has done various things but I
would like to talk about just a couple things that they have
done for my county and our State. We had horrible storms last
year that produced floods and tornadoes. MRP coordinated with
the Federal agencies to help alleviate the conditions in
counties following these severe storms. With the MRP in the
forefront of the disaster mitigation, the citizens throughout
Minnesota and my county all benefited from their services in
coordinating those issues.
They have also proved extremely beneficial in getting out
information and best practices examples that have helped all
counties in Minnesota on issues ranging from technology to
agriforestry. There are 35, as you heard previously, other NRDP
State Councils throughout this Nation, and they are all doing
similar things. We are all a little different but there is a
significant similarity.
I also want to tell you a little bit about the National
Association of Counties and our relationship with the
Partnership. As you know, NACo is the only organization that
represents counties across the United States, headquartered on
Capitol Hill, and it is a full service organization for our
counties. We have got a multitude of relationships with various
entities, be it the National Governors Association, the League
of Cities, but also the National Rural Development Partnership,
the Rural Policy Institute. There is a multitude of
partnerships that we have formed in the last few years just to
deal with rural.
At NACo I chair the Rural Action Caucus, and it was
recently created, just 2-years ago. Previous to that for 2-
years we had a task force that looked at rural issues, but it
is a relatively new thing for the National Association of
Counties to have a rural task force or a Rural Action Caucus,
which I chair. I represent 2,350 rural counties. That is a lot,
and there is a lot of rural counties out there.
You recently spoke at our national conference, emphasizing
the need to seize the initiative, and that is what we are
trying to do. We really appreciate your leadership on S. 1608.
You are making such a difference for our forest counties across
the United States, and that includes Minnesota, too, and we
appreciate all the work you and your staff have done.
Our Rural Caucus membership consists of about 1,000 rural
county commissioners, and with their help, our two primary
focuses this year will be bridging the digital divide and
providing adequate health care services to rural counties,
which is one of the most basic things that we think in our
rural counties that you need in order to move forward.
It is essential that our rural partners collaborate on
these initiatives. Through future partnerships with our Rural
Action Caucus, RUPRI, the NRDP, and rural State councils
throughout America, we can make a difference as to how this
country functions. We want to do it from the West across the
Nation.
So I would like to cite the importance of Under Secretary
Jill Long-Thompson's role in promoting rural initiatives at the
USDA, and I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
leadership for rural America and how you are making a
difference. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Landkamer can be found in
the appendix on page 76.]
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much, Colleen, for your
comments and those kind remarks.
Let me lead into a question for all of you that really is a
spin-out from the legislation that Colleen is familiar with,
some of you may not be, as 1608 that I and Senator Ron Wyden of
Oregon are trying to cause this Congress to deal with. It
creates by direction a more clarified way of arriving at a
collaborative process and rewards for doing so, by suggesting
that in these areas of--this happens to be resource management
on public lands--that in these areas where there is conflict
between national policy and local economies, they don't mesh,
as a result of that we find our local economies growing
nonexistent because of a national policy in relation to a
public resource, we are causing a collaborative process to come
together and from that, if consensus is built as it relates to
local programs, local projects, happens to be on Federal lands
with Federal resources, then there is a reward of matching
monies and those kinds of things.
I strongly believe that we have to move more toward a
community-based collaborative process that involves all of the
stakeholders, and many of you have employed that, either
directly, or by the character of what you are doing, you are
doing that ultimately. So the question is, when working on a
problem, how do you ensure that you are truly working in a
collaborative process and not just a process representing only
a few points of view? Have you created a template from which
you bring together a particular group for that purpose? Any one
of you might respond to that.
Ms. Landkamer. If I could respond, Senator----
Senator Craig. Yes.
Ms. Landkamer.--I think in Minnesota, when you look at our
board, it is extremely diverse, and I think that is very
helpful, from Federal, State, local, tribal, the whole
multitude of people that engage in that process. And what I
have found is that it is such an open process, the way ours is
run, that we are always bringing in new partners.
One of the projects last year was a rural-urban dialogue
between a section in the City of Minneapolis and Crookston,
which is a rural community in northern Minnesota. And I think
the strength of that was, it make everyone realize that our
issues are the same; the solutions are a bit different.
