oversight

Farm Bill: Issues to Consider for Reauthorization

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 2012-04-24.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

               United States Government Accountability Office

GAO            Report to Congressional Addressees




April 2012
               FARM BILL

               Issues to Consider for
               Reauthorization




GAO-12-338SP
Contents


Letter                                                                                      1

Section 1   Introduction                                                                    3
            Principles Identified as Significant to Integrity, Effectiveness, and
              Efficiency in Farm Bill Programs                                              5
            Overview of Titles in the 2008 Farm Bill                                        6

Section 2   Commodity Programs                                                            11
            Reducing or Terminating Direct Payments Could Better Target
              Program Benefits and Save Tax Dollars                                       11
            USDA Has Increased Oversight to Reduce Potential Improper
              Payments, but Continued Vigilance Is Needed                                 12

Section 3   Conservation                                                                  14
            USDA Should Ensure Farm and Conservation Programs Do Not
              Work at Cross Purposes or Duplicate Efforts                                 15
            Procedures for Allocating Funds and Enforcing Compliance Could
              Be Improved to Better Promote Conservation Program Goals                    16
            Agencies Need to More Effectively Address Potential Impacts
              Resulting from Agricultural Runoff and Other Sources                        17

Section 4   Trade                                                                         19
            U.S. Agencies Should Take Steps to Mitigate Risks Associated with
              Implementing the Governmentwide Global Food Security
              Strategy                                                                    20
            The Efficiency of International Food Assistance Programs Can Be
              Improved                                                                    21
            Better Practices Offer Opportunities to Enhance the Effectiveness
              of International Food Assistance                                            22

Section 5   Nutrition                                                                     24
            Agencies Need to Reduce Administrative Overlap among Domestic
              Food Assistance Programs                                                    25
            USDA Could Benefit from Increased Attention to Food Program
              Integrity                                                                   26




            Page i                                           GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 6      Rural Development                                                            27
               Agencies Need to Take Steps to Avoid Duplication, Overlap, and
                 Fragmentation in Economic Development Programs                             28
               USDA Should Reconsider the Definition of “Rural” to Ensure
                 Consistency with Program Purposes                                          29

Section 7      Research and Related Matters                                                 32
               Enhanced Oversight and Coordination Is Needed to Protect
                 Agriculture from Terrorist Acts and Other Major Emergencies                33
               USDA Should Improve Coordination with Other Entities to Identify
                 Research Gaps and Avoid Duplication                                        34

Section 8      Energy                                                                       36
               Increased Biofuels Production Has Agricultural and Environmental
                 Effects                                                                    37
               Investments in Fuel Delivery Infrastructure May Be Needed to
                 Meet Mandated 2022 Ethanol Consumption Levels                              38

Section 9      Crop Insurance and Disaster Assistance Programs                              39
               Limits on Crop Insurance Subsidies Would Save Money                          41
               USDA Has Reduced Costs by Decreasing Compensation to
                 Insurance Companies, but Compensation May Still Be Excessive               41
               USDA Has Strengthened Oversight of the Crop Insurance Program,
                 but It Remains Vulnerable to Potential Fraud, Waste, and Abuse             42
               Lessons Learned Could Improve Implementation of a Disaster
                 Assistance Program                                                         43

Appendix I     Scope and Methodology                                                        44



Appendix II    Related GAO Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title                                46



Appendix III   Related USDA Office of Inspector General Products,
               by 2008 Farm Bill Title                                                      60




               Page ii                                         GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix IV   GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments                                                     83



Figures
              Figure 1: Strip Cropping to Reduce Soil Erosion                                           15
              Figure 2: Road Near Hagerstown, Maryland, That Divides a “Rural”
                       Area” from a “Nonrural” Area, 2004                                               30
              Figure 3: Administrative Allowances and Underwriting Gains or
                       Losses Paid to Crop Insurance Companies, 2000—2010                               40




              Abbreviations
              CAFO                 concentrated animal feeding operation
              CBO                  Congressional Budget Office
              DHS                  Department of Homeland Security
              E10                  fuel blend containing approximately 10 percent ethanol
              E15                  fuel blend containing approximately 15 percent ethanol
              EPA                  Environmental Protection Agency
              EQIP                 Environmental Quality Incentives Program
              HHS                  Department of Health and Human Services
              HSPD-9               Homeland Security Presidential Directive-9
              HUD                  Department of Housing and Urban Development
              MSA                  metropolitan statistical area
              NPDRS                National Plant Disease Recovery System
              SBA                  Small Business Administration
              SNAP                 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
              SURE                 Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program
              USAID                U.S. Agency for International Development
              USDA                 U.S. Department of Agriculture
              2008 Farm Bill       Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008



              This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
              United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
              without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
              copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
              necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.




              Page iii                                                GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548




                                   April 24, 2012

                                   The Honorable Debbie Stabenow
                                   Chairwoman
                                   Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
                                   United States Senate

                                   The Honorable Frank Lucas
                                   Chairman
                                   The Honorable Collin Peterson
                                   Ranking Member
                                   Committee on Agriculture
                                   House of Representatives

                                   The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Department of
                                   Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) seek to enhance the
                                   efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the federal government. As
                                   Congress debates ways to address the federal government’s long-term
                                   fiscal imbalance, it becomes even more critical that we help with this
                                   challenge by identifying opportunities for cost-savings and for improving
                                   programs to ensure that every dollar counts.

                                   In this spirit and in anticipation of upcoming deliberations over the 2012
                                   Farm Bill, we are issuing companion reports today. They present the
                                   following set of principles significant to the integrity, efficiency, and
                                   effectiveness of programs in the farm bill:

                                   •   Relevance. Does the program concern an issue of national interest?
                                       Is the program consistent with current statutes and international
                                       agreements? Have the domestic and international food and
                                       agriculture sectors changed significantly, or are they expected to
                                       change, in ways that affect the program’s purpose?

                                   •   Distinctiveness. Is the program unique and free from overlap or
                                       duplication with other programs? Is it well-coordinated with similar
                                       programs?

                                   •   Targeting. Is the program’s distribution of benefits consistent with
                                       contemporary assessments of need?




                                   Page 1                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
•   Affordability. Is the program affordable, given the nation’s severe
    budgetary constraints? Is it using the most efficient, cost-effective
    approaches?

•   Effectiveness. Are program goals clear, with a direct connection to
    policies, resource allocations, and actions? Does the program
    demonstrate measurable progress toward its goals? Is it generally
    free of unintended consequences, including ecological, social, or
    economic effects? Does the program allow for adjustments to
    changes in markets?

•   Oversight. Does the program have mechanisms, such as internal
    controls, to monitor compliance and help minimize fraud, waste, and
    abuse in areas where these are most likely to occur?

In the context of these principles, our reports summarize key GAO and
OIG findings, respectively, related to farm bill programs. The principles
could guide consideration of each program and potential program, and
the summaries could help Congress make well-informed decisions about
program design while continuing to maintain a strong agricultural sector
and the safety and security of the nation’s food supply and to provide
nutrition assistance, promote U.S. exports, support renewable energy and
conservation, and enhance economic growth in rural communities.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please
contact Lisa Shames, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, at
(202) 512-3841 or shamesl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are
listed in Dppendix IV.




Gene L. Dodaro
Comptroller General
  of the United States




Page 2                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 1: Introduction
               Section 1: Introduction




               In the early 1930s, when farm foreclosures occurred every day and
               American agriculture was hit hard by drought and economic disaster,
               Congress enacted agricultural legislation to, among other things, protect
               farmers against the risks of low crop prices and bad weather. Since then,
               Congress has periodically passed farm bills to help farmers manage the
               risks that come with farming and has added programs through these bills
               that are to provide domestic and international food assistance, promote
               economic development in rural areas, and help advance alternatives to
               petroleum fuel, among other things.

               The most recent farm bill—the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
               2008 (2008 Farm Bill)—included a wide variety of programs, and its major
               provisions are expected to cost about $402 billion over 5 years, according
               to a 2010 estimate by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). As
               Congress prepares to pass a new farm bill in 2012, severe budget
               constraints are likely to shape deliberations. In the fall of 2011, as the
               Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (joint committee) worked to
               identify ways to cut federal spending, Members of Congress, the
               administration, and several agricultural groups released proposals
               recommending modifications to farm bill programs, including potential
               areas for budget cuts. Many of the proposals target farm programs, which
               account for a significant amount of funding under the farm bill. The
               leadership of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees sent a letter
               to the joint committee recommending $23 billion in net deficit reduction
               from mandatory programs within their jurisdiction. Ultimately, the joint
               committee did not reach consensus on deficit reduction, but the dialogue
               it engendered might lay the groundwork for the upcoming debate over the
               design of the next farm bill.

               We have previously reported that some farm bill programs offer
               opportunities for cost savings, could be delivered more efficiently and
               effectively, or may be working at cross purposes. 1 In this context, this
               report identifies principles we have found to be significant to integrity,
               effectiveness, and efficiency in farm bill programs since 2003, after much
               of the 2002 Farm Bill was implemented. Similarly, the Inspector General
               for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has also reported findings
               and recommendations in these areas to strengthen farm bill programs. In


               1
                For example, see *$2Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government
               Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.:
               Mar. 1, 2011).




               Page 3                                             GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 1: Introduction




a companion report, the Office of Inspector General adopts these
principles and summarizes its work related to farm bill programs. 2

To develop this list of principles, we first identified the universe of our
reports issued from January 2003 through July 2011 that were potentially
related to farm bill programs. 3 We screened these reports to exclude those
that were not relevant and those that had no recommendations intended to
improve the integrity, efficiency, or effectiveness of farm bill programs. We
reviewed a subset of the relevant reports to develop a preliminary list of
principles and then conducted a content analysis of all relevant reports to
categorize findings by principle, refining the principles as we did so. We
also reviewed some of our other products that examine governmentwide
issues to inform our final list of principles. 4 The work for these reports was
conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provided a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. In addition, we obtained
comments on a draft of this report from USDA, which provided technical
comments that we incorporated as appropriate. Appendix I contains more
detailed information on our scope and methodology.

We conducted our work for this report from April 2011 through April 2012
in accordance with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework
that are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan
and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate
evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in
our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and the
analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and
conclusions in this product.




2
 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Farm Bill: Issues to Consider
for Reauthorization, 50099-0001-10 (Washington D.C.: April 2012).
3
 We subsequently added some reports issued from August 2011 through March 2012
because they are relevant to farm bill deliberations.
4
 For example, GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal
Government, GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: February 2005).




Page 4                                                  GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                        Section 1: Introduction




                        Based on the review of our reports issued from January 2003 through
Principles Identified   March 2012 that were relevant to farm bill programs, we identified the
as Significant to       following principles and associated key questions that could be applicable
                        to Congress’s deliberations for the 2012 Farm Bill:
Integrity,
Effectiveness, and      •   Relevance. Does the program concern an issue of national interest?
                            Is the program consistent with current statutes and international
Efficiency in Farm          agreements? Have the domestic and international food and
Bill Programs               agriculture sectors changed significantly, or are they expected to
                            change, in ways that affect the program’s purpose?

                        •   Distinctiveness. Is the program unique and free from overlap or
                            duplication with other programs? Is it well coordinated with similar
                            programs?

                        •   Targeting. Is the program’s distribution of benefits consistent with
                            contemporary assessments of need?

                        •   Affordability. Is the program affordable, given the nation’s severe
                            budgetary constraints? Is it using the most efficient, cost-effective
                            approaches?

                        •   Effectiveness. Are program goals clear, with a direct connection to
                            policies, resource allocations, and actions? Does the program
                            demonstrate measurable progress toward its goals? Is it generally
                            free of unintended consequences, including ecological, social, or
                            economic effects? Does the program allow for adjustments to
                            changes in markets?

                        •   Oversight. Does the program have mechanisms, such as internal
                            controls, to monitor compliance and help minimize fraud, waste, and
                            abuse in areas where these are most likely to occur?

                        The 2008 Farm Bill consists of 15 titles and related provisions covering
                        support for commodity crops, horticulture and livestock, conservation,
                        nutrition, trade and food aid, agricultural research, farm credit, rural
                        development, energy, forestry, and other related programs. For select
                        farm bill titles, we summarized our findings in sections that correspond to
                        farm bill titles and highlighted the relevant principles as they apply to
                        these titles. The summaries relate to some, but not all, of the titles in the




                        Page 5                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                        Section 1: Introduction




                        2008 Farm Bill because since 2003, we have not produced a significant
                        body of work concerning major provisions in every title. 5 Appendix II
                        presents GAO reports related to titles in the 2008 Farm Bill that were
                        issued from January 2003 through March 2012. Appendix III presents
                        reports from the USDA Office of Inspector General, issued from October
                        2003 through February 2012, that the Office determined are relevant to
                        titles in the 2008 Farm Bill.


                        The 2008 Farm Bill has governed many federal agriculture, food, and
Overview of Titles in   related programs since it was enacted into law in June 2008. It
the 2008 Farm Bill      reauthorized, expanded, and modified many programs, amended laws,
                        created new programs and initiatives, and repealed some programs. This
                        farm bill enacted mandatory spending for commodity, crop insurance,
                        nutrition assistance, conservation and trade programs. For other
                        programs—including most rural development, research, and agricultural
                        credit programs—the farm bill primarily authorized discretionary spending
                        (i.e., spending subject to separate appropriations legislation). In 2011, the
                        Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that mandatory spending
                        in the 2008 Farm Bill would cost about $95 billion annually from 2010
                        through 2012. Many of the bill’s provisions expire at the end of fiscal year
                        2012. The following are summaries of the 2008 Farm Bill’s titles, which
                        are generally administered by USDA:

                        Title I: Commodity Programs. Under this title, the federal government
                        provides assistance to farmers producing certain commodities, including
                        wheat, feed grains, cotton, rice, oilseeds, and peanuts. Assistance is
                        provided largely through three mechanisms: (1) direct payments
                        unrelated to production or prices; (2) counter-cyclical payments for a
                        commodity that are triggered when prices are below statutorily set
                        targets; and (3) marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency
                        payments; the latter occur when crop prices fall below statutorily set
                        levels. In addition, support for the dairy industry is provided by, for
                        example, having the government purchase dairy products and make
                        payments to eligible farmers when milk prices fall below a certain level;
                        and support for sugar growers and processors is provided by maintaining
                        guaranteed minimum prices through a variety of mechanisms. In 2011,


                        5
                         The 2008 Farm Bill titles without a corresponding summary include Title V (Credit), Title
                        VIII (Forestry), Title X (Horticulture and Organic Agriculture), Title XI (Livestock), Title XIII
                        (Commodity Futures), Title XIV (Miscellaneous), and Title XV (Trade and Tax Provisions).




                        Page 6                                                       GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 1: Introduction




CBO estimated that mandatory outlays in the commodity programs title
would cost about $6 billion annually from 2010 through 2012.

Title II: Conservation. Farm bill conservation programs, generally
administered by USDA, provide technical and financial assistance to
farmers who voluntarily adopt conservation practices to mitigate the
degradation of natural resources that can result from agriculture. For
example, some conservation programs aim to prevent soil erosion,
conserve and improve wildlife resources, protect wetlands, or protect water
and air quality. Other conservation programs focus on specific restoration
efforts, including those for the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes
Basin. In 2011, CBO estimated that mandatory outlays in the conservation
title would cost about $5 billion annually from 2010 through 2012.

Title III: Trade. This title includes provisions related to international food
assistance and trade. The 2008 Farm Bill reauthorizes the Food for
Peace Act, which includes provisions for the largest U.S. international
food assistance program, administered by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID). 6 In addition, the 2008 Farm Bill
reauthorizes smaller food assistance programs, including Food for
Progress, the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, and the McGovern-Dole
International School Feeding and Child Nutrition Program, all
administered by USDA. The farm bill also adds a small pilot program that
supports local and regional procurement of food assistance.

This title includes such trade provisions as export credit guarantees and
export market development. Export credit guarantees ensure payments to
U.S. financial institutions when foreign buyers finance their purchases of
U.S. agricultural exports. Export market development programs promote
the sale of U.S. agricultural exports overseas by supporting such activities
as market research and consumer promotions. In 2011, CBO estimated
that mandatory outlays in the trade title would cost about $287 million
annually from 2010 through 2012.

Title IV: Nutrition. This title, which accounts for about two thirds of all
spending mandated in the 2008 Farm Bill, includes programs to support


6
 In addition to reauthorizing the legislation, the 2008 Farm Bill changed the name of the
original authorizing legislation from the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance
Act of 1954, commonly known as Public Law 480, to the Food for Peace Act and deleted
export market development as one of the objectives of the programs.




Page 7                                                  GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 1: Introduction




domestic food and nutrition assistance. The largest of these programs is
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which aims to
help low income individuals and families obtain a better diet by
supplementing their income with benefits to purchase food. School meal
programs are authorized in other laws, but the farm bill includes some
minor provisions related to the programs, such as a pilot project to
purchase whole grains for use in school meals. In 2011, CBO estimated
that major provisions in the nutrition title would cost about $76 billion
annually in mandatory outlays from 2010 through 2012.

Title V: Credit. Under separate legislation, the federal government
provides credit assistance for farmers through two lenders. USDA’s Farm
Service Agency makes loans to farmers who cannot otherwise qualify for
credit and guarantees repayment of loans made by other lenders. In
addition, a government-sponsored lender, the Farm Credit System,
makes loans to creditworthy farmers. The 2008 Farm Bill made minor
changes to the statutes for these two lenders. In 2011, CBO estimated
that the combination of mandatory outlays and income from fees paid by
banks would result in about $245 million in net receipts to the government
annually from 2010 through 2012.

Title VI: Rural Development. This title includes programs that support
rural housing, utilities, and economic development, through loans, grants,
and technical and financial assistance for rural businesses and
infrastructure development. It also sets priorities for expanding broadband
service to underserved areas. In 2011, CBO estimated that mandatory
outlays in the rural development title would cost about $30 million
annually from 2010 through 2012.