I really do believe that we have really opened up a broad
dialogue. And it a challenge. It is a challenge to make sure
that you are touching everyone that should be involved in an
issue, but it is something we continue to work towards, and I
think the broad membership of the Partnership makes a
difference.
Mr. Black. And I would like to--I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Go ahead.
Mr. Black. I would just echo similar comments. When there
is an issue that develops, the director of the council has had
the ability to bring together the various agents or agencies
involved and bring it to one of the issue forums and discuss
whatever the issue is.
We had an issue, timbering in the Allegheny National
Forest, and there has been some discussion on trying to get the
partners to the table, and just using the format as it exists
to share information and perhaps some ideas come out of it, and
then from there solutions can be discussed.
Senator Craig. Anyone else wish to comment on that?
Mayor Graham. I would like to say in Indiana sometimes,
many times we ask ourselves, you know, ``Is this a place where
we belong, or are we just getting in the way of something that
is already in progress?''
Senator Craig. A reasonable question.
Mayor Graham. Yes, and sometimes I think we figure out,
maybe, that we were or we could just be getting in the way. But
it seems like with as many players as we have sitting at the
table, that those things are very early identified as to where
we need to fit in and how our role can be.
Senator Craig. OK. Go ahead.
Mr. Fluharty. Mr. Chairman, I would just add, first of all
commend you for that effort, and simply say I was sharing with
your staff yesterday, we do a lot of work in RUPRI in Northern
Ireland, in the Republic, and they indeed have a national, a
stated international policy goal in E.U. called
``subsidiarity,'' which is exactly the principles upon which
you are operating there in areas of very high conflict, and
that is lowering the resources to the most appropriate level
for the decision, creating quantifiable outcome measures,
assuring the community and the private sector involved. And I
think we would benefit greatly in our policy culture to learn a
bit about how other rural areas around the world are coping
with these great challenges. The very same principles you are
articulating there is what ``subsidiarity'' is about in Europe.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you for mentioning that. I would
like to know more about that. We will work with you to pursue
that.
Let me ask the next question in this manner: My guess is,
you have all put your best foot forward. Put your worst foot
forward. Where isn't it working, that you would like to see it
work? Or, more importantly, why isn't it working in some areas
like you would like to see it work? In all aspects of it,
whether it is money, whether it is the way it is structured.
Mayor Graham. I could tell you my opinion in the State of
Indiana.
Senator Craig. Yes.
Mayor Graham. In the State of Indiana, and I think maybe
even nationwide, I feel like we have failed when it comes to
agriculture, and that is to the farmer or the rancher. I don't
feel like that we have that involvement with those people
nearly as strongly as we should have. They are not at the table
with us.
We have made efforts to involve them but I don't think we
have worked hard enough, especially in the State of Indiana.
Even though in the State of Indiana we have the Deputy
Commissioner of Agriculture sitting at our board, it is still
very limited as to what we do.
In the crisis that we have in agriculture, they should be
there and a lot heavier represented than what we have. I guess
if we are making confessions, I would have to confess that I
feel like we have let them down, and we need to work ever so
much harder to make sure they are at the table with us.
Mr. Hudson. I would like to speak to that as well, Mr.
Chairman. Inclusiveness is an outstanding principle and it is
certainly something that we embrace at the Idaho Rural
Partnership. It is also a process. Not everyone comes to the
table automatically. These are very complicated times and there
are a lot of players in the realm.
We I think work hard at bringing new members to the table,
representatives of diverse interests, and I think we have got
some distance to go yet. If I can be specific, one of our--we
have two key targets at this time in Idaho.
I am sure I will be spanked for saying this, being so
specific. But the Idaho Transportation Department is a very
important element of what we are trying to do. We have some
members of the organization who are coming forward, but we
don't feel that we have engaged them as systematically as we
need to.
I personally believe, and I am speaking for myself now,
that higher education is an extraordinarily important part of
the process of partnering for rural America, and we are only
getting formally engaged now in bringing our great institutions
in Idaho to the table to help us more. Now, it is very much a
positive trend, but I would love to have started that earlier
on. This is an evolutionary thing.