Title VII: Research and Related Matters. Under this title, the federal
government provides support for USDA’s research and development
programs, including research on food safety and nutrition, plant and
animal health and production, agricultural economics, renewable energy,
organic agriculture, and bioterrorism. Through these programs, USDA
conducts research directly and provides grants for research conducted in
universities and other institutions. In 2011, CBO estimated that mandatory
outlays in the research and related matters title would cost about $69
million annually from 2010 through 2012.

Title VIII: Forestry. Many federal forestry programs are separately
authorized and do not require reauthorization in the farm bill. However,
some programs and provisions related to forestry—especially on private
lands—are authorized or amended in the farm bill. For example, the 2008


Page 8                                        GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 1: Introduction




Farm Bill directed the Secretary of Agriculture to create a new community
forest and open space conservation program to acquire forests
threatened with conversion for non-forest uses, added national priorities
for funding private forest conservation, required states to develop and
submit statewide assessments of forest resources to receive federal
funding for the conservation of private forests, and amended existing law
to restrict imports of illegally logged wood. In 2011, CBO estimated that
mandatory outlays in the forestry title would cost about $10 million
annually from 2010 through 2012.

Title IX: Energy. Under this title, the federal government provides support
for programs that promote biofuels, biobased products, and ethanol
production. These programs fund activities such as the construction of
biofuel refineries, federal agency procurement of biobased products (e.g.,
corn-based plastics, soybean-based lubricants, and citrus-based
cleaners), energy efficiency improvements, rural energy self sufficiency,
studies on biofuels infrastructure needs, and efforts to encourage the use
of woody biomass for energy production. Woody biomass—which
includes material from trees and woody plants—can be used to generate
energy for heating or cooling buildings, among other things. In 2011, CBO
estimated that mandatory outlays in the energy title would cost about
$358 million annually from 2010 through 2012.

Title X: Horticulture and Organic Agriculture. This title includes provisions
that support state efforts to enhance competitiveness of specialty crops
(i.e., fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and nursery crops including
floriculture), fund farmers’ markets, help farmers with organic certification
costs, and call for data collection on organic agriculture, among other
things. In 2011, CBO estimated that mandatory outlays in the horticulture
and organic agriculture title would cost about $102 million annually from
2010 through 2012.

Title XI: Livestock. Farm bills traditionally have not included price and
income support programs for most animal agriculture (except dairy) as
they have for major crops. The 2008 Farm Bill, however, introduced a
new livestock title that modifies laws and requirements related to
livestock, meat, poultry, and catfish. For example, it calls for enhancing
electronic reporting of data on livestock markets, addresses concerns
about livestock disease prevention and food safety, extends mandatory
safety inspections to catfish, and allows some interstate sales of state-
inspected meat and poultry. According to CBO, there are no mandatory
outlays in the livestock title from 2010 through 2012.



Page 9                                           GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 1: Introduction




Title XII: Crop Insurance and Disaster Assistance Programs. The federal
crop insurance program does not require reauthorization in the farm bill,
but the 2008 Farm Bill modified the program, which subsidizes the cost of
farmers’ premiums and pays an allowance to insurance companies to
cover the administrative and operating expenses of selling and servicing
crop insurance policies, among other things. The farm bill also provided
support for disaster assistance programs in this title and in Title XV, the
trade and tax provisions title. In 2011, CBO estimated that mandatory
outlays in the crop insurance and disaster assistance programs title—as
well as outlays for the disaster assistance program in the trade and tax
provisions title—would cost about $7 billion annually from 2010 through
2012.

Title XIII: Commodity Futures. This title reauthorizes funding for the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, an independent regulatory
agency, and further amends the Commodity Exchange Act. According to
CBO, there are no mandatory outlays in the commodity futures title.

Title XIV: Miscellaneous. The miscellaneous title includes provisions
affecting research, rural development, biosecurity, animal welfare, and
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, among other issues. In
2011, CBO estimated that mandatory outlays in the miscellaneous title
would cost about $53 million annually from 2010 through 2012.

Title XV: Trade and Tax Provisions. This title creates a new disaster
assistance program—Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program
(SURE)—to compensate farmers for certain disaster-related losses,
including those not covered by crop insurance. It also introduces
numerous revenue and tax provisions affecting customs fees,
conservation, and commodity program payments. According to CBO, the
only mandatory outlays in the trade and tax provisions title are those for
the SURE program, which CBO included in its estimates for the crop
insurance and disaster assistance programs title.




Page 10                                        GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 2: Commodity Programs
                        Section 2: Commodity Programs




                        Commodity programs help protect farmers against risks such as declines
                        in crop prices and support farm income.

                        The federal government spent over $6 billion on farm program payments
                        to farmers in 2010. These payments go to both individuals and “entities,”
                        including corporations, partnerships, and estates. Some of these
                        payments are tied to revenue or market changes—for example, payments
                        may compensate farmers when crop prices go below a certain
                        threshold—while others, called direct payments, are fixed annual
                        payments based on farms’ historic production. For each type of payment,
                        statutory provisions define which farmers are eligible to receive payments
                        and may limit the amount each farmer or entity can receive. For example,
                        farmers whose incomes exceed statutorily defined caps are not eligible to
                        receive payments. Nearly all of the farm policy proposals released in
                        2011 either reduce or eliminate direct payments.

                        The following are our key findings and applicable principles:


                        The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
Reducing or             Farm Bill concerning direct payments:
Terminating Direct
                            Farmers receive direct payments—fixed annual payments that are not
Payments Could          •
                            influenced by risk factors such as market forces—even in years of
Better Target Program       record income; recipients of farm program payments have higher
                            incomes, on average, than other tax filers. Direct payments are
Benefits and Save Tax       concentrated among the largest recipients because these payments
Dollars                     are tied to land and paid on a per-acre basis (GAO-11-318SP).

                        •   Direct payments were expected to be transitional when they were
                            originally authorized in the 1996 Farm Bill, but subsequent farm bills
                            have continued them. Proponents say they help the United States
                            meet its commitments under international trade agreements, which
                            set ceilings on government payments classified as trade-distorting.
                            Unlike other farm program payments, direct payments are not tied to
                            production levels or market prices, and are deemed to not distort
                            international agricultural markets. The United States has classified
                            direct payments as meeting related World Trade Organization rules.
                            As a result, other farm program payments can be provided with a
                            reduced risk of exceeding the ceilings. However, according to
                            economists, this advantage has become less relevant recently
                            because high crop prices, which are expected to continue through the




                        Page 11                                        GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                         Section 2: Commodity Programs




                             foreseeable future, have kept farm program payments well below the
                             ceiling on trade-distorting payments (GAO-11-318SP).

                         •   Direct payments may compound challenges for beginning farmers.
                             According to USDA studies, these and other farm payments result in
                             higher prices to buy or rent land because in some cases the payments
                             go directly to landowners—resulting in higher land value—and in other
                             cases the payments go to tenants, prompting landlords to raise rents.
                             In recent years, this effect has been most pronounced for direct
                             payments because crop prices have not fallen below the threshold
                             needed to trigger the other payments at significant levels. In 2010,
                             direct payments accounted for about $5 billion and all other farm
                             payments combined accounted for about $1 billion (GAO-11-318SP).

                         •   Phasing out or terminating direct payments could result in savings of
                             up to $5 billion per year (GAO-11-318SP).


                         The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
USDA Has Increased       Farm Bill concerning improper payments in farm programs:
Oversight to Reduce
                             USDA paid nearly $50 million from 2003 through 2006 in farm
Potential Improper       •
                             program payments to thousands of individuals whose incomes
Payments, but                exceeded the eligibility cap at that time—$2.5 million, making them
                             potentially ineligible for farm program payments. These payments
Continued Vigilance Is       occurred primarily because USDA did not have management controls,
Needed                       such as reviews of an appropriate sample of recipients’ tax returns, to
                             verify that payments were going only to individuals who did not
                             exceed the income eligibility caps (GAO-09-67). According to agency
                             officials, in July 2009, USDA implemented management controls to
                             address this issue. Consideration of individuals whose incomes
                             exceed the eligibility limit continues to be an important issue as
                             Congress designs the next farm bill.

                         •   USDA paid $1.1 billion in farm program payments in the names of
                             over 170,000 deceased farmers from 1999 through 2005. USDA
                             regulations allow estates that meet certain conditions to receive
                             payments after a farmer dies, but USDA did not determine whether
                             the estates met those conditions. In addition, USDA relied on the heirs
                             to an estate to inform USDA about whether a farmer receiving a
                             payment was deceased. USDA could not be assured that millions of
                             dollars in farm payments were proper because it did not have
                             management controls to verify the status of individuals receiving
                             payments (GAO-07-818). According to USDA officials, since 2007,


                         Page 12                                        GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 2: Commodity Programs




    they have been conducting data-matching tests with Social Security
    Administration records to verify that payment recipients are alive, and
    if they determine that a payment was inappropriate, they attempt to
    recover it. The agency did not, however, take steps to determine if it
    made improper payments before 2007 and if so, to recover the
    appropriate amounts.

•   USDA made farm program payments to hundreds of individuals who
    may have had only limited involvement in farming because it lacked
    management controls to verify that payments went only to individuals
    who met eligibility requirements to be “actively engaged in farming.”
    To meet this eligibility standard, an individual or entity must provide a
    significant contribution of inputs of capital, land, or equipment, as well
    as a significant contribution of services of personal labor or active
    personal management to the farming operation (GAO-04-407). USDA
    has since implemented some management controls to ensure that
    individuals meet the active-engagement-in-farming standard, but it still
    has not defined a measurable standard of what constitutes a
    significant contribution of active personal management. Doing so
    could help the agency ensure that individuals receiving farm program
    payments are not simply getting paid for allowing their name to be
    used on a farming operation document.




Page 13                                         GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 3: Conservation
              Section 3: Conservation




              A strong U.S. agricultural sector benefits the economy and the health of
              the nation, but if improperly managed, agricultural production can lead to
              the degradation of natural resources. For example, every year, more than
              a billion tons of soil erode from the nation’s cropland, and thousands of
              other acres, including wetlands, are converted into new cropland.
              Because farmers and ranchers own and manage about 940 million acres,
              or about half of the continental United States’ land area, they are among
              the most important stewards of our soil, water, and wildlife habitat.

              To address the potential for the degradation of natural resources, Congress
              has authorized over 20 agricultural conservation programs in farm bills and
              in other legislation. These programs aim, among other things, to reduce soil
              erosion, enhance water quality and supplies, and improve wildlife habitat.
              To support these goals, USDA provides financial and technical assistance
              for farmers to adopt specific conservation practices.

              Some conservation programs pay farmers to remove land from
              agricultural production to achieve environmental benefits. The largest of
              these programs, the Conservation Reserve Program, reimburses farmers
              for removing land from production for at least 10 years at a time. The
              Grassland Reserve Program pays farmers to maintain or restore
              grasslands, which help to maintain and improve water quality. However,
              grasslands are often converted to cropland by farmers (particularly in the
              northern plains) to garner the benefits of agricultural production. Another
              conservation program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
              (EQIP), is intended to promote agricultural production, forest
              management, and environmental quality as compatible goals by, among
              other things, encouraging producers to use management practices that
              support environmental goals. Conservation programs also pay farmers to
              control pollution generated by concentrated animal-feeding operations
              (CAFO)—large operations that raise livestock and poultry in a confined
              situation. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for
              regulating air and water pollutants, including those from CAFOs, and
              requires CAFOs that discharge certain pollutants to obtain a permit.

              Another conservation program aims to restore soil, air, and related resources
              in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, where agricultural runoff is the single
              largest source of pollutants, according to EPA. In 2009, the President issued
              an executive order establishing the Federal Leadership Committee to
              oversee the development and coordination of federal restoration programs
              and activities and called for the development of a strategy to protect and
              restore the bay. The Federal Leadership Committee—chaired by the EPA
              Administrator, and including senior representatives from USDA and the


              Page 14                                         GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                        Section 3: Conservation




                        departments of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, the Interior, and
                        Transportation—issued the Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the
                        Chesapeake Bay Watershed (Strategy) in May 2010.

                        Figure 1 shows one conservation practice—strip cropping—that is used in
                        some conservation programs to reduce soil erosion. Strip cropping
                        involves the precise arrangement of alternating strips in a field. The crops
                        are arranged so that all strips of grass or close-growing crops are
                        alternated with a clean-tilled strip or a strip with less protective cover.

                        Figure 1: Strip Cropping to Reduce Soil Erosion




                        Note: Strip cropping means growing row crops, forages, or small grains in equal-width strips.


                        The following are our key findings and applicable principles:

                        The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
USDA Should Ensure      Farm Bill concerning farm and conservation programs:
Farm and
                             Some farm and conservation programs may work at cross-purposes,
Conservation            •
                             undermining the effectiveness of a conservation program. Specifically,
Programs Do Not              some farmers choose to maintain grassland or convert cropland to
                             grassland, but others do the opposite—convert grassland to
Work at Cross                cropland—and in both scenarios, farmers may receive federal
Purposes or Duplicate        payments under the statutes. For example, according to USDA, from
                             1997 through 2007, roughly 1.57-million acres of cropland in the
Efforts                      Northern Plains region were converted to grassland, and during the
                             same period about 2.22-million acres of grassland were converted to
                             cropland in the region. This conversion to cropland in the region
                             accounted for about 57 percent of total grassland-to-cropland
                             conversions nationwide during the period (GAO-07-1054). In 2011,
                             USDA issued a bulletin describing new eligibility requirements for



                        Page 15                                                        GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                       Section 3: Conservation




                           participating in the federal crop insurance program when croplands
                           have recently been converted from grasslands. GAO believes that this
                           guidance will help prevent the conversion of grassland to cropland.

                       •   Farm program payments are a major factor in farmers’ decisions to
                           convert native grassland to cropland, according to our analysis and
                           other economic studies. Farm program payments continue to be
                           relevant because they reduce farmers’ financial risks and, in many
                           cases, increase their profits over maintaining grassland. We also
                           recognized that other factors, such as high crop prices, may also
                           influence farmers’ decisions on whether to keep their land as
                           grassland or convert it to cropland (GAO-07-1054). We recommended
                           that USDA study and report on the issue of conversions of grassland
                           to cropland, and it did so in 2011. USDA’s study included an analysis
                           of the role of farm programs in farmers’ decisions to convert
                           grasslands to cropland. Conversion of native grassland to cropland
                           remains a concern as Congress designs the next farm bill.

                       •   Some of USDA’s conservation programs have duplicative program
                           goals and overlapping eligibility requirements, which can make certain
                           conservation practices eligible for payments under multiple programs.
                           To reduce the potential for duplicate payments, Congress and USDA
                           have instituted legislative and regulatory measures, but we found that
                           some duplicate payments were still made (GAO-06-312). In March
                           2009, USDA officials told us they had developed a process to
                           preclude such payments from being made, but the broader issue of
                           overlapping program goals remains.


                       The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
Procedures for         Farm Bill concerning conservation goals:
Allocating Funds and
                           In 2006, USDA’s formula for allocating funds to states under EQIP
Enforcing Compliance   •
                           was not clearly linked to the program’s goal of optimizing
Could Be Improved to       environmental benefits. Specifically, because the department did not
                           have a documented rationale for including each of the factors and
Better Promote             weights used in the formula, it was not clear whether the program was
Conservation               effectively targeting states with the most significant environmental
                           concerns arising from agricultural production. For example, the
Program Goals              formula uses a factor to address the waste management costs of
                           small-animal-feeding operations but not such costs for large-animal-
                           feeding operations, which can also damage the environment and
                           might be more prevalent in some states than others (GAO-06-969).
                           Beginning with its fiscal year 2009 funding allocations, USDA modified


                       Page 16                                       GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                    Section 3: Conservation




                        some elements in the formula and documented its rationale for all of
                        the elements, and these actions addressed our recommendation.

                    •   USDA developed long-term, outcome-oriented performance measures
                        for the EQIP program but does not use performance assessment
                        results to inform revisions to the funding allocation formula. Doing so
                        could help ensure that funds continue to be directed to the highest
                        priority areas, even as conditions change (GAO-06-969). In January
                        2012, USDA officials told us they had taken steps to incorporate
                        performance considerations into EQIP funding allocation decisions. We
                        are currently evaluating whether the changes address our concerns.

                    •   According to our nationwide survey, almost half of USDA’s field offices
                        did not implement farm-bill conservation compliance provisions as
                        required, in part because the offices reported that they were
                        uncomfortable with their enforcement role. Some field office staff said it
                        was difficult to cite farmers for noncompliance in the small communities
                        where the staff and farmers both live and work. Furthermore, their
                        noncompliance decisions were waived about 61 percent of the time,
                        and the waiver decisions were not always adequately justified,
                        providing further disincentive for issuing noncompliance decisions
                        (GAO-03-418). In response to our recommendation, USDA took some
                        steps from 2003 through 2007 to improve field offices’ implementation
                        of the compliance review process, but some environmentalists have
                        recently questioned whether the agency is adequately enforcing
                        conservation compliance. The agency has not changed its process for
                        justifying waiver determinations.


                    The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
Agencies Need to    Farm Bill concerning agricultural runoff and other pollutants:
More Effectively
                        In 2010, the Federal Leadership Committee issued a strategy for
Address Potential   •
                        restoring the Chesapeake Bay, which has been in decline primarily
Impacts Resulting       because excess nutrients enter the bay from agricultural runoff and
                        other sources, such as population growth and development. However,
from Agricultural       the strategy’s goals and actions may not be achieved, in part because
Runoff and Other        not all bay restoration stakeholders are working toward the same
                        goals. State officials told us that they are not working toward the
Sources                 Strategy’s goals, in part because they view the Strategy as a federal
                        document. Instead, most state bay restoration work is conducted
                        according to state commitments made in a previous bay restoration
                        agreement. The Strategy and the previous agreement goals are
                        somewhat similar, but they also differ. For example, both call for


                    Page 17                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 3: Conservation




    managing fish species, but the Strategy identifies brook trout as a key
    species for restoration and the previous agreement does not. The
    likelihood of achieving the goals is further reduced because the
    federal agencies do not plan to identify milestones for the entire
    restoration effort outlined in the committee’s strategy. Instead, the
    agencies plan to create 2-year milestones for measuring progress
    made toward the Strategy’s goals, with the first milestone covering
    2012 and 2013. Without either aligning the goals of all watershed
    stakeholders or creating milestones for the entire effort, the federal
    agencies and states may not be able to gauge whether actions are
    leading to progress in achieving program goals (GAO-11-802).

•   CAFOs have improved the efficiency of animal production, but the
    large amounts of manure they produce—sometimes over 1-million
    tons per year—can potentially pollute the air and water, and EPA has
    not assessed any resulting impacts to human health and the
    environment because it lacks key data. Specifically, EPA does not
    have data on the amount of pollutants that CAFOs are discharging,
    and even more fundamentally, on the number, location, and size of
    the operations to which it issues permits for discharging pollutants
    (GAO-08-944). In October 2011, EPA proposed a regulation to collect
    facility-specific information for a national inventory of CAFOs. In
    addition, by June 2012, the agency plans to develop methodologies to
    estimate the amount of air pollutants emitted by CAFOs. Once EPA’s
    planned actions are completed, we will assess whether they address
    our concerns.




Page 18                                        GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 4: Trade
               Section 4: Trade




               In 2010, the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization estimated
               that a total of 925 million people worldwide are undernourished. The food
               and fuel crisis of 2006—2008 and the current global economic downturn
               exacerbated food insecurity in many developing countries and sparked
               food protests and riots in dozens of them. The United States provided
               nearly $2.3 billion to provide a total of 2.5-million metric tons of food aid
               commodities to food-insecure countries in fiscal year 2010. This amount
               accounted for about half of all global food aid supplies, making the United
               States the single largest donor of food aid.

               U.S. international food assistance is delivered through multiple programs,
               some of which were authorized or amended in farm bills. The programs,
               administered mainly by the U.S. Agency for International Development
               (USAID) and USDA, serve a range of objectives, including improving food
               security and supporting economic development. For example, the 2008
               Farm Bill authorized $2.5 billion annually for USAID’s Food for Peace
               program, which provides U.S. agricultural commodities to developing
               countries to help meet certain emergency and nonemergency food needs.
               A portion of these commodities—worth more than $300 million in 2010—
               are sold to generate funds for economic development activities, a practice
               known as monetization. Monetization originated when the U.S.
               government owned a surplus of agricultural commodities, but the United
               States now purchases commodities from the commercial market and
               ships them abroad, where partners sell them in another market to
               generate cash to fund development activities. USAID and USDA are
               required to ensure that monetization transactions do not have adverse
               market impacts—such as displacing commercial trade and discouraging
               local food production—in recipient countries. To help avoid such impacts,
               the agencies and their implementing partners conduct market
               assessments that recommend the maximum volume of commodities that
               can be monetized without displacing commercial trade or creating
               disincentives for local food production.

               The 2008 Farm Bill also reauthorized an international school feeding
               program; authorized up to $22 million annually to USAID to improve,
               monitor, and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of nonemergency
               food assistance programs; and created a small pilot program for local or
               regional purchase and distribution of food assistance, which some
               experts say enables beneficiaries to receive food more quickly and cost
               effectively.

               Even with a 1996 pledge by the United States and more than 180 world
               leaders to halve the number of undernourished people in the world by


               Page 19                                         GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                         Section 4: Trade




                         2015, efforts by host governments and donors to achieve this goal have
                         thus far been insufficient. In 2008, we reported that meeting this goal in
                         sub-Saharan Africa (the region with the highest prevalence of food
                         insecurity) was increasingly unlikely and that the United States’ lack of a
                         comprehensive strategy may have led to missed opportunities to leverage
                         expertise and minimize overlap and duplication (GAO-08-680). Consistent
                         with our recommendation, the administration issued a governmentwide
                         global food security strategy in May 2010.

                         The following are our key findings and applicable principles:


                         The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
U.S. Agencies Should     Farm Bill concerning global food security:
Take Steps to Mitigate
                             In 2010, 10 U.S. agencies supported a wide variety of programs and
Risks Associated with    •
                             activities for global food security, 1 but the agencies lacked a common
Implementing the             data system to effectively implement the governmentwide global food
                             security strategy, which was issued in May 2010. Such a data system
Governmentwide               would include a commonly accepted definition of global food security
Global Food Security         programs and activities so that agencies could track expenditures and
                             activities related to global food security (GAO-10-352). Without a
Strategy                     common data system, the United States may be less able to oversee
                             the effective implementation of the new strategy.

                         •   The governmentwide global food security strategy is vulnerable to
                             risks associated with the strategy’s host government-led approach.
                             Specifically, host governments generally have weak capacity, which
                             can limit their ability to increase spending for agriculture, absorb
                             significant increases in donor funding, and sustain donor-funded
                             efforts over time. U.S. agencies may also be constrained in their
                             efforts to strengthen the host government’s capacity because these
                             agencies have a shortage of expertise in agriculture and food security.
                             Also, differences in policy priorities between donors, including the
                             United States and host governments, could further complicate efforts
                             to align donor assistance with host government strategies and hence



                         1
                          These 10 U.S. agencies are USAID, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Department of
                         the Treasury, USDA; the Department of State, the Department of Defense, U.S. Trade
                         and Development Agency, Peace Corps, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and
                         Office of Management and Budget.




                         Page 20                                             GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                      Section 4: Trade




                          potentially reduce the effectiveness of the new strategy
                          (GAO-10-352). According to agency officials, they are taking steps to
                          mitigate these risks, and we are continuing to monitor their efforts.


                      The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
The Efficiency of     Farm Bill concerning the efficiency of international food assistance
International Food    programs:
Assistance Programs   •   Inefficiencies in the monetization process—selling food assistance
Can Be Improved           commodities to generate funds for economic development—reduced
                          funding available to the U.S. government and its implementing
                          partners for development projects by $219 million over 3 years (2008
                          through 2010 for USAID and 2007 through 2009 for USDA). The
                          process of using cash to procure, ship, and sell commodities resulted
                          in $503 million available for development projects out of the $722
                          million expended. Proceeds generated through monetization are less
                          than what the U.S. government spends to buy and ship the
                          commodities; as a result, the U.S. government does not fully recover
                          its costs. USAID’s average cost recovery, the ratio between the
                          proceeds from sales and the cost of procuring and shipping the
                          commodities, was 76 percent, while USDA’s was 58 percent
                          (GAO-11-636).

                      •   Local or regional purchase of food in host countries can save money
                          and delivery time in emergency situations, and as a result, it can be
                          more cost-effective than in-kind food aid from the United States.
                          However, concerns persist about the quality of the food and
                          adherence to certain product specifications, raising questions about
                          the program’s effectiveness in ensuring food safety and nutritional
                          content (GAO-09-570). In response to our recommendation, USAID
                          and USDA have efforts under way to improve guidance for local or
                          regional purchases that include commodity quality standards and to
                          collect evidence on adherence to these standards.

                      •   Food aid transportation and other delivery costs are requiring a larger
                          share of program resources at the expense of procuring more food to
                          feed hungry people, according to USAID officials (GAO-09-977SP). In
                          2007, we reported that despite growing demand for food aid, rising
                          business and transportation costs contributed to a 52 percent decline
                          in average tonnage delivered over a 5-year period—reducing the cost-
                          effectiveness of the program (GAO-07-560). One factor contributing to
                          high transportation costs is cargo preference laws that require 75
                          percent of food aid to be shipped on U.S.-flag carriers, which are


                      Page 21                                       GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                         Section 4: Trade




                             generally more expensive than foreign-flag carriers. From fiscal years
                             2008 through 2010, cargo preference potentially cost the
                             nonemergency food aid programs approximately $30 million
                             (GAO-11-636).


                         The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
Better Practices Offer   Farm Bill concerning the effectiveness of international food assistance
Opportunities to         programs:
Enhance the              •   USAID and USDA cannot ensure that monetization will avoid adverse
Effectiveness of             market impacts—such as discouraging local food production and
                             displacing commercial trade—in part because the market
International Food           assessments the agencies conduct are weak and in part because the
Assistance                   agencies do not assess the effects of monetization. Without better
                             assessments, the agencies lack important information, including
                             whether selling U.S. food causes the prices of similar foods in the host
                             country to be depressed and creates disincentives for local producers,
                             which could work against the agricultural development goals for which
                             the funding was originally provided (GAO-11-636).

                         •   Food rations designed for short-term emergencies are often used to
                             address long-term food insecurity, but such rations do not always
                             meet the nutritional needs of recipients if they rely solely on food aid.
                             On the contrary, recipients can develop serious micronutrient
                             deficiencies under these circumstances. For example, epidemics of
                             scurvy (a severe vitamin C deficiency) have broken out among food
                             aid beneficiaries who totally depended on food aid. Nevertheless,
                             more than half of Food for Peace emergency funding was spent on
                             multiyear programs, highlighting the need for guidance on how to
                             address nutritional deficiencies that emerge during protracted
                             emergencies (GAO-11-491).

                         •   Newly developed specialized foods have the potential to better meet
                             the nutritional needs of vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women
                             and young children, but these foods are difficult to target to the
                             intended recipients and more costly than conventional food aid, and
                             their efficacy is still being tested. Because of the high costs combined
                             with the lack of information, U.S. agencies face challenges with the
                             trade-off between reaching more beneficiaries and increasing
                             effectiveness at achieving nutritional outcomes for targeted groups
                             (GAO-11-491).




                         Page 22                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 4: Trade




•   U.S. agencies and their implementing partners face difficulties
    targeting foods to the appropriate groups or individuals because (1)
    needs assessments only provide some of the required information
    and therefore are not always useful and (2) targeting can be
    undermined at the recipient level by the cultural practice of sharing
    among or within households. For example, in a household with one
    qualifying family member—defined as a child under 5 or a pregnant or
    lactating woman—the head of household said the specialized food is
    shared with the whole family, especially elderly members and the
    male head of household, who needs extra energy to work in the field
    (GAO-11-491).

•   USAID’s actions to improve its monitoring and evaluation of
    nonemergency food aid programs could be hindered by weak
    planning. Monitoring is essential to ensuring that these programs are
    implemented as intended, and evaluation helps ensure that they
    achieve their goal of reducing global food insecurity (GAO-09-980).
    Also, USDA provides weak performance monitoring of its international
    school feeding program, making it difficult to assess any progress
    made toward the program’s objectives of education, nutrition, and
    sustainability. For example, the department’s guidance does not have
    performance indicators to directly measure nutritional progress.
    Furthermore, USDA has not evaluated completed projects associated
    with this program, but according to agency officials, it is taking steps
    to do so. Specifically, for multiyear projects that began in 2010 or
    later, USDA now requires completed projects to be evaluated; the
    agency expects the first round of these evaluations to be issued in
    2014 (GAO-11-544).




Page 23                                        GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 5: Nutrition
               Section 5: Nutrition




               The federal government spends billions of dollars every year on food and
               nutrition assistance programs, and millions of Americans turn to these
               federal programs when they lack the money to get enough to eat. The
               recent economic crisis has increased the number of people who are
               eligible for such assistance, with participation in the largest food
               assistance program—the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
               (SNAP)—increasing by 33 percent between 2009 and 2011.

               A complex network of 18 food assistance programs emerged piecemeal
               over the past several decades, through multiple pieces of legislation,
               including farm bills, to meet various needs. 1 For example, SNAP was
               reauthorized in the 2008 Farm Bill and provided more than $70 billion in
               benefits to low income individuals and households in 2011. 2

               USDA and the states jointly administer SNAP; USDA pays the full cost of
               benefits and seeks to ensure that states administer the program in
               compliance with program rules; the states determine whether households
               are eligible and issue benefits to participants through electronic debit
               cards. Participants use the cards to purchase food in authorized retail
               stores. However, every year, SNAP participants exchange hundreds of
               millions of dollars in benefits for cash instead of food with authorized
               retailers across the country, a practice known as trafficking. In a typical
               trafficking situation, a retailer gives a SNAP participant a discounted
               amount of cash—commonly 50 cents on the dollar—in exchange for
               SNAP benefits and pockets the difference. In addition, benefits are paid
               incorrectly each year when, for example, ineligible individuals receive
               benefits or eligible individuals are paid more or less than they are entitled
               to receive. In 2010, these payment errors—including overpayments and
               underpayments—amounted to more than $2 billion.




               1
                The federal government currently funds close to 70 programs that are permitted to
               provide at least some support for domestic food assistance. Eighteen of these programs
               focus primarily on providing food and nutrition assistance to low income individuals and
               households.
               2
                In October 1, 2008, a provision in the farm bill changed the name of the Food Stamp
               Program to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In this report, we
               discuss information related to both the Food Stamp Program and SNAP; however, for
               simplicity, we generally refer to both programs as SNAP.




               Page 24                                                 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                      Section 5: Nutrition




                      The following are our key findings and applicable principles:


                      The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
Agencies Need to      Farm Bill concerning potential overlap among domestic food and nutrition
Reduce                assistance programs:
Administrative        •   Domestic food and nutrition assistance is provided through a
Overlap among             decentralized system of primarily 18 different federal programs that
                          show signs of overlap and inefficient use of resources. For example,
Domestic Food             applicants seeking assistance from multiple programs are often
Assistance Programs       required to submit separate applications for each program and
                          provide similar information verifying, for example, household income.
                          By targeting various needs, the 18 food assistance programs help
                          increase access to food for vulnerable populations, according to
                          agency officials, but overlapping requirements can create
                          unnecessary work for both providers and applicants and may result in
                          the use of more administrative resources than needed. Simplifying,
                          streamlining, or better aligning eligibility procedures and criteria
                          across programs could result in sizable administrative cost savings,
                          but such actions would need to be balanced against the goal of
                          ensuring access to benefits for eligible individuals (GAO-10-346 and
                          GAO-11-318SP).

                      •   Not enough is known about the effectiveness of many of the domestic
                          food and nutrition assistance programs. Research suggests that
                          participation in 7 of the 18 programs—including 4 of the largest—is
                          associated with positive health and nutrition outcomes consistent with
                          program goals, such as raising the level of nutrition among low-
                          income households. Yet, little is known about the effectiveness of the
                          remaining 11 smaller programs because they have not been well
                          studied. Without such information, it is difficult to determine whether
                          these programs are filling an important gap or unnecessarily
                          duplicating functions and services of other programs (GAO-10-346
                          and GAO-11-318SP).




                      Page 25                                        GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                     Section 5: Nutrition




                     The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
USDA Could Benefit   Farm Bill concerning the integrity of the Supplemental Nutrition
from Increased       Assistance Program (SNAP):
Attention to Food    •   The national rate of SNAP trafficking declined from about 3.8 cents per
Program Integrity        dollar of benefits redeemed in 1993 to about 1.0 cent per dollar from
                         2006 through 2008. However, even at that lower rate, USDA estimates
                         that about $330 million in SNAP benefits were trafficked annually in
                         those 3 years because of program vulnerabilities, including limited
                         oversight. For example, USDA authorizes some stores that have only
                         limited food supplies to ensure access to food for some participants but
                         may not inspect these stores again for 5 years after their initial
                         authorization. Also, some states actively pursue and disqualify
                         recipients who traffic their benefits while inaction by other states allows
                         recipients suspected of trafficking to continue the practice
                         (GAO-10-956T and GAO-07-53). The 2008 Farm Bill expanded
                         USDA’s authority to impose higher financial penalties for trafficking. In
                         February 2012, USDA announced that it would soon publish a
                         proposed rule strengthening penalties for retailers who commit fraud.
                         According to USDA officials, the agency also made changes to its
                         authorization process for some stores and now inspects higher-risk
                         stores more frequently—some as often as once a year.

                     •   The national payment error rate—the percentage of SNAP benefit
                         dollars overpaid or underpaid to program participants—declined by
                         about 57 percent from 2000 to 2010, from 8.91 percent to 3.81
                         percent, according to USDA. This reduction occurred in a time of
                         increasing participation and is due, in part, to steps taken by USDA
                         and states to reduce improper payments, such as increasing oversight
                         and providing financial incentives and penalties based on
                         performance. Despite this progress, the amount of benefits paid in
                         error is substantial. The 3.8 percent error rate in 2010 totaled about
                         $2.5 billion and necessitates continued top-level attention and
                         commitment to determining the causes of improper payments and
                         taking corrective actions to reduce them (GAO-10-956T).




                     Page 26                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 6: Rural Development
              Section 6: Rural Development




              The federal government has provided assistance to eligible residents of
              rural America since the 1930s, when most of these residents worked on
              farms, and rural residents were generally poorer than urban residents.
              Such assistance is still available for these residents; however, the rural
              America of today is different from the rural America of the 1930s, and the
              distinctions between rural and urban life have blurred. For example,
              universal access to the Internet via broadband technologies—commonly
              referred to as broadband Internet access—is now considered a critical
              economic engine and a central component of 21st-century news and
              entertainment in rural as well as urban areas.

              Multiple federal agencies—such as the Department of Commerce, the Small
              Business Administration (SBA), the Department of Housing and Urban
              Development (HUD), and USDA—administer economic development
              programs. Some economic development programs are targeted to rural
              areas and were addressed in the 2008 Farm Bill. USDA’s rural development
              programs address the diverse and unique needs of rural America through
              loans, loan guarantees, and grants for public facilities and services, such as
              electricity and water systems. In addition, over 80 economic development
              programs, which sometimes target benefits to rural areas, support nine
              separate economic development activities, such as entrepreneurial efforts,
              infrastructure, and telecommunications.

              The 2008 Farm Bill extended funding for some rural and economic
              development activities, such as water sanitation and wastewater projects.
              It also broadened eligibility for the farm labor housing program, clarified
              eligibility for rural utility loans, and authorized loans and loan guarantees
              for improving access to broadband services in rural areas.