I think the other arena where we all would like to see more
progress is in the area of handoff. As you have heard from I
think each of us in our own way, we do not have large numbers
of dollars for project implementation. We are more like pilot
lights in many ways, in trying to engage a variety of partners
in doing things, and sometimes in the handoff it is difficult
to make sure that all goes well.
So we are spending a great deal of time in the arena of
leadership training, facilitation, building common ground,
mediation areas, helping communities to help themselves in the
implementation area. I think we are making a lot of progress
there, but it is something that is ongoing.
Mr. Black. Just a followup. On the State level it is a
similar issue of outreach and perhaps getting deeper and
contacting more people. On a larger scale, on a macro scale
across the Nation we have heard there are 36 councils.
Obviously there are some States that are not involved. It has
been, I think what I have heard today, a very helpful tool in a
lot of areas, and that would lead us to believe that it could
be a tool in those other States as well.
From the Pennsylvania experience, granted it started
towards the tail end of one administration in our State
government, but the commitment had not been as deep with the
first administration as it has been with the current
administration. There has to be a working partnership at the
State level in order for it to work. But I think to encourage
that in other States might be a way that it could succeed. I
don't want to call it a failure, but I think in services to
rural people throughout the country, perhaps there are
opportunities being missed.
Senator Craig. Anyone else in that general area?
Let me ask this. Tom had mentioned the engaging of our
universities, our educational institutions. How many of you in
your experiences are doing that or have done it on occasion or
consistently? Colleen?
Ms. Landkamer. We have on our board the Humphrey Institute.
There are three different types of educational institutions on
our board, and they show up all the time. So, I mean, you know,
you can have them on your board, they don't always show up, but
they have consistently shown up and been real players. So I
think that is key, I don't think there is any doubt about that,
so we are real pleased with that.
Mayor Graham. We have certainly done that in Indiana, also.
We have had Purdue University and Indiana University and Ball
State University all there at the table and participating with
us.
Senator Craig. Under Secretary Long-Thompson voiced concern
for lack of consistency in funding and a lack of a legislative
foundation providing policy guidance and direction. Do you
share her concerns on either or all of these points? Yes?
Mr. Fluharty. Mr. Chairman, let me perhaps start, because I
am with the councils and the Partnership but not of. We work in
a collaborative manner, but I am really not in a council or
with the Partnership. I would make a couple of general
structural observations and then a couple of very personal
programmatic observations.
I think the councils are uneven across space and
circumstance, as they would want to be, since they are locally
driven, adapting to local circumstance and in different frames
of their life cycle, starting in 1992 to current. I think one
of the perpetual challenges we have in rural policy in the
United States is who is our champion, who is our lead
congressional committee, how does the USDA mandate to do rural
development, make that work in the ground, and how do we better
link extension, outreach, and the multiple resources that could
come to councils?
I think this partnership has come a long way in the last
24-months in moving that. I would just say, Mr. Chairman, this
is a very different group of people than we had 2-years ago,
and I would simply say look at the leadership and the diversity
of rural America that is represented in this partnership. I
think they will continue to grow.
I will be very candid. I believe this organization needs
additional resources to fulfill their mission. I will be very
candid about that. One of the challenges is, we must take rural
to scale in this political arena, and I think this is an
excellent organization to do that. They are underfunded to do
that, Mr. Chairman, quite frankly.
Senator Craig. Policy structure? Or do you--you know, there
is a question of flexibility and shaping to the situation or
the environment.
Mr. Fluharty. Correct. Correct.
Senator Craig. And that comes probably by an absence of
guidelines, specific, under law, or rule and regulation. And
the other side of it is, in absence of that, sometimes you may
not get what you want.
Mr. Fluharty. Correct. I will say one other thing. Then I
would like to defer.
Senator Craig. Yes.
Mr. Fluharty. I think the accountability issue is very
huge, and I also think the ability to create a seamless linkage
that allows Federal decisionmakers and State decisionmakers, in
a continuing decentralized governance structure, to understand
what works in the dirt, is so very key. We aren't doing that
well, Mr. Chairman, right now in our policy culture, and I
think the councils are uniquely positioned to provide that. The
reality is, what we are trying to do, between RUPRI, the
Partnership and the councils, is build that throughput. I think
we are starting.
I will simply say, what is the structure? I believe we need
serious congressional action and continual interest in the
rural policy agenda. Short of that, I don't think we will get
it, and I would just commend you to stay on task here. I think
we will see good things happen if you do.