              Page 27                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                        Section 6: Rural Development




                        The following are our key findings and applicable principles:


                        The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
Agencies Need to        Farm Bill concerning potential overlap or fragmentation of economic
Take Steps to Avoid     development programs:
Duplication, Overlap,   •   Each of over 80 economic development programs overlaps with at
and Fragmentation in        least one other program. To address the potential for problems that
                            can result from overlap and fragmentation, we have identified
Economic                    collaborative practices agencies should consider. These practices
Development                 include defining and articulating common outcomes for some of their
                            related programs. USDA, the Department of Commerce, HUD, and
Programs                    SBA appear to have implemented some of these collaborative
                            practices, but do not appear to have developed compatible policies or
                            procedures, or identified opportunities to leverage resources with their
                            federal partners, mainly because there are few incentives to
                            collaborate and insufficient guidance on effective collaboration. For
                            example, 52 different programs fund “entrepreneurial efforts,” but any
                            collaboration among the programs that we assessed occurred only on
                            a case-by-case basis. Without finding ways to collaborate more,
                            agencies may miss opportunities to leverage each other’s strengths to
                            more effectively promote economic development and use taxpayer
                            dollars efficiently (GAO-11-318SP). Recently, three of the four
                            agencies have taken initial steps to implement at least one of the
                            collaborative practices, but they have provided limited evidence that
                            they have taken steps to develop compatible policies or procedures
                            (GAO-12-453SP).

                        •   Agencies do not have key information on program outcomes,
                            information that they need to determine whether potential overlap and
                            fragmentation is resulting in ineffective or inefficient programs. For
                            example, USDA officials stated that they have taken steps to ensure
                            that the agency has data to measure the accomplishments of one of
                            its largest rural development programs—the Business and Industry
                            loan program—which was funded at approximately $53 million in
                            fiscal year 2010, but it is unclear whether these data will provide the
                            information needed to determine potential overlap. Without quality
                            data, agencies may not be able to efficiently manage their programs,
                            and Congress and others may not have information to help them
                            identify opportunities for consolidating or eliminating some programs
                            (GAO-11-318SP).




                        Page 28                                        GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                        Section 6: Rural Development




                        •   Up to seven different federal agencies—including USDA and EPA—
                            administer programs to improve access to safe drinking water and
                            sanitation systems in the U.S.-Mexico border region, but their efforts
                            have been ineffective, in part, because they have not developed
                            coordinated policies and procedures. For example, EPA and USDA
                            each provided funds to develop separate designs for a wastewater
                            project serving the same community. When the community selected
                            the USDA design, the need for the EPA design was eliminated,
                            resulting in a waste of those federal funds. In another example, the
                            lack of coordination among agencies resulted in a $900,000
                            investment of federal funds for pipes to distribute water, but these
                            pipes are not usable because the water supply is insufficient
                            (GAO-11-318SP and GAO-10-126).

                        •   The United States has not achieved its goal of universal access to
                            broadband largely because of the low profitability of infrastructure
                            deployment in underserved areas, most of which are rural, according
                            to industry stakeholders. The American Recovery and Reinvestment
                            Act of 2009 authorized $7.2 billion for multiple agencies to increase
                            broadband availability by developing a national broadband plan,
                            mapping nationwide availability, and deploying infrastructure.
                            Because the agencies have overlapping responsibilities that target the
                            same population, it will be important for them to coordinate their
                            efforts, particularly in specifying roles and responsibilities, to prevent
                            duplication or fragmentation of efforts (GAO-09-494). In 2010, the
                            Federal Communications Commission released a national
                            broadband plan.


                        The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
USDA Should             Farm Bill concerning the definition of rural development programs:
Reconsider the
                            USDA used a definition of “rural” to determine eligibility for housing
Definition of “Rural”   •
                            assistance in rural areas, but the use of this definition resulted in
to Ensure                   inconsistent determinations about which areas would receive program
                            funds. For example, in 2004 we reported that the agency used a
Consistency with            public road outside Hagerstown, Maryland, as the dividing line for
Program Purposes            determining eligibility for rural communities, resulting in apparently
                            similar rural areas receiving different designations. In addition,
                            statutory requirements for program eligibility may not reflect changes
                            in rural areas or best determine which areas qualify for USDA housing
                            programs. For example, we found the requirement that rural
                            communities not be part of metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) to be
                            of marginal utility. MSAs, which are defined as counties associated


                        Page 29                                         GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 6: Rural Development




    with a city or urbanized area that has a population of at least 50,000,
    are not intended to be urban-rural classifications and can contain both
    urban and rural areas. We suggested that changes to this
    requirement, such as using density measures rather than the MSA
    criterion, might allow USDA to better differentiate between urban and
    rural areas (GAO-05-110). In addition to our suggested alternative,
    Congress incorporated into the 2008 Farm Bill a requirement that
    USDA report on the various program definitions of “rural.” USDA has
    not yet issued such a report. However, according to agency officials,
    USDA recently provided training to field staff to help address concerns
    about inconsistent eligibility determinations for rural areas.

Figure 2: Road Near Hagerstown, Maryland, That Divides a “Rural” Area” from a
“Nonrural” Area, 2004




•   USDA applied a “once a borrower, always a borrower” standard for
    distributing rural utility loans, which allows borrowers to continuously
    receive USDA assistance regardless of the extent of population
    increases within their service territories. As a result, these loans did
    not always target funds to rural areas where the need is greatest. In
    particular, loans went to recipients that provided utility services in over
    half the counties in the country that were classified as metropolitan,
    and 9.4 percent of all the counties had populations greater than



Page 30                                           GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 6: Rural Development




    1 million. In the immediate vicinity of Atlanta, three cooperatives that
    provide service received a total of over $400 million in rural utility
    loans from 1999 through 2003. Without specifying that criteria apply to
    both initial and subsequent loans, the agency may not be able to
    target funds to rural areas (GAO-04-647). We suggested that
    Congress consider specifying that the program criterion for rural areas
    applies to both an initial loan and any subsequent loans that
    borrowers seek, but it did not follow our suggestion.




Page 31                                        GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 7: Research and Related Matters
              Section 7: Research and Related Matters




              The U.S. agricultural system generates over $1 trillion in economic
              activity annually, and the entry of foreign pests and disease into this
              system can harm the economy, the environment, plant and animal health,
              and public health. USDA estimates that these biological invaders cost the
              American economy tens of billions of dollars annually in lower crop
              values, eradication programs, and emergency payments to farmers.

              In part, to protect agriculture from the threats posed by foreign pests and
              disease, the 2008 Farm Bill provided over $300 million for 5 years to
              USDA for various research projects, according to estimates from the
              Congressional Research Service. 1 In addition, the 2008 Farm Bill
              authorized funding to support biosecurity planning and response in the
              United States, and more specifically, for activities that are to

              •   reduce the vulnerability of the U.S. food and agricultural system to
                  chemical or biological attacks,

              •   continue partnerships with institutions to enhance U.S. biosecurity,

              •   make competitive grants for research on counterbioterrorism, and

              •   counter or otherwise respond to chemical or biological attacks.

              In 2002, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was charged with
              coordinating U.S. federal efforts to, among other things, protect against
              agroterrorism—the deliberate introduction of animal and plant diseases—
              and USDA’s main agricultural inspection mission was subsequently
              transferred to DHS. USDA retains some responsibility for the agricultural
              inspection programs, such as developing and issuing an inspection
              policy. USDA is also responsible for preventing the spread of Avian
              Influenza (AI) in poultry, with DHS taking the lead role in coordinating the
              federal response.

              In 2004, the President issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive-9
              (HSPD-9) to establish a national policy to defend the food and agriculture
              systems against terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies.
              Part of USDA’s efforts to implement HSPD-9 include developing the
              National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS) to help the nation


              1
               Congressional Research Service, Actual Farm Bill Spending and Cost Estimates, (Dec.
              13, 2010)




              Page 32                                              GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                      Section 7: Research and Related Matters




                      recover from high-consequence plant disease outbreaks that could
                      devastate the nation’s productions of economically important crops.

                      Furthermore, various legislation and presidential directives have called for
                      a robust and integrated biosurveillance capability (i.e., the ability to
                      provide early detection and situational awareness of potentially
                      catastrophic biological events).

                      The following are our key findings and applicable principles:


                      The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
Enhanced Oversight    Farm Bill concerning how to defend agriculture:
and Coordination Is
                          There is no centralized coordination effort to oversee the federal
Needed to Protect     •
                          government’s overall progress in implementing the nation’s food and
Agriculture from          agriculture defense policy. Because several agencies have
                          responsibilities outlined in HSPD-9, centralized oversight is important
Terrorist Acts and        to avoid fragmentation and efficiently use scarce funds. For example,
Other Major               the Homeland Security Council previously collected and consolidated
                          information from agencies, such as USDA, EPA, and the Department
Emergencies               of Health and Human Services (HHS), on their efforts to implement
                          their HSPD-9 responsibilities, information that agency officials
                          considered useful. However, this practice stopped in late 2008 or
                          early 2009, according to agency officials. Without coordinated
                          activities to oversee agencies’ HSPD-9 implementation efforts, federal
                          decision makers may not have critical information they need to assess
                          how well the nation is prepared for major emergencies and how
                          efficiently agencies are using federal resources to prepare
                          (GAO-11-652).

                      •   Numerous federal agencies—such as USDA, DHS, and HHS—have
                          biosurveillance responsibilities, and some have developed high-level
                          strategies for their respective biodefense missions, but there is no
                          comprehensive national strategy that integrates all agencies and
                          capabilities. For example, USDA developed a strategy for the National
                          Animal Health Surveillance System to help the agency pursue its own
                          animal health mission, but the strategy is not intended to support an
                          integrated national biosurveillance capability. Similarly, officials in
                          various agencies have taken the lead to fulfill their agencies’
                          biosurveillance missions, but they lack authority to direct other
                          agencies with which they must partner to take specific action. Officials
                          from multiple agencies stated that having a focal point would help



                      Page 33                                        GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                         Section 7: Research and Related Matters




                             coordinate federal efforts to develop a national biosurveillance
                             capability (GAO-10-645). Consideration of a national biosurveillance
                             capability continues to be a challenge.

                         •   USDA’s plans did not include DHS in the lead coordinating role for
                             responding to an outbreak of avian influenza, even though DHS may
                             be required to direct a federal response if the president declared a
                             major disaster. Unless USDA and DHS work diligently together to
                             define and understand roles and responsibilities in advance of a
                             significant outbreak of avian influenza, delay could occur at the
                             federal level as the two agencies attempt to work out their relationship
                             during a time of crisis (GAO-07-652). According to agency officials,
                             DHS and USDA have been working to develop a framework to guide
                             federal-to-federal assistance during agriculture emergencies.

                         •   Poor coordination between DHS and USDA under the Agriculture
                             Quarantine Inspection Program made it difficult for the agencies to
                             perform their duties to effectively protect U.S. agriculture from foreign
                             pests and disease. For example, agency officials responsible for
                             tracing prohibited agricultural items, had difficulty gaining access to
                             ports for inspections in some instances because the agencies did not
                             coordinate in advance. Even though the process for disseminating
                             information is specified in an interagency agreement between DHS
                             and USDA, the poor coordination made the specialists’ assigned
                             activities in the field difficult, if not impossible (GAO-06-644).
                             According to agency officials, USDA and DHS have since taken steps
                             to coordinate at ports of entry.


                         The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
USDA Should              Farm Bill concerning agricultural research programs:
Improve Coordination
                             USDA does not have a documented, systematic process for tracking
with Other Entities to   •
                             research conducted or under way that may fill the gaps identified in
Identify Research            NPDRS recovery plans, which are intended to provide a brief primer
                             on the plant disease discussed and identify research gaps and
Gaps and Avoid               priorities, among other things. For example, the NPDRS recovery plan
Duplication                  for stem rust on wheat—one of the most devastating plant diseases
                             worldwide—states that current data on the disease must be
                             reexamined and identifies 13 specific areas that require updated
                             research. According to USDA officials, they rely on a variety of
                             entities—including agencies within USDA, other federal agencies,
                             state governments, land grant universities, and the private sector—to
                             conduct research on plant diseases that could have high


                         Page 34                                         GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 7: Research and Related Matters




    consequences for the agriculture sector. However, USDA does not
    have a systematic process for tracking research conducted or
    underway that may fill the gaps identified in the NPDRS recovery
    plans. Without a documented, systematic process to monitor the
    extent to which research gaps are filled, USDA may not have the
    critical information needed to help the nation recover from high-
    consequence plant diseases that could devastate the nation’s
    production of economically important crops (GAO-11-652).

•   DHS has the lead responsibility for coordinating research efforts to
    protect against agroterrorism but had no controls to coordinate efforts
    with other agencies such as USDA. For example, some of the DHS-
    supported activities, such as foreign animal disease research, appear
    to duplicate research conducted by USDA. Without the ability to track
    federally funded research efforts, the United States will not have a
    coordinated national approach to protect against agroterrorism,
    possibly resulting in gaps or needless duplication of effort
    (GAO-05-214). According to DHS, an interagency committee now
    ensures that research on foreign animal diseases is coordinated, but
    there is no similar effort for plants.




Page 35                                        GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 8: Energy
              Section 8: Energy




              In recent years, the federal government has increasingly encouraged the
              use of biofuels and other alternatives to petroleum in response to
              concerns over U.S. dependence on imported oil, climate change, and
              other issues. The U.S. transportation sector depends almost entirely on
              petroleum products refined from crude oil—primarily gasoline and diesel
              fuels—and the nation imports a significant portion of the crude oil and
              petroleum products consumed domestically.

              The 2008 Farm Bill authorized a number of programs and tax provisions
              to encourage production, use, and development of biofuels, which can be
              an alternative to petroleum-based transportation fuels and are produced
              from renewable sources, primarily corn, sugar cane, and soybeans.
              Currently, the most commonly produced biofuel in the United States is
              ethanol, made primarily from corn. Corn is a relatively resource-intensive
              crop, requiring relatively higher rates of fertilizer and pesticide
              applications, and additional water to supplement rainfall, depending on
              where the crop is grown. Most U.S. corn is grown in the Midwest, and
              ethanol is generally produced near corn-producing areas.

              Unlike petroleum products, which are primarily transported to wholesale
              terminals by pipelines, ethanol is transported to wholesale terminals by a
              combination of rail, tanker truck, and barge. At the terminals, most
              ethanol is blended with gasoline in mixtures generally containing up to 10
              percent ethanol, E10. The blended fuel is transported by tanker truck to
              retail fueling outlets.

              Congress has supported domestic ethanol production through tax
              incentives from the 1970s through 2011 and, more recently, through a
              renewable fuel standard (the fuel standard) that applies to transportation
              fuels used in the United States. 1 First enacted in 2005 and expanded in
              2007, the fuel standard requires transportation fuels in the United States
              to contain certain volumes of biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel. The
              fuel standard generally requires the rising use of ethanol and other
              biofuels, from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons in 2022.

              EPA is responsible for establishing and implementing regulations to
              ensure that the nation’s transportation fuel supply contains the volumes of


              1
               The Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, which provided 45 cents per gallon to fuel
              blenders that purchased and blended ethanol with gasoline, expired on December 31,
              2011.




              Page 36                                                GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                     Section 8: Energy




                     biofuels required by the fuel standard. EPA recently allowed an
                     intermediate blend, E15 (generally 15 percent ethanol), for use in model
                     year 2001 and newer conventional automobiles, after determining that it
                     would not cause these automobiles to be out of compliance with
                     emissions standards.

                     The following are our key findings and applicable principles:


                     The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
Increased Biofuels   Farm Bill concerning the effects of producing biofuels:
Production Has
                         Increased production of ethanol (one type of biofuel) has raised
Agricultural and     •
                         demand for corn and contributed to higher corn prices, which has had
Environmental            several effects on U.S. agriculture. For example, with this demand,
                         more acres have been planted to corn and fewer acres to other crops,
Effects                  and crop production has increased on lands that were formerly used
                         for grazing or idled. Higher corn prices have created additional income
                         for corn producers, but they have also driven up feed costs for
                         livestock producers. The number of biorefineries has grown
                         considerably, generally providing a boost to rural economies, although
                         expert views vary on the magnitude and permanence of these
                         benefits (GAO-09-446).

                     •   Some experts believe that, because of the resources required,
                         increased corn cultivation for ethanol production may contribute to
                         additional water depletion and increased fertilizer and sediment runoff,
                         impairing streams and other water bodies. Furthermore, as corn
                         production increases, environmentally sensitive lands that are
                         currently idled because they are enrolled in conservation programs
                         may be moved back into production, thereby increasing cultivation of
                         land that is susceptible to erosion and decreasing available habitat for
                         wildlife, including threatened species. However, some of the effects
                         on water quality and habitat may be mitigated by the use of
                         agricultural conservation practices (GAO-09-446).




                     Page 37                                        GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                        Section 8: Energy




                        The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
Investments in Fuel     Farm Bill concerning challenges with building a biofuels infrastructure:
Delivery
                            Existing ethanol infrastructure should be sufficient to transport the
Infrastructure May Be   •
                            nation’s ethanol production through 2015 and meet fuel standard
Needed to Meet              requirements, according to government and industry officials. Beyond
                            2015, however, large investments in infrastructure may be needed to
Mandated 2022               transport enough ethanol to meet fuel standard requirements.
Ethanol Consumption         According to EPA estimates, if an additional 9.4 billion gallons of
                            ethanol are consumed domestically by 2022, several billion dollars
Levels                      would be needed to upgrade rail, truck, and barge infrastructure to
                            transport ethanol to wholesale markets (GAO-11-513).

                        •   EPA recently allowed an intermediate ethanol blend for use in certain
                            automobiles, but several challenges and uncertainties must be
                            addressed before intermediate blends can effectively help the nation
                            meet fuel standard requirements and reduce dependence on
                            petroleum imports. For example, key components of the nation’s retail
                            fueling infrastructure—such as gaskets and seals in dispensing
                            equipment—could degrade or swell excessively and become
                            ineffective when exposed to intermediate ethanol blends, and most
                            existing equipment at retail fueling stations in the United States is not
                            approved for use with intermediate blends (GAO-11-513).




                        Page 38                                         GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 9: Crop Insurance and Disaster
              Section 9: Crop Insurance and Disaster
              Assistance Programs



Assistance Programs

              The cost of the federal crop insurance program—an average of about
              $7.3 billion annually from 2009 through 2011—has come under increased
              scrutiny because of the nation’s severe budget constraints and because
              as crop prices have risen in recent years, so too has the value of the
              crops being insured, which results in higher crop insurance premiums and
              premium subsidies, as well as higher administrative cost reimbursements
              paid to crop insurance companies and their agents.

              For decades, Congress has authorized a federal crop insurance program
              to help mitigate the financial risks inherent in farming—potential losses of
              crop production and revenue. To encourage participation in this program,
              USDA subsidizes farmers’ insurance premiums, paying about 60 percent
              of the cost, and acts as the primary reinsurer for the private insurance
              companies that take on the risk of covering, or “underwriting,” losses to
              insured farmers. These companies earn a profit (underwriting gains)
              when insurance premiums they collect exceed their payments to farmers
              for crop losses, and they incur underwriting losses if their payments to
              farmers for crop failures exceed the premiums. USDA also pays
              insurance companies an administrative allowance to cover the costs of
              selling and servicing policies. A standard reinsurance agreement between
              USDA and the companies establishes the terms and conditions under
              which the companies have to operate, including the rate for the
              companies’ administrative allowance. Figure 3 shows the administrative
              allowances and underwriting gains or losses paid to crop insurance
              companies for 2000 through 2010.




              Page 39                                        GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Section 9: Crop Insurance and Disaster
Assistance Programs




Figure 3: Administrative Allowances and Underwriting Gains or Losses Paid to
Crop Insurance Companies, 2000–2010




To supplement the crop insurance program, Congress has historically
authorized ad hoc crop disaster assistance programs. These programs
generally provide one-time payments to compensate farmers for disaster-
related crop losses they sustain. The 2008 Farm Bill established and
funded a $3.8 billion- permanent trust fund for a new program—
Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) Program—to
provide disaster assistance to eligible farmers, but to qualify, farmers
must have lost crops on or before September 30, 2011. 1




1
 The SURE program was authorized under the trade and tax provisions title (title XV) in
the 2008 Farm Bill, but we address it here because of its relevance to the crop insurance
and disaster assistance programs title (title XII).




Page 40                                                 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                       Section 9: Crop Insurance and Disaster
                       Assistance Programs




                       The following are our key findings and applicable principles:


                       The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
Limits on Crop         Farm Bill concerning federal crop insurance subsidies:
Insurance Subsidies
                           Crop insurance premium subsidies have more than doubled in recent
Would Save Money       •
                           years—from about $2.7 billion in 2006 to about $7.4 billion in 2011.
                           Unlike many other farm programs, however, the crop insurance
                           program has no limit on the amount of subsidy a farmer can receive.
                           Other farm programs generally have statutory income and payment
                           limits that apply to farmers. For example, a farmer with an average
                           adjusted gross farm income (over the preceding 3 tax years)
                           exceeding $750,000 is generally ineligible for direct payments, and
                           farmers are subject to an annual limit of $40,000 per year on these
                           payments. If, for example, the direct payment limit of $40,000 were
                           applied to crop insurance subsidies to farmers for 2011, it would have
                           saved up to $1 billion and would have affected less than 4 percent of
                           farmers receiving the subsidies (GAO-12-256). In its comments,
                           USDA said it was “ill-advised to reduce premium subsidies without
                           further study. We disagreed and noted that the Administration
                           included a reduction in premium subsidies in its proposed fiscal year
                           2013 budget.


                       The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
USDA Has Reduced       Farm Bill concerning payments to crop insurance companies:
Costs by Decreasing
                           In 2010, USDA paid crop insurance companies a total of about $1.9
Compensation to        •
                           billion in underwriting gains. In terms of profitability, these underwriting
Insurance Companies,       gains represent a rate of return of about 30 percent. 2 This rate of
                           return exceeds USDA’s target rate of return of 12 percent, which is
but Compensation           based on a study of private insurance companies’ rates of return
May Still Be               (GAO-07-944T). The standard reinsurance agreement the federal
                           government has with these companies beginning in 2011 reduces
Excessive                  underwriting gains, but according to USDA, rates of return under the
                           agreement are still expected to be higher than the agency’s target.




                       2
                        We calculated the 2010 rate of return using data on underwriting gains and retained
                       premiums from USDA.




                       Page 41                                                 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                        Section 9: Crop Insurance and Disaster
                        Assistance Programs




                        •   From 2000 through 2009, USDA payments to insurance companies
                            for administrative allowances nearly tripled—from $552 million in 2000
                            to an estimated $1.6 billion in 2009—according to our analysis of
                            USDA data. This increase occurred primarily because the
                            department’s calculation method for administrative allowances
                            considers crop prices, which rose dramatically, rather than crop
                            insurance companies’ actual expenses for selling and servicing
                            policies, which generally remained stable (GAO-09-445). In response
                            to our recommendation and consistent with provisions of the 2008
                            Farm Bill, in the 2011 standard reinsurance agreement, USDA capped
                            administrative allowances, resulting in allowances that were lower
                            than they otherwise would have been. In addition, in response to
                            another one of our recommendations, USDA is taking steps to
                            determine insurance agencies’ reasonable costs for selling and
                            servicing crop insurance policies.


                        The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
USDA Has                Farm Bill concerning potential fraud, waste, and abuse in the federal crop
Strengthened            insurance program:
Oversight of the Crop   •   USDA employs a range of processes to help prevent and detect fraud,
Insurance Program,          waste, and abuse in the crop insurance program, but it did not
                            effectively use all the tools it had available in 2005 (GAO-05-528).
but It Remains              Since 2005, USDA has improved its use of inspections, data analysis,
Vulnerable to               oversight of insurance companies, and use of sanction authority.
                            However, the department does not capitalize on all available data
Potential Fraud,            analysis tools to identify and prevent potential fraud, waste, and
Waste, and Abuse            abuse, largely because of competing priorities.

                        •   High premium subsidies, established by statute, may limit USDA’s
                            ability to control program abuse because the subsidies shield farmers
                            from the full effect of paying higher premiums associated with frequent
                            or larger claims (GAO-05-528 and GAO-07-944T). In March 2012, we
                            suggested that Congress consider reducing premium subsidies
                            (GAO-12-256).




                        Page 42                                       GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                      Section 9: Crop Insurance and Disaster
                      Assistance Programs




                      The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012
Lessons Learned       Farm Bill concerning federal disaster assistance programs:
Could Improve
                          USDA’s experience with the ad-hoc crop disaster programs from 2001
Implementation of a   •
                          through 2007 shows that reviews to determine whether crop losses
Disaster Assistance       were eligible for payments occurred as many as 4 years after the crop
                          losses primarily because of the time elapsed between when the
Program                   disaster occurred and when an ad-hoc disaster assistance program
                          was enacted. With such a lag, USDA county officials could not take
                          actions, such as conducting field inspections, to validate whether the
                          crops suffered damage as a result of a qualifying disaster. Many of
                          the county officials said that having the opportunity to determine the
                          eligibility of losses soon after the disaster would increase assurance
                          that disaster program payments are proper (GAO-10-548). Timeliness
                          of field inspections after crop losses is a continuing concern.




                      Page 43                                       GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
             Appendix I: Scope and Methodology




             To identify the universe of our evaluative reports issued since 2003 that
             are related to farm bill programs, we conducted searches in our internal
             and external databases, using calendar year 2003 as the starting point to
             include reports about programs implemented after passage of the 2002
             Farm Bill—the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. Our
             search went through July 31, 2011. For search terms, we used program
             names and legislation titles from the 2002 and 2008 farm bills, as well as
             U.S. Department of Agriculture agency names and farm bill titles from
             1985 through 2008. Some of these search terms turned out to be over-
             inclusive, identifying numerous reports that were not related to farm bill
             programs. We filtered these results by adding search terms such as
             “farm” or “agriculture.” For example, we took this step for the original
             search terms “disaster assistance” and “rural development.” We
             eliminated certain types of products, such as reports on federal agency
             major rules (issued in compliance with the Congressional Review Act);
             legal decisions, opinions, and reports on bid protests, appropriations law,
             and other issues of federal law; and reports of survey results related to
             particular products. We also eliminated reports with no recommendations,
             because they generally did not address evaluative questions related to
             program integrity, effectiveness, or efficiency. In addition, we excluded
             testimonies based on reports already in the universe and reports we
             determined to be irrelevant to the farm bill. For example, our search terms
             yielded some reports focused entirely on wildfire management and food
             safety. In a few cases, we added reports that had not been identified
             through our database searches—for example, reports that were issued
             from August 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012. The final universe included
             88 relevant reports.

             To identify a list of principles significant to farm bill programs, we
             reviewed a subset of these reports—focusing on their findings and
             recommendations—and identified common themes related to program
             integrity, effectiveness, and efficiency. Using this list, we conducted a
             content analysis on the universe of reports, categorizing report text by
             principle and refining the principles as we did so. To ensure consistent
             interpretation and application of the principles, two analysts independently
             reviewed reports and reconciled any differences, until application of the
             principles was consistent between the two reviewers. We also reviewed
             some of our other products related to governmentwide issues and talked
             to experts on agricultural policy—such as a former Secretary of
             Agriculture, a former Member of Congress, other government officials,
             and an industry expert—to inform our final list of principles. We shared
             our list of principles with officials in the USDA Office of Inspector General,
             who adopted them for a companion report.


             Page 44                                         GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology




In addition, we summarized report findings related to 2008 Farm Bill titles
where we had a significant body of work from 2003 through 2011 related
to major provisions in the titles, and highlighted relevant principles where
they applied. For those titles with a corresponding body of work, our
reports and summaries do not cover all aspects of the farm bill title. For
the research and related-matters title, we also included in our summary
reports related to pertinent provisions under the miscellaneous title; and
for the crop insurance and disaster assistance programs title, we also
included in our summary a report related to a pertinent provision under
the trade and tax provisions title. The 2008 Farm Bill titles without a
corresponding body of our work since 2003 related to major provisions in
the title include Title V (Credit), Title VIII (Forestry), Title X (Horticulture
and Organic Agriculture), Title XI (Livestock), Title XIII (Commodity
Futures), Title XIV (Miscellaneous), and Title XV (Trade and Tax
Provisions).

We conducted our work from April 2011 through April 2012 in accordance
with all sections of our Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to
our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the
engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our
stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe
that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted,
provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in this
product.




Page 45                                           GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008
                     Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008
                     Farm Bill Title



Farm Bill Title

                     Reports covering material related to multiple farm bill titles are listed
                     under each relevant title.


Title I: Commodity   Follow-up on 2011 Report: Status of Actions Taken to Reduce
Programs             Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance
                     Revenue. GAO-12-453SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

                     U.S. Department of Agriculture: More Effective Management and
                     Performance Can Help Implementation of the Farm Bill. GAO-11-779T.
                     Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011.

                     Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,
                     Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP. Washington,
                     D.C.: March 1, 2011.

                     Federal Farm Programs: USDA Needs to Strengthen Controls to Prevent
                     Payments to Individuals Who Exceed Income Eligibility Limits.
                     GAO-09-67. Washington, D.C.: October 24, 2008.

                     Information Technology: Agriculture Needs to Strengthen Management
                     Practices for Stabilizing and Modernizing Its Farm Program Delivery
                     Systems. GAO-08-657. Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2008.

                     Beginning Farmers: Additional Steps Needed to Demonstrate the
                     Effectiveness of USDA Assistance. GAO-07-1130. Washington, D.C.:
                     September 18, 2007.

                     Federal Farm Programs: USDA Needs to Strengthen Controls to Prevent
                     Improper Payments to Estates and Deceased Individuals. GAO-07-818.
                     Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2007.

                     Suggested Areas for Oversight for the 110th Congress. GAO-07-235R.
                     Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2006.

                     Tobacco Settlement: States’ Allocations of Fiscal Year 2005 and
                     Expected Fiscal Year 2006 Payments. GAO-06-502. Washington, D.C.:
                     April 11, 2006.

                     Tobacco Settlement: States’ Allocations of Fiscal Year 2004 and
                     Expected Fiscal Year 2005 Payments. GAO-05-312. Washington, D.C.:
                     March 21, 2005.



                     Page 46                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                         Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008
                         Farm Bill Title




                         Dairy Industry: Information on Milk Prices, Factors Affecting Prices, and
                         Dairy Policy Options. GAO-05-50. Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2004.

                         Farm Program Payments: USDA Needs to Strengthen Regulations and
                         Oversight to Better Ensure Recipients Do Not Circumvent Payment
                         Limitations. GAO-04-407. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2004.

                         Tobacco Settlement: States’ Allocations of Fiscal Year 2003 and
                         Expected Fiscal Year 2004 Payments. GAO-04-518. Washington, D.C.:
                         March 19, 2004.

                         Tobacco Settlement: States’ Allocations of Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003
                         Master Settlement Agreement Payments. GAO-03-407. Washington,
                         D.C.: February 28, 2003.


Title II: Conservation   Chesapeake Bay: Restoration Effort Needs Common Federal and State
                         Goals and Assessment Approach. GAO-11-802. Washington, D.C.:
                         September 15, 2011.

                         Recent Actions by the Chesapeake Bay Program Are Positive Steps
                         Toward More Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort, But Additional
                         Steps Are Needed. GAO-08-1131R. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2008.

                         Beginning Farmers: Additional Steps Needed to Demonstrate the
                         Effectiveness of USDA Assistance. GAO-07-1130. Washington, D.C.:
                         September 18, 2007.

                         US Fish and Wildlife Service: Additional Flexibility Needed to Deal with
                         Farmlands Received from the Department of Agriculture. GAO-07-1092.
                         Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2007.

                         Agricultural Conservation: Farm Program Payments Are an Important
                         Factor in Landowners’ Decisions to Convert Grassland to Cropland.
                         GAO-07-1054. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2007.

                         Agricultural Conservation: USDA Should Improve Its Management of Key
                         Conservation Programs to Ensure Payments Promote Environmental
                         Goals. GAO-07-370T. Washington, D.C.: January 17, 2007.

                         Suggested Areas for Oversight for the 110th Congress. GAO-07-235R.
                         Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2006.



                         Page 47                                       GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                   Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008
                   Farm Bill Title




                   USDA Conservation Programs: Stakeholder Views on Participation and
                   Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species and Their
                   Habitats. GAO-07-35. Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2006.

                   Agricultural Conservation: USDA Should Improve Its Process for
                   Allocating Funds to States for the Environmental Quality Incentives
                   Program. GAO-06-969. Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2006.

                   Conservation Security Program: Despite Cost Controls, Improved USDA
                   Management Is Needed to Ensure Proper Payments and Reduce
                   Duplication with Other Programs. GAO-06-312. Washington, D.C.: April
                   28, 2006.

                   Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better
                   Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration Progress. GAO-06-96.
                   Washington, D.C.: October 28, 2005.

                   Environmental Information: Status of Federal Data Programs That
                   Support Ecological Indicators. GAO-05-376. Washington, D.C.:
                   September 2, 2005.

                   Freshwater Programs: Federal Agencies’ Funding in the United States
                   and Abroad. GAO-05-253. Washington, D.C.: March 11, 2005.

                   Agricultural Conservation: USDA Should Improve Its Methods for
                   Estimating Technical Assistance Costs. GAO-05-58. Washington, D.C.:
                   November 30, 2004.

                   Agricultural Conservation: USDA Needs to Better Ensure Protection of
                   Highly Erodible Cropland and Wetlands. GAO-03-418. Washington, D.C.:
                   April 21, 2003.


Title III: Trade   International Food Assistance: Funding Development Projects through
                   the Purchase, Shipment, and Sale of U.S. Commodities Is Inefficient and
                   Can Cause Adverse Market Impacts. GAO-11-636. Washington, D.C.:
                   June 23, 2011.

                   International School Feeding: USDA’s Oversight of the McGovern-Dole
                   Food for Education Program Needs Improvement. GAO-11-544.
                   Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2011.




                   Page 48                                       GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008
Farm Bill Title




International Food Assistance: Better Nutrition and Quality Control Can
Further Improve U.S. Food Aid. GAO-11-491. Washington, D.C.: May 12,
2011.

International Trade: Exporters’ Use of the Earned Import Allowance
Program for Haiti is Negligible because They Favor Other Trade
Provisions. GAO-10-654. Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2010.

Global Food Security: U.S. Agencies Progressing on Governmentwide
Strategy, but Approach Faces Several Vulnerabilities. GAO-10-352.
Washington, D.C.: March 11, 2010.

Softwood Lumber Act of 2008: Customs and Border Protection
Established Required Procedures, but Agencies Report Little Benefit from
New Requirements. GAO-10-220. Washington, D.C.: December 18,
2009.

International Food Assistance: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight.
GAO-09-977SP. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2009.

International Food Assistance: USAID Is Taking Actions to Improve
Monitoring and Evaluation of Nonemergency Food Aid, but Weaknesses
in Planning Could Impede Efforts. GAO-09-980. Washington, D.C.:
September 28, 2009.

U.S. and Canadian Governments Have Established Mechanisms to
Monitor Compliance with the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement but Face
Operational Challenges. GAO-09-764R. Washington, D.C.: June 18,
2009.

International Food Assistance: Local and Regional Procurement Can
Enhance the Efficiency of U.S. Food Aid, but Challenges May Constrain
Its Implementation. GAO-09-570. Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2009.

International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host Governments and
Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa by
2015. GAO-08-680. Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2008.