Senator Craig. Mayor.
Mayor Graham. I hope I am answering the question that you
asked, but by just the virtue of the limited resources itself,
we find ourselves really having to sit down and really looking
as to how we can prioritize what we are able to work on.
Senator Craig. That is not a bad thing.
Mayor Graham. No, but we find that----
Senator Craig. It is a limiting factor, yes.
Mayor Graham. Yes, but we find that we are eliminating a
lot of things that we should be working on, and they still
should be priorities, but we haven't been able to do that. I
think that there has been some value in that; that each State
has chosen different priorities, and out of what these States
have done has been a lot of successes that we can still copy
off of, that in the State of Indiana this may not have been the
top priority and this may not have been what we worked on, but
we have taken successes from other States that chose that to be
their priority and been able to replicate that in some part.
Senator Craig. Thank you. Anyone else wish to comment on
that?
Tom?
Mr. Hudson. Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with Mr. Fluharty's
comments, and we embrace accountability. We seek it already
today, and work very carefully to account for everything that
we do, either philosophically or financially. Of course, we
take great pains to handle our monies appropriately.
The key for us, I believe, is something akin to a
framework, a policy framework that outlines the kinds of things
that might be necessary for working closely with our Federal
partners, but a framework that allows us the flexibility or the
latitude at the local and the State level to address our unique
needs. I don't see these things as mutually exclusive. I know
that we have a framework already for our accountability that is
excellent, and if we can refine that in ways that address
additional Federal needs, I think that is a relatively
straightforward process that should not limit our capacity to
continue to be responding to our local issues.
Senator Craig. Great. Thank you. Anyone else?
[No response.]
Well, let me thank you all for your time and your
willingness to come and participate. It is obvious to many of
us who come from rural States, the conflict that rural
communities find themselves in at the moment, and there is no
quick fix, nor is there a rather positive light at the end of
the tunnel at this moment. It is a matter of working our way
out of a problem that is probably a transitional economy that
in part will produce a new economy down the road.
It is also a real problem here as to how we deal with it,
to create optimum flexibility so you can be ultimately as
creative as possible at the local level, and still maintain the
accountability that Congress has almost historically insisted
upon, and in some part needs to. It is fascinating at this
moment, Colleen, as we work on the final language of S. 1608,
in trying to build a broad base of stakeholders to come
together and look at a large package of concerns, and from that
sort out where they can find consensus and then focus or direct
their resources to that point of consensus.
That is where the Congress wants to go. In this instance
the administration, or I should say the executive branch, or I
should say the Agency, so that I can be relatively generic, is
saying, ``Oh, no, no, no, no, no. We like the idea of
consensus. We like the idea of a lot of stakeholders being at
the table. But we are going to tell you on what issues you can
make your decision on.''
Now, that is just about as helpful as a flat tire, because
it already presupposes and preshapes the ultimate
decisionmaking, and offers none of the kind of creativity that
you all are experiencing based on the need. But of course in
this instance we are dealing with an issue of environment, and
there is a higher elevation of sensitivity to it.
I think you come to the arena when there is a consensus
that a problem exists; there just isn't a consensus as to a
solution. Here, some would argue there is no problem, at least
on the thing we are currently working on; it is just a change
in policy, and that is where the country wants to go, and the
local communities will adjust accordingly in the process. They
will simply fall out and reshape because the policy of America
has changed, or of our country has changed.
So it is a little different, but not a lot. And it is
always fascinating to me, as we try to do this, to watch how
difficult it is for people to give up power or to cause it to
be transitioned to a different level where maybe the better
kind of choices or decisions are made.
Again, thank you all so very much for coming out today.
There may be some additional questions that the Committee or
its members will want to ask of you. And please don't sense the
absence of members here today as a lack of interest. It is
simply not the case. There are a good many of us struggling
with this agricultural, rural economic issue at this moment. I
say agriculture because my guess is, if agriculture were
flourishing, some of our problems or some of your problems as
you experience them would go away right rapidly. That is not
the case today, and so we are trying to resolve that on a
multifront basis.
Again, thank you, and the Committee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
March 8, 2000
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.054
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 8, 2000
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7661.110