Foreign Assistance: Various Challenges Impede the Efficiency and
Effectiveness of U.S. Food Aid. GAO-07-560. Washington, D.C.: April 13,
2007.




Page 49                                       GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                      Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008
                      Farm Bill Title




Title IV: Nutrition   Follow-up on 2011 Report: Status of Actions Taken to Reduce
                      Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance
                      Revenue. GAO-12-453SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

                      U.S. Department of Agriculture: More Effective Management and
                      Performance Can Help Implementation of the Farm Bill. GAO-11-779T.
                      Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011.

                      School Meal Programs: More Systematic Development of Specifications
                      Could Improve the Safety of Foods Purchased through USDA’s
                      Commodity Program. GAO-11-376. Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2011.

                      Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,
                      Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP. Washington,
                      D.C.: March 1, 2011.

                      Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Payment Errors and
                      Trafficking Have Declined, but Challenges Remain. GAO-10-956T.
                      Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2010.

                      Domestic Food Assistance: Complex System Benefits Millions, but
                      Additional Efforts Could Address Potential Inefficiency and Overlap
                      among Smaller Programs. GAO-10-346. Washington, D.C.: April 15,
                      2010.

                      School Meal Programs: Improved Reviews, Federal Guidance, and Data
                      Collection Needed to Address Counting and Claiming Errors.
                      GAO-09-814. Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2009.

                      School Meal Programs: Changes to Federal Agencies’ Procedures Could
                      Reduce Risk of School Children Consuming Recalled Food. GAO-09-649.
                      Washington, D.C.: August 20, 2009.

                      School Meal Programs: Experiences of the States and Districts that
                      Eliminated Reduced-price Fees. GAO-09-584. Washington, D.C.: July 17,
                      2009.

                      Sponsored Noncitizens and Public Benefits: More Clarity in Federal
                      Guidance and Better Access to Federal Information Could Improve
                      Implementation of Income Eligibility Rules. GAO-09-375. Washington,
                      D.C.: May 19, 2009.




                      Page 50                                      GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008
Farm Bill Title




Meal Counting and Claiming by Food Service Management Companies in
the School Meal Programs. GAO-09-156R. Washington, D.C.: January
30, 2009.

Food Stamp Program: Options for Delivering Financial Incentives to
Participants for Purchasing Targeted Foods. GAO-08-415. Washington,
D.C.: July 30, 2008.

Food Stamp Program: Use of Alternative Methods to Apply for and
Maintain Benefits Could Be Enhanced by Additional Evaluation and
Information on Promising Practices. GAO-07-573. Washington, D.C.: May
3, 2007.

Food Stamp Program: FNS Could Improve Guidance and Monitoring to
Help Ensure Appropriate Use of Noncash Categorical Eligibility.
GAO-07-465. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2007.

Food Stamp Trafficking: FNS Could Enhance Program Integrity by Better
Targeting Stores Likely to Traffic and Increasing Penalties. GAO-07-53.
Washington, D.C.: October 13, 2006.

WIC Program: More Detailed Price and Quantity Data Could Enhance
Agriculture’s Assessment of WIC Program Expenditures. GAO-06-664.
Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2006.

Food Assistance: FNS Could Take Additional Steps to Contain WIC Infant
Formula Costs. GAO-06-380. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2006.

Breastfeeding: Some Strategies Used to Market Infant Formula May
Discourage Breastfeeding; State Contracts Should Better Protect Against
Misuse of WIC Name. GAO-06-282. Washington, D.C.: February 8, 2006.

School Meal Programs: Competitive Foods Are Widely Available and
Generate Substantial Revenues for Schools. GAO-05-563. Washington,
D.C.: August 8, 2005.

Food Stamp Program: States Have Made Progress Reducing Payment
Errors, and Further Challenges Remain. GAO-05-245. Washington, D.C.:
May 5, 2005.

Food Stamp Program: Farm Bill Options Ease Administrative Burden, but
Opportunities Exist to Streamline Participant Reporting Rules among
Programs. GAO-04-916. Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2004.


Page 51                                      GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                  Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008
                  Farm Bill Title




                  Nutrition Education: USDA Provides Services through Multiple Programs,
                  but Stronger Linkages among Efforts Are Needed. GAO-04-528.
                  Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2004.

                  School Meal Programs: Competitive Foods Are Available in Many
                  Schools; Actions Taken to Restrict Them Differ by State and Locality.
                  GAO-04-673. Washington, D.C.: April 23, 2004.

                  Food Stamp Program: Steps Have Been Taken to Increase Participation
                  of Working Families, but Better Tracking of Efforts Is Needed.
                  GAO-04-346. Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2004.

                  Opportunities for Oversight and Improved Use of Taxpayer Funds;
                  Examples from Selected GAO Work. GAO-03-1006. Washington, D.C.:
                  August 1, 2003.

                  School Meal Programs: Few Instances of Foodborne Outbreaks
                  Reported, but Opportunities Exist to Enhance Outbreak Data and Food
                  Safety Practices. GAO-03-530. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2003.

                  School Meal Programs: Revenue and Expense Information from Selected
                  States. GAO-03-569. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2003.

                  School Lunch Program: Efforts Needed to Improve Nutrition and
                  Encourage Healthy Eating. GAO-03-506. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2003.

                  Food Stamp Employment and Training Program: Better Data Needed to
                  Understand Who Is Served and What the Program Achieves.
                  GAO-03-388. Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2003.

                  Food Assistance: Potential to Serve More WIC Infants by Reducing
                  Formula Cost. GAO-03-331. Washington, D.C.: February 12, 2003.


Title V: Credit   Beginning Farmers: Additional Steps Needed to Demonstrate the
                  Effectiveness of USDA Assistance. GAO-07-1130. Washington, D.C.:
                  September 18, 2007.

                  Farm Loan Programs: GAO Reports on USDA Lending Practices.
                  GAO-06-912R. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2006.




                  Page 52                                       GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                  Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008
                  Farm Bill Title




Title VI: Rural   2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and
Development       Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue.
                  GAO-12-342SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

                  Follow-up on 2011 Report: Status of Actions Taken to Reduce
                  Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance
                  Revenue. GAO-12-453SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

                  U.S. Department of Agriculture: More Effective Management and
                  Performance Can Help Implementation of the Farm Bill. GAO-11-779T.
                  Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011.

                  Efficiency and Effectiveness of Fragmented Economic Development
                  Programs Are Unclear. GAO-11-477R. Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2011.

                  Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service: Rural Broadband
                  Access Loans and Loan Guarantees. GAO-11-541R. Washington, D.C.:
                  April 7, 2011.

                  Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,
                  Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP. Washington,
                  D.C.: March 1, 2011.

                  The Housing Assistance Council’s Use of Appropriated Funds.
                  GAO-11-189R. Washington, D.C.: December 6, 2010.

                  Rural Water Infrastructure: Improved Coordination and Funding
                  Processes Could Enhance Federal Efforts to meet Needs in the U.S.-
                  Mexico Border Region. GAO-10-126. Washington, D.C.: December 18,
                  2009.

                  Telecommunications: Broadband Deployment Plan Should Include
                  Performance Goals and Measures to Guide Federal Investment.
                  GAO-09-494. Washington, D.C.: May 12, 2009.

                  Rural Economic Development: Collaboration between SBA and USDA
                  Could Be Improved. GAO-08-1123. Washington, D.C.: September 18,
                  2008.

                  Federal Electricity Subsidies: Information on Research Funding, Tax
                  Expenditures, and Other Activities That Support Electricity Production.
                  GAO-08-102. Washington, D.C.: October 26, 2007.



                  Page 53                                       GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                          Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008
                          Farm Bill Title




                          Water Resources: Four Federal Agencies Provide Funding for Rural
                          Water Supply and Wastewater Projects. GAO-07-1094. Washington,
                          D.C.: September 7, 2007.

                          Telecommunications: Broadband Deployment Is Extensive throughout the
                          United States, but It Is Difficult to Assess the Extent of Deployment Gaps
                          in Rural Areas. GAO-06-426. Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2006.

                          Rural Economic Development: More Assurance Is Needed That Grant
                          Funding Information Is Accurately Reported. GAO-06-294. Washington,
                          D.C.: February 24, 2006.

                          Rural Housing Service: Overview of Program Issues. GAO-05-382T.
                          Washington, D.C.: March 10, 2005.

                          Information Resource Management Internal Control Issues.
                          GAO-05-288R. Washington, D.C.: March 10, 2005.

                          Rural Housing: Changing the Definition of Rural Could Improve Eligibility
                          Determinations. GAO-05-110. Washington, D.C.: December 3, 2004.

                          Rural Utilities Service: Opportunities to Better Target Assistance to Rural
                          Areas and Avoid Unnecessary Financial Risk. GAO-04-647. Washington,
                          D.C.: June 18, 2004.

                          Rural Housing Service: Opportunities to Improve Management.
                          GAO-03-911T. Washington, D.C.: June 19, 2003.


Title VII: Research and   2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and
Related Matters           Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue.
                          GAO-12-342SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

                          Follow-up on 2011 Report: Status of Actions Taken to Reduce
                          Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance
                          Revenue. GAO-12-453SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

                          Antibiotic Resistance: Agencies Have Made Limited Progress Addressing
                          Antibiotic Use in Animals. GAO-11-801. Washington, D.C.: September 7,
                          2011.




                          Page 54                                        GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008
Farm Bill Title




Homeland Security: Actions Needed to Improve Response to Potential
Terrorist Attacks and Natural Disasters Affecting Food and Agriculture.
GAO-11-652. Washington, D.C.: August 19, 2011.

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,
Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP. Washington,
D.C.: March 1, 2011.

Live Animal Imports: Agencies Need Better Collaboration to Reduce the
Risk of Animal-Related Diseases. GAO-11-9. Washington, D.C.:
November 8, 2010.

Biosurveillance: Efforts to Develop a National Biosurveillance Capability
Need a National Strategy and a Designated Leader. GAO-10-645.
Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2010.

Biological Research: Observations on DHS’s Analyses Concerning
Whether FMD Research Can Be Done as Safely on the Mainland as on
Plum Island. GAO-09-747. Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2009.

Genetically Engineered Crops: Agencies Are Proposing Changes to
Improve Oversight, but Could Take Additional Steps to Enhance
Coordination and Monitoring. GAO-09-60. Washington, D.C.: December
5, 2008.

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program: Management Problems May
Increase Vulnerability of U.S. Agriculture to Foreign Pests and Diseases.
GAO-08-96T. Washington, D.C.: October 3, 2007.

Plum Island Animal Disease Center: DHS Has Made Significant Progress
Implementing Security Recommendations, but Several
Recommendations Remain Open. GAO-08-306R. Washington, D.C.:
December 17, 2007.

Avian Influenza: USDA Has Taken Important Steps to Prepare for
Outbreaks, but Better Planning Could Improve Response. GAO-07-652.
Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2007.

USDA: Information on Classical Plant and Animal Breeding Activities.
GAO-07-1171R. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2007.




Page 55                                        GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                       Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008
                       Farm Bill Title




                       Homeland Security: Management and Coordination Problems Increase
                       the Vulnerability of U.S. Agriculture to Foreign Pests and Disease.
                       GAO-06-644. Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2006.

                       Agriculture Production: USDA Needs to Build on 2005 Experience to
                       Minimize the Effects of Asian Soybean Rust in the Future. GAO-06-337.
                       Washington, D.C.: February 24, 2006.

                       Plum Island Animal Disease Center: DHS and USDA Are Successfully
                       Coordinating Current Work, but Long-Term Plans Are Being Assessed.
                       GAO-06-132. Washington, D.C.: December 19, 2005.

                       Agriculture Production: USDA’s Preparation for Asian Soybean Rust.
                       GAO-05-668R. Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2005.

                       Homeland Security: Much Is Being Done to Protect Agriculture from a
                       Terrorist Attack, but Important Challenges Remain. GAO-05-214.
                       Washington, D.C.: March 8, 2005.

                       Combating Bioterrorism: Actions Needed to Improve Security at Plum
                       Island Animal Disease Center. GAO-03-847. Washington, D.C.:
                       September 19, 2003.


Title VIII: Forestry   U.S. Department of Agriculture: More Effective Management and
                       Performance Can Help Implementation of the Farm Bill. GAO-11-779T.
                       Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011.

                       Forest Service Research and Development: Improvements in Delivery of
                       Research Results Can Help Ensure That Benefits of Research Are
                       Realized. GAO-11-12. Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2010.


Title IX: Energy       Follow-up on 2011 Report: Status of Actions Taken to Reduce
                       Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance
                       Revenue. GAO-12-453SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

                       Biofuels: Challenges to the Transportation, Sale, and Use of Intermediate
                       Ethanol Blends. GAO-11-513. Washington, D.C.: June 3, 2011.

                       Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,
                       Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP. Washington,
                       D.C.: March 1, 2011.


                       Page 56                                      GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                            Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008
                            Farm Bill Title




                            Biofuels: Potential Effects and Challenges of Required Increases in
                            Production and Use. GAO-09-446. Washington, D.C.: August 25, 2009.

                            Biofuels: DOE Lacks a Strategic Approach to Coordinate Increasing
                            Production with Infrastructure Development and Vehicle Needs.
                            GAO-07-713. Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2007.

                            Wood Utilization: Federal Research and Product Development Activities,
                            Support, and Technology Transfer. GAO-06-624. Washington, D.C.: June
                            15, 2006.

                            Natural Resources: Woody Biomass Users’ Experiences Offer Insights for
                            Government Efforts Aimed at Promoting Its Use. GAO-06-336.
                            Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2006.

                            Natural Resources: Federal Agencies Are Engaged in Various Efforts to
                            Promote the Utilization of Woody Biomass, but Significant Obstacles to Its
                            Use Remain. GAO-05-373. Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2005.

                            Renewable Energy: Wind Power’s Contribution to Electric Power
                            Generation and Impact on Farms and Rural Communities. GAO-04-756.
                            Washington, D.C.: September 3, 2004.

                            Biobased Products: Improved USDA Management Would Help Agencies
                            Comply with Farm Bill Purchasing Requirements. GAO-04-437.
                            Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2004.


Title X: Horticulture and   No GAO reports meeting our selection criteria were issued between 2003
Organic Agriculture         and March 2012 related to this title.


Title XI: Livestock         U.S. Department of Agriculture: More Effective Management and
                            Performance Can Help Implementation of the Farm Bill. GAO-11-779T.
                            Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011.

                            Horse Welfare: Action Needed to Address Unintended Consequences
                            from Cessation of Domestic Slaughter. GAO-11-228. Washington, D.C.:
                            June 22, 2011.

                            Live Animal Imports: Agencies Need Better Collaboration to Reduce the
                            Risk of Animal-Related Diseases. GAO-11-9. Washington, D.C.:
                            November 8, 2010.


                            Page 57                                       GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                            Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008
                            Farm Bill Title




                            Animal Welfare: USDA’s Oversight of Dealers of Random Source Dogs
                            and Cats Would Benefit from Additional Management Information and
                            Analysis. GAO-10-945. Washington, D.C.: September 24, 2010.

                            Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: Actions Are Needed to Strengthen
                            Enforcement. GAO-10-203. Washington, D.C.: February 19, 2010.

                            Veterinarian Workforce: Actions Are Needed to Ensure Sufficient
                            Capacity for Protecting Public and Animal Health. GAO-09-178.
                            Washington, D.C.: February 4, 2009.

                            Humane Methods of Handling and Slaughter: Public Reporting on
                            Violations Can Identify Enforcement Challenges and Enhance
                            Transparency. GAO-08-686T. Washington, D.C.: April 17, 2008.

                            Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: USDA Has Addressed Some
                            Problems but Still Faces Enforcement Challenges. GAO-04-247.
                            Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2004.

                            Country-of-Origin Labeling: Opportunities for USDA and Industry to
                            Implement Challenging Aspects of the New Law. GAO-03-780.
                            Washington, D.C.: August 5, 2003.


Title XII: Crop Insurance   Crop Insurance: Savings Would Result from Program Changes and
and Disaster Assistance     Greater Use of Data Mining. GAO-12-256. Washington, D.C.: March 13,
Programs                    2012.

                            U.S. Department of Agriculture: More Effective Management and
                            Performance Can Help Implementation of the Farm Bill. GAO-11-779T.
                            Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011.

                            USDA Crop Disaster Programs: Lessons Learned Can Improve
                            Implementation of New Crop Assistance Program. GAO-10-548.
                            Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2010.

                            Small Business Administration: Continued Attention Needed to Address
                            Reforms to the Disaster Loan Program. GAO-10-735T. Washington, D.C.:
                            May 19, 2010.

                            Crop Insurance: Opportunities Exist to Reduce the Costs of Administering
                            the Program. GAO-09-445. Washington, D.C.: April 29, 2009.



                            Page 58                                      GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                           Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008
                           Farm Bill Title




                           Beginning Farmers: Additional Steps Needed to Demonstrate the
                           Effectiveness of USDA Assistance. GAO-07-1130. Washington, D.C.:
                           September 18, 2007.

                           Crop Insurance: Continuing Efforts Are Needed to Improve Program
                           Integrity and Ensure Program Costs Are Reasonable. GAO-07-944T.
                           Washington, D.C.: June 7, 2007.

                           Suggested Areas for Oversight for the 110th Congress. GAO-07-235R.
                           Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2006.

                           Crop Insurance: Actions Needed to Reduce Program’s Vulnerability to
                           Fraud, Waste, and Abuse. GAO-05-528. Washington, D.C.: September
                           30, 2005.

                           Crop Insurance: USDA Needs to Improve Oversight of Insurance
                           Companies and Develop a Policy to Address Any Future Insolvencies.
                           GAO-04-517. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.


Title XIII: Commodity      Commodity Futures Trading Commission: Trends in Energy Derivatives
Futures                    Markets Raise Questions about CFTC’s Oversight. GAO-08-25.
                           Washington, D.C.: October 19, 2007.


Title XIV: Miscellaneous   U.S. Department of Agriculture: More Effective Management and
                           Performance Can Help Implementation of the Farm Bill. GAO-11-779T.
                           Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011.

                           US Department of Agriculture: Recommendations and Options to Address
                           Management Deficiencies in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil
                           Rights. GAO-09-62. Washington, D.C.: October 22, 2008.


Title XV: Trade and Tax    No GAO reports meeting our selection criteria were issued between 2003
Provisions                 and March 2012 related to this title.




                           Page 59                                       GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of
                     Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
                     General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title



Inspector General Products, by 2008 Farm
Bill Title
Title I: Commodity   Calendar Year 2010 Executive Order 13520, Reducing Improper
Programs             Payments, High Dollar Report Review. 50024-0001-FM. Washington,
                     D.C.: July 15, 2011. 1

                     Fiscal Year 2010 Farm Service Agency Farm Assistance Program
                     Payments. 03024-0001-11. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2011.

                     Agreed-Upon Procedures – Farm Service Agency Average Crop
                     Revenue Election Program, Sheridan County, Montana. 03099-0199-KC.
                     Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2010.

                     Farm Service Agency’s Reliance on the National Agricultural Statistics
                     Service’s Published Peanut Prices. 50601-0014-KC. Washington, D.C.:
                     March, 31, 2009.

                     Farm Service Agency: Payment Limitation Attestation Review in Wharton
                     County, Texas. 03099-0182-Te. Washington, D.C.: October 23, 2008.

                     Methodology for Establishing National/Regional Loan Rates for USDA’s
                     Pulse Crop Loan Program. 03601-0026-KC. Washington, D.C.:
                     September 25, 2008.

                     Farm Service Agency: Payment Limitation Review in Louisiana.
                     03099-0181-Te. Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2008.

                     Identification and Reporting of Improper Payments in FSA High Risk
                     Programs. 03601-0016-Ch. Washington, D.C.: March 27, 2008.

                     Improper Payments: Monitoring the Progress of Corrective Actions for
                     High-Risk Programs in the Farm Service Agency. 03601-0014-Ch.
                     Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2007.

                     Farm Service Agency: Efforts to Identify and Recover Overpayments in
                     the Direct and Counter-Cyclical Program. 03008-0001-At. Washington,
                     D.C.: December 12, 2006.

                     Farm Service Agency: Disposition of Nonfat Dry Milk. 03099-0197-KC.
                     Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2006.


                     1
                      Other agencies and provisions are also included in this audit.




                     Page 60                                                  GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




Farm Service Agency: Nonrecourse Marketing Assistance Farm-Stored
Loans. 03601-0047-Te. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2006.

Farm Service Agency: Direct and Counter-Cyclical Program.
03099-0196-KC. Washington, D.C.: April 24, 2006

Farm Service Agency: Tracking Finality Rule and Equitable Relief
Decisions. 03601-0044-Te. Washington, D.C.: March 27, 2006.

Farm Service Agency’s Progress To Implement the Improper Payments
Information Act of 2002. 03601-0013-Ch. Washington, D.C.:
March 6, 2006.

Farm Service Agency: Compliance Activities. 03601-0012-Ch.
Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2005.

Farm Service Agency: Compliance with the Improper Payments
Information Act of 2002. 03601-0046-Te. Washington, D.C.:
March 21, 2005.

USDA Compliance with the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002.
50601-0008-Ch. Washington, D.C.: January 11, 2005. 2

Farm Service Agency: Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program.
03601-0010-Ch. Washington, D.C.: December 21, 2004.

Farm Service Agency: Farm Programs Audit in a Louisiana Parish.
03601-0042-Te. Temple, TX: March 19, 2004.

Farm Service Agency: Review of the 2002 Farm Bill Commodity Loan and
Payment Rates. 03601-0020-KC. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 2003.




2
 Other agencies and provisions are also included in this audit.




Page 61                                                  GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                         Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
                         General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




Title II: Conservation   Controls Over the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program in
                         Michigan. 10099-0003-Ch. Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2011.

                         Natural Resources Conservation Service: Farm and Ranch Lands
                         Protection Program Review of Non-Governmental Organizations.
                         10099-0006-SF. Washington, D.C.: July 6, 2009.

                         Natural Resources Conservation Service: Conservation Security
                         Program. 10601-0004-KC. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2009.

                         Farm Service Agency: Hurricane Relief Initiatives: Emergency Forestry
                         Conservation Reserve Program. 03601-0024-KC. Washington, D.C.:
                         September 17, 2008

                         Natural Resources Conservation Service: Wetlands Reserve Program
                         Wetlands Restoration and Compliance. 10099-0004-SF. Washington,
                         D.C.: August 25, 2008.

                         Natural Resources Conservation Service: Status Review Process.
                         50601-0013-KC. Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2008.

                         Natural Resources Conservation Service and Farm Service Agency: Crop
                         Bases on Lands With Conservation Easements in California.
                         50099-0011-SF. Washington, D.C.: August 27, 2007.

                         Evaluation Report: Saving the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Requires
                         Better Coordination of Environmental and Agricultural Resources.
                         50601-0010-HQ. Washington, D.C.: November 20, 2006.

                         Natural Resources Conservation Service: Farm and Ranch Lands
                         Protection Program in Alabama. 10099-0005-SF. Washington, D.C.:
                         September 5, 2006.

                         Improper Payments – Monitoring the Progress of Corrective Actions for
                         High Risk Programs in Natural Resources Conservation Service.
                         10601-0003-Ch. Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2006.

                         Natural Resources Conservation Service: Wetlands Reserve Program
                         Compensation for Easements Washington, D.C. 10099-0003-SF.
                         Washington, D.C.: August 8, 2005.




                         Page 62                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                   Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
                   General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




                   Natural Resources Conservation Service: Environmental Quality
                   Incentives Program. 10099-0018-KC. Washington, D.C.:
                   February 28, 2005.

                   Natural Resources Conservation Service: Compliance with the Improper
                   Payments Information Act of 2002. 10601-0003-KC. Washington, D.C.:
                   January 10, 2005.


Title III: Trade   USDA’s Role in the Export of Genetically Engineered Agricultural
                   Commodities. 50601-0014-Te. Washington, D.C.: February 20, 2009. 3

                   Farm Service Agency: Inspection of Temporary Domestic Storage Sites
                   for Foreign Food Assistance. 03099-0198-KC. Washington, D.C.:
                   August 22, 2008.

                   Export Credit Guarantee Program. 07601-0002-Hy. Washington, D.C.:
                   July 22, 2008.

                   Foreign Agricultural Service: Implementation of the Trade Title of the
                   2002 Farm Bill and the President’s Management Agenda. 50601-0012-At.
                   Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2007.

                   Foreign Agricultural Service: Trade Promotion Operations. 07601-0001-Hy.
                   Washington, D.C.: February 22, 2007.

                   Foreign Agricultural Service: Private Voluntary Organization Grant Fund
                   Accountability. 07016-0001-At. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2006.

                   Farm Service Agency: Analysis of Farm Service Agency/Commodity
                   Credit Corporation Wheat Sales. 03801-0006-KC. Washington, D.C.:
                   September 30, 2004.




                   3
                    Report also discuses information contained under Title VII- Research and Related
                   Matters.




                   Page 63                                                GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                      Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
                      General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




Title IV: Nutrition   Identifying Areas of Risk in the Child and Adult Care Food Program
                      (CACFP) Using Automated Data Analysis Tools. 27099-0001-DA.
                      Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2012.

                      Analysis of Louisiana’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
                      (SNAP) Eligibility Data. 27002-0003-13. Washington, D.C.:
                      January 31, 2012.

                      Analysis of Alabama’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
                      (SNAP) Eligibility Data. 27002-0004-13. Washington, D.C.:
                      January 31, 2012.

                      Analysis of Mississippi’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
                      (SNAP) Eligibility Data. 27002-0005-13. Washington, D.C.:
                      January 31, 2012.

                      State Fraud Detection Efforts for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
                      Program. 27703-0002-Hy. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2012.

                      Analysis of Florida’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
                      Eligibility Data. 27002-0002-13. Washington, D.C.: November 29, 2011.

                      Analysis of Kansas’ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
                      Eligibility Data. 27002-0001-13. Washington, D.C.: November 23, 2011.

                      Analysis of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Anti-
                      Fraud Locator EBT Retailer Transactions (ALERT) Database.
                      27002-0001-DA. Washington, D.C.: November 22, 2011.

                      Controls over Outsourcing of Food and Nutrition Service’s Supplemental
                      Nutrition Assistance Program Electronic Benefits Transfer Call Centers.
                      27703-0001-Te. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2011.

                      Calendar Year 2010 Executive Order 13520, Reducing Improper
                      Payments, Accountable Official Report Review. 50024-0002-FM.
                      Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2011.

                      Recovery Act Equipment and Facility Assistance – Food and Nutrition
                      Service’s Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations Phase I.
                      27703-0002-HQ. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2010.

                      Oversight of the Recovery Act WIC Contingency Funds. 27703-0001-Ch.
                      Washington, D.C.: April 22, 2010.


                      Page 64                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




Followup on the Agricultural Marketing Service’s Purchases of Frozen
Ground Beef. 01601-0002-Hy. Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2010.

Review of the Emergency Food Assistance Program. 27703-0001-At.
Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2010.

Summary of Nationwide Electronic Benefits Transfer Operations.
27099-0071-Hy. Washington, D.C.: January 26, 2010.

Funds Provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for
Management and Oversight of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program. 27703-0001-Hy. Washington, D.C.: December 16, 2009.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Benefits and the Thrifty Food
Plan. 27703-0001-KC. Washington, D.C.: December 3, 2009.

Follow-up on FNS Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 27601-0011-Te. Washington, D.C.:
June 2, 2009.

Monitoring of CACFP Sponsor, Collaborative Network, Toledo, Ohio.
27601-0037-Ch. Chicago, IL: February 26, 2009.

Food and Nutrition Service’s Continued Monitoring of EBT Operations –
State of California Department of Social Services. 27099-0035-SF. San
Francisco, CA: December 4, 2008.

Food Stamp Program Retailer Authorization and Store Visits.
27601-0015-At. Washington, D.C.: September 26, 2008.

Food and Nutrition Service: Food Stamp Program, Administrative Costs
New Jersey. 27002-0025-Hy. Beltsville, MD: September 10, 2008.

Electronic Benefits Transfer System State of Colorado. 27099-0068-Hy.
Beltsville, MD: June 20, 2008.

Food and Nutrition Service: Summer Food Service Program Operated by
the State of Georgia. 27099-0063-At. Beltsville, MD: March 31, 2008.

Food Stamp Employment and Training Program. 27601-0016-At.
Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2008.




Page 65                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




Food and Nutrition Service: JPMorgan EFS’ Oversight of EBT
Operations. 27099-0069-Hy. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2007.

Food and Nutrition Service: Disaster Food Stamp Program for Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita – Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. 27099-0049-Te.
Washington, D.C.: September 4, 2007.

Food and Nutrition Service: Western Region Summer Food Service
Program California and Nevada. 27099-0034-SF. San Francisco, CA:
August 17, 2007.

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children, Puerto Rico. 27004-0004-At. Atlanta, GA: May 24, 2007.

Meal Accountability at Choice Schools in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
27004-0005-Ch. Chicago, IL: May 3, 2007.

Food and Nutrition Service: National Office Oversight of Electronic
Benefits Transfer Operations. 27099-0066-Hy. Washington, D.C.:
September 28, 2006.

Food and Nutrition Service: Child Nutrition Labeling Program.
27601-0013-Hy. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2006.

Food and Nutrition Service: Disaster Food Stamp Program for Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma – Alabama and Florida. 27099-0061-At. Atlanta,
GA: August 30, 2006.

Food and Nutrition Service: Food Stamp Program, ALERT Watch List.
27099-0032-SF. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2006.

Child and Adult Care Food Program: Supper Meals Served in Schools.
27601-0035-Ch. Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2006.

WIC Administrative Costs in Georgia. 27002-0002-At. Atlanta, GA:
March 31, 2006.




Page 66                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




USDA’s Progress to Implement the Improper Payments Information Act of
2002. 50601-0010-Ch. Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2006. 4

Food and Nutrition Service: Special Wages Incentive Program in Puerto
Rico. 27099-0060-At. Atlanta, GA: December 23, 2005.

Food and Nutrition Service: National School Lunch Program: Cost-
Reimbursable Contracts with a Food Service Management Company.
27601-0015-KC. Washington, D.C.: December 9, 2005.

Audit of the Avella, PA School District’s Use of National School Lunch
Program Funds. 27010-0034-Hy. Beltsville, MD: December 1, 2005.

Food and Nutrition Service: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program For
Women, Infants, and Children, Administrative Costs – Oregon.
27099-0033-SF. San Francisco, CA: November 16, 2005.

Agricultural Marketing Service Management Controls to Ensure
Compliance with Purchase Specification Requirements for Ground Beef.
01099-0031-Hy. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2005.

Monitoring of CACFP Providers in Minnesota. 27010-0018-Ch. Chicago,
IL: October 28, 2005

Controls Over the Minnesota Department of Education’s Use of Federal
Funds. 27010-0019-Ch. Chicago, IL: June 22, 2005.

Agricultural Marketing Service: Contract and Competitive Bidding
Practices. 01601-0001-KC. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2005.

Food and Nutrition Service: Controls Over USDA-Donated Commodities.
27601-0033-Ch. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004.

Food and Nutrition Service: National School Lunch Program, Unified
School District 480, Liberal, Kansas. 27010-0022-KC. Kansas City, MO:
September 30, 2004.




4
 Report also discusses information contained under Title I – Commodity Programs.




Page 67                                               GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




Chicago SFA’s Accountability and Oversight of the NSLP, SBP, and
CACFP Supper. 27010-0017-Ch. Chicago, IL: September 30, 2004.

Food and Nutrition Service: Compliance with Improper Payments
Reporting Requirements. 27601-0032-Ch. Washington, D.C.: September
28, 2004.

Food and Nutrition Service: Summer Food Service Program, State of
Nevada. 27099-0031-SF. San Francisco, CA: August 24, 2004.

Controls Over USDA Donated Commodities For the Year Ended June 30,
2004. 27601-0011-SF. San Francisco, CA: August 6, 2004.

Food and Nutrition Service: Vendor Sanction Policies. 27002-0001-At.
Atlanta, GA: July 15, 2004.

Food and Nutrition Service: National School Lunch and Breakfast
Programs Attendance and Meal Count Analysis: Philadelphia School
Food Authority, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 27010-0031-Hy. Beltsville,
MD: June 25, 2004.

Summary of Audit Results, Continued Monitoring of EBT System
Development – State of New Jersey. 27099-0065-Hy. Beltsville, MD:
May 21, 2004.

Food and Nutrition Service: National School Lunch Program: Kearney R-I
School District, Kearney, Missouri. 27010-0020-KC. Kansas City, MO:
May 11, 2004.

Food and Nutrition Service: National School Lunch Program: Platte
County R-III District, Platte City, Missouri. 27010-0021-KC. Kansas City,
MO: April 15, 2004.

Food and Nutrition Service: National School Lunch Program: Unified
School District 497, Lawrence, Kansas. 27010-0014-KC. Kansas City,
MO: March 26, 2004.

Accountability and Oversight of the National School Lunch Program –
San Lorenzo Unified School District For the Year Ended June 30, 2003.
27099-0024-SF. San Francisco, CA: March 26, 2004.




Page 68                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




Food and Nutrition Service: National School Lunch Program: Unified
School District 257, Iola, Kansas. 27010-0015-KC. Kansas City, MO:
March 26, 2004.

Food and Nutrition Service: National School Lunch Program: Unified
School District 341, Oskaloosa, Kansas. 27010-0017-KC. Kansas City,
MO.: March 26, 2004.

Food and Nutrition Service: Continued Monitoring of EBT System
Development, State of New Mexico. 27099-0018-Te. Temple, TX: March
18, 2004.

Food and Nutrition Service: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children, State of New York. 27099-0062-Hy.
Beltsville, MD: March 8, 2004.

Food Stamp Employment and Training Program – California.
27099-0023-SF. San Francisco, CA: February 19, 2004.

Food and Nutrition Service: National School Lunch Program, Unified
School District 453, Leavenworth, Kansas. 27010-0016-KC. Kansas City,
MO: February 18, 2004.

Food and Nutrition Service, National School Lunch Program: Odessa R-
VII School District, Odessa, Missouri. 27010-0019-KC. Kansas City, MO:
February 18, 2004.

Food and Nutrition Service: Accountability and Oversight of the National
School Lunch Program in Texas. 27010-0005-Te. Temple, TX: January
23, 2004.

Bellwood SFA’s Administration of the National School Lunch Program.
27010-0016-Ch. Chicago, IL: December 3, 2003.

Food and Nutrition Service: Accountability and Oversight of the National
School Lunch Program: Star Programs, Inc., Ingram, Texas.
27010-0009-Te. Temple, TX: October 9, 2003.




Page 69                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                  Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
                  General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




Title V: Credit   American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Direct Farm Operating Loans
                  (Phase 2). 03703-0002-Te. Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2011.

                  FSA Farm Loan Security. 03601-0018-Ch. Washington, D.C.:
                  August 10, 2010.

                  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – Direct Farm Operating
                  Loans (Phase 1). 03703-0001-Te. Washington, D.C.: February 25, 2010.

                  Farm Service Agency: Controls Over Emergency Loans Reductions for
                  Duplicate Benefits. 03601-0013-SF. Washington, D.C.:
                  December 15, 2009.

                  Controls Over Guaranteed Farm Loan Interest Rates and Interest
                  Assistance. 03601-0017-Ch. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2008.

                  Farm Service Agency: Debt Forgiveness Restrictions on Borrower
                  Eligibility for Farm Loan Programs. 03016-0002-Te. Washington, D.C.:
                  March 31, 2006.

                  Minority Participation in Farm Service Agency’s Programs. 03601-0011-At.
                  Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2005. 5


Title VI: Rural   Rural Development: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act –
Development       Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans - Phase 2. 34703-0002-Te.
                  Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2012.

                  Controls Over Eligibility Determinations for SFH Guaranteed Loan
                  Recovery Act Funds (Phase 2). 04703-0002-Ch. Washington, D.C.:
                  September 30, 2011.

                  Rural Cooperative Development Grant Program Eligibility and Grant Fund
                  Use for a Missouri Entity. 34004-0001-KC. Kansas City, MO:
                  August 25, 2011.

                  Audit of a Rural Rental Housing Management Company Located in
                  Indiana. 04601-0020-Ch. Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2011.



                  5
                   Report also discusses information contained under Title XIV – Miscellaneous.




                  Page 70                                                GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




Controls Over Rural Housing Service Disaster Assistance Payments.
04601-0019-Ch. Washington, D.C.: February 7, 2011.

Rural Business-Cooperative Service: Review of Lender with Business
and Industry Guaranteed Loans. 34099-0008-Te. Washington, D.C.:
December 27, 2010.

Rural Utilities Service Controls Over Water and Waste Disposal Loans
and Grants. 09601-0001-At. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2010.

Rural Business-Cooperative Service: Review of Lender with Business
and Industry Guaranteed Loan in Louisiana. 34099-0011-Te. Washington,
D.C.: September 29, 2010.

Single-Family Housing Direct Loans Recovery Act Controls – Phase II.
04703-0002-KC. Washington, D.C.: September 24, 2010.

Rural Utilities Service: Rural or Native Alaskan Village Grants.
09099-0002-SF. Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2010.

Controls Over Rural Community Facilities Direct Loan and Grant Program
Recovery Act Activities - Phase 1. 04703-0001-Hy. Washington, D.C.:
June 29, 2010.

Rural Business-Cooperative Service: Review of Lender with Business
and Industry Guaranteed Loan in Maryland. 34099-0009-Te. Washington,
D.C.: June 24, 2010.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – Business and Industry
Guaranteed Loan Program (Phase 1). 34703-0001-Te. Washington, D.C.:
March 31, 2010.

Controls Over Recovery Act Rural Business Enterprise Grants.
34703-0001-KC. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2010.

Review of Lender with Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan in
Virginia. 34099-0010-Te. Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2009.

Review of Lender with Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan in
Louisiana. 34099-0012-Te. Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2009.

Single-Family Housing Direct Loans Recovery Act Controls – Phase I.
04703-0001-KC. Washington, D.C.: November 5, 2009.


Page 71                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




Controls Over Eligibility Determinations for Single Family Housing
Guaranteed Loan Recovery Act Funds. 04703-0001-Ch. Washington,
D.C.: September 30, 2009.

Multi-Family Housing Loans in Texas. 04099-0212-Te. Temple, TX:
August 25, 2009.

Controls Over Lender Activities in the SFH Guaranteed Loan Program.
04601-0017-Ch. Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2009.

Request Audit of Oklahoma Rural Rental Housing Management
Company. 04099-0211-Te. Temple, TX: April 28, 2009.

Rural Utilities Service: Broadband Loan and Loan Guarantee Program.
09601-0008-Te. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2009.

Rural Utilities Service: Texas Community Connect Grantee Close-out
Audit. 09601-0006-Te. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2008.

Rural Utilities Service: Implementation of Loan and Grant Programs That
Promote Renewable Energy. 09601-0007-Te. Washington, D.C.:
March 21, 2008.

Rural Housing Service: Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program -
Bond Financing. 04099-0106-SF. Washington, D.C.: March 18, 2008.

Rural Development’s Single-Family Housing Force Placed Insurance
Program. 04099-0139-KC. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2007.

Rural Development: Lender’s Origination and Servicing of a Guaranteed
Rural Rental Housing Loan - State of Mississippi. 04601-0009-SF.
Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2007.

Rural Housing Service: Controls over Single Family Housing Grants and
Loans. 04601-0016-Ch. Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2007.

Controls over Single Family Housing Funds Provided for Hurricane Relief
Efforts. 04601-0015-Ch. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2007.

Improper Payments: Monitoring the Progress of Corrective Actions for
High-Risk Programs in Rural Housing Service. 04601-0014-Ch.
Washington, D.C.: March 20, 2007.



Page 72                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




Rural Business-Cooperative Service: Business and Industry Direct Loan,
Lehigh Coal and Navigation Company. 34004-0008-Hy. Beltsville, MD:
January 31, 2007.

Guaranteed Rural Housing Loan Program Followup. 04601-0003-At.
Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2006.

Controls Over Multi-Family Housing Funds Provided for Hurricane Relief
Efforts. 04601-0013-Ch. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2006.

Rural Housing Service: Single-Family Housing Program, Borrower
Income Verification Procedures. 04099-0341-At. Washington, D.C.:
August 14, 2006.

Rural Business-Cooperative Service: Value-Added Agricultural Product
Market Development Grant Program. 34601-0004-KC. Washington, D.C.:
July 28, 2006.

Community Facilities Program. 04601-0004-At. Washington, D.C.:
June 22, 2006.

Rural Rental Housing Loan Prepayment and Restrictive Use Agreements.
04601-0012-Ch. Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2006.

Rural Utilities Service’s Progress To Implement the Improper Payments
Information Act of 2002. 09601-0001-Ch. Washington, D.C.:
March 7, 2006

Rural Housing Service’s Progress To Implement the Improper Payments
Information Act of 2002. 04601-0011-Ch. Washington, D.C.:
February 24, 2006.

Rural Business-Cooperative Service’s Progress to Implement the
Improper Payments Information Act of 2002. 34601-0004-Ch.
Washington, D.C.: February 8, 2006.

Rural Utilities Service: Broadband Grant and Loan Programs.
09601-0004-Te. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2005.

Rural Business-Cooperative Service: Request Audit of Business and
Industry Loan in Arkansas. 34099-0007-Te. Temple, TX:
September 29, 2005.



Page 73                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




Single-Family Housing Program in South Carolina. 04099-0340-At.
Atlanta, GA: August 31, 2005.

Rural Development: Water Grants to the City of Frostburg, Maryland.
09099-0003-Hy. Beltsville, MD: June 14, 2005.

Rural Housing Service: Subsidy Payment Accuracy In Multi-Family
Housing Program. 04099-0339-At. Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2005.

Rural Development: Compliance with the Improper Payments Information
Act of 2002. 04601-0010-Ch. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2005.

Rural Business-Cooperative Service: Television Demonstration Grant
Program. 34099-0001-Hy. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004.

Rural Housing Service: Rural Rental Housing Project Management.
04016-0001-Ch. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004.

Rural Rental Housing Program: Housing Development Corporation,
Cairo, Illinois. 04099-0143-Ch. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004.

Rural Development: Local Governments’ Management of Multi-Family
Housing Projects in North Carolina. 04004-0004-At. Atlanta, GA:
July 15, 2004.

Accuracy of Single Family Housing Borrower Accounts. 04601-0009-Ch.
Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004.

Rural Business-Cooperative Service: Value-Added Agricultural Product
Market Development Grant Program. 34601-0003-KC. Washington, D.C.:
April 23, 2004.

Rural Development’s Escrow Process for Single Family Housing
Borrowers. 04601-0008-Ch. Washington, D.C.: February 2, 2004.

Rural Development: Audit of the Housing Authority of the City of Moultrie,
Georgia. 04010-0001-At. Atlanta, GA: January 9, 2004.




Page 74                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                          Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
                          General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




Title VII: Research and   USDA’s Response to Colony Collapse Disorder. 50099-0084-Hy.
Related Matters           Washington, D.C.: January 20, 2012.

                          Controls over Genetically Engineered Animal and Insect Research.
                          50601-0016-Te. Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2011.

                          Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service – 1994
                          Land-Grant Institutions. 13011-0003-At. Washington, D.C.:
                          August 17, 2007.

                          Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service’s
                          Progress to Implement the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002.
                          13601-0001-Ch. Washington, D.C.: February 8, 2006.

                          Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Controls Over Issuance of
                          Genetically Engineered Organism Release Permits. 50601-0008-Te.
                          Washington, D.C.: December 8, 2005. 6

                          Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
                          Compliance with the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002.
                          13601-0002-At. Washington, D.C.: January 7, 2005.


Title VIII: Forestry      Forest Service, Forest Legacy Program. 08601-0056-SF. Washington,
                          D.C.: April 20, 2011.


Title IX: Energy          Implementation of Renewable Energy Programs in USDA. 50601-0013-Ch.
                          Washington, D.C.: August 14, 2008.

                          Implementation of Renewable Energy Programs in Rural Business-
                          Cooperative Service. 34601-0005-Ch. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2008 7.

                          Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service’s
                          National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program.
                          13601-0001-Hy. Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2008. 8



                          6
                           Report also discusses information contained under Title X- Horticulture and Organic
                          Agriculture.
                          7
                           Report also discusses information contained under Title VI-Rural Development.
                          8
                           Report also discusses information contained under Title VII-Research and Related
                          Matters.




                          Page 75                                                GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                            Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
                            General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




                            Commodity Credit Corporation: Bioenergy Program. 03601-0025-KC.
                            Washington, D.C.: January 18, 2008.


Title X: Horticulture and   Agricultural Marketing Service: National Organic Program – Organic Milk.
Organic Agriculture         01601-0001-Te. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2012.

                            Oversight of the National Organic Program. 01601-0003-Hy. Washington,
                            D.C.: March 9, 2010.

                            United States Department of Agriculture: Controls over Importation of
                            Transgenic Plants and Animals. 50601-0017-Te. Washington, D.C.:
                            December 12, 2008. 9

                            Agricultural Marketing Service’s National Organic Program.
                            01001-0002-Hy. Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2005.

                            Pesticide Data and Recordkeeping Programs. 01099-0028-At.
                            Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2005.

                            Controls Over Plant Variety Protection and Germplasm Storage.
                            50601-0006-Te. Washington, D.C.: March 4, 2004.


Title XI: Livestock         Implementation of Country of Origin Labeling. 01601-0004-Hy.
                            Washington, D.C.: August 18, 2011.

                            Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Administration of the Horse
                            Protection Program and the Slaughter Horse Transport Program.
                            33601-0002-KC. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2010.

                            Assessment of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Disaster Response
                            Capabilities. 42099-0004-HQ. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2010.

                            USDA’s Controls Over Animal Import Centers. 33601-0011-Ch.
                            Washington, D.C.: August 13, 2010.




                            9
                             Report also discusses information contained under Title XI-Livestock.




                            Page 76                                                 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




Food Safety and Inspection Service: Oversight of the Recall by
Hallmark/Westland Meat Packaging Company. 24601-0010-Hy.
Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2009.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Controls Over Pilot
Qualification and Suitability. 33099-0008-KC. Washington, D.C.:
September 30, 2009.

Assessment of USDA’s Controls to Ensure Compliance with Beef Export
Requirements. 50601-0006-Hy. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2009.

Followup Audit of the Management and Oversight of the Packers and
Stockyards Program. 30016-0002-Hy. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2009

Evaluation of FSIS Management Controls Over Pre-Slaughter Activities.
24601-0007-KC. Washington, D.C.: November 28, 2008.

Food Safety and Inspection Service: Recall Procedures for Adulterated or
Contaminated Product. 24601-0009-Hy. Washington, D.C.:
August 7, 2008.

USDA’s Controls Over the Importation and Movement of Live Animals.
50601-0012-Ch. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2008.

USDA’s Implementation of the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza.
33701-0001-Hy. Washington, D.C.: January 15, 2008.

Issues Impacting Development of Risk-Based Inspection at Meat and
Poultry Processing Establishments. 24601-0007-Hy. Washington, D.C.:
December 4, 2007.

Food Safety and Inspection Service: State Meat and Poultry Inspection
Programs. 24005-0001-At. Washington, D.C.: September, 19, 2006.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Oversight of Avian Influenza.
33099-0011-Hy. Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2006.

Assessment of USDA’s Controls for The Beef Export Verification Program
for Japan. 50601-0011-HQ. Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2006.

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration’s Management
and Oversight of the Packers and Stockyards Programs. 30601-0001-Hy.
Washington, D.C.: January 10, 2006.


Page 77                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                            Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
                            General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




                            Food Safety and Inspection Service: Oversight of the 2004 Recall by
                            Quaker Maid Meats, Inc. 24601-0004-Hy. Washington, D.C.:
                            May 18, 2005.

                            Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: National Cooperative
                            State/Federal Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Program. 33099-0005-Ch.
                            Washington, D.C.: April 20, 2005.

                            Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Oversight of the Importation
                            of Beef Products from Canada. 33601-0001-Hy. Washington, D.C.:
                            February 14, 2005.

                            Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Exotic Newcastle Disease
                            Eradication Project, Cooperative/Reimbursable Agreements.
                            33099-0010-SF. Washington, D.C.: January 20, 2005.

                            Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Wildlife Services, Aircraft
                            Acquisition. 33099-0001-KC. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004.

                            Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and Food Safety and
                            Inspection Service: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)
                            Surveillance Program - Phase I. 50601-0009-KC. Washington, D.C.:
                            August 18, 2004.

                            Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Wildlife Services’ Controls
                            Over Hazardous Materials Inventory. 33001-0005-Hy. Washington, D.C.:
                            July 21, 2004.

                            Food Safety and Inspection Service: Effectiveness Checks for the 2002
                            Pilgrim’s Pride Recall. 24601-0003-Hy. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2004.

                            Food Safety Inspection Service: Oversight of the Listeria Outbreak in the
                            Northeastern United States. 24601-0002-Hy. Washington, D.C.: June 9,
                            2004.


Title XII: Crop Insurance   Citrus Crop Indemnity Payments from Hurricane Wilma in Florida.
and Disaster Assistance     05099-0029-At. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2011.
Programs
                            USDA Payments for 2005 Citrus Canker Tree Losses. 50099-0046-At.
                            Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2011.




                            Page 78                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




Risk Management Agency: Activities to Renegotiate the Standard
Reinsurance Agreement. 05601-0005-KC. Washington, D.C.:
August 27, 2010.

Risk Management Agency: Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage Pilot
Program. 50601-0018-Te. Washington, D.C.: August 27, 2010.

Risk Management Agency: Group Risk Crop Insurance. 05601-0014-Te.
Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2010.

Risk Management Agency: Compliance Activities. 05601-0011-At.
Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2009.

Risk Management Agency: 2005 Emergency Hurricane Relief Efforts.
05099-0028-At. Washington, D.C.: March 4, 2009.

Use of National Agricultural Statistics Service County Average Yields for
the Group Risk Protection Plans of Insurance. 05601-0004-KC.
Washington, D.C.: March 4, 2009.

Risk Management Agency: Crop Loss and Quality Adjustments for
Aflatoxin-Infected Corn. 05601-0015-Te. Washington, D.C.:
September 30, 2008.

Risk Management Agency’s Improved Financial Management Controls
Over Reinsured Companies. 05099-0111-KC. Washington, D.C.:
October 23, 2007.

Risk Management Agency: Asian Soybean Rust. 05099-0113-KC.
Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2007.

Risk Management Agency and Farm Service Agency: Zero Acreage
Reporting Compliance. 50099-0051-KC. Washington, D.C.:
March 28, 2007.

Risk Management Agency: Citrus Indemnity Determinations Made for
2004 Hurricane Damages in Florida. 05099-0027-At. Washington, D.C.:
March 26, 2007.

Risk Management Agency: Adjusted Gross Revenue Program.
05601-0004-SF. Washington, D.C.: January 23, 2007.




Page 79                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                        Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
                        General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




                        Risk Management Agency: New Crop Products Submitted by Private
                        Companies. 05601-0013-Te. Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2006.

                        Risk Management Agency: Prevented Planting Payments For Cotton Due
                        to Failure of the Irrigation Water Supply in California and Arizona, Crop
                        Year 2003. 05099-0011-SF. Washington, D.C.: November 9, 2005.

                        Risk Management Agency: Survey of Pilot Programs. 05601-0012-Te.
                        Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2005.

                        Cotton Crop Insurance: Premium Rates. 05601-0007-At. Washington,
                        D.C.: February 10, 2005.

                        Risk Management Agency: Renegotiation of the Standard Reinsurance
                        Agreement. 05099-0109-KC. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2005.

                        Farm Service Agency: Apple Market Loss Assistance Payment Program.
                        03601-0012-SF. Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2004. 10

                        Risk Management Agency: Added Land Policy. 05099-0025-At.
                        Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2004.

                        Risk Management Agency: Established Maximum Price Elections for
                        Agricultural Crops for 2001 and 2002 Crop Years. 05099-0017-KC.
                        Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2004.

                        Risk Management Agency: Review of Written Agreements.
                        05601-0011-Te. Washington, D.C.: December 30, 2003.


Title XIII: Commodity   No USDA Office of Inspector General reports issued between October 1,
Futures                 2003 and February 29, 2012 related to this title.




                        10
                          Was in 2002 Farm Bill Title X – Miscellaneous, under Disaster Assistance. This would
                        correspond to Title XII in the 2008 Farm Bill.




                        Page 80                                                GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                           Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
                           General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




Title XIV, Miscellaneous   Food Emergency Response Network. 24601-0006-At. Washington, D.C.:
                           March 22, 2011.

                           Controls Over APHIS Licensing of Animal Exhibitors. 33601-0010-Ch.
                           Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2010.

                           Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Animal Care Program,
                           Inspections of Problematic Dealers. 33002-0004-SF. Washington, D.C.:
                           May 14, 2010.

                           Farm Service Agency: Socially Disadvantaged Borrower Foreclosures –
                           Farm Program Loans. 03601-0049-Te. Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2009.

                           Controls Over Permits to Import Agricultural Products. 33601-0009-Ch.
                           Washington, D.C.: October 26, 2007.

                           USDA Homeland Security Initiatives and Directives. 50701-0002-KC.
                           Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2007.

                           Review of Customs and Border Protection’s Agriculture Inspection
                           Activities. 33601-0007-Ch. Washington, D.C.: February 21, 2007.

                           Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Evaluation of the
                           Implementation of the Select Agent or Toxin Regulations, Phase II.
                           33601-0003-At. Washington, D.C.: January 17, 2006.

                           APHIS Animal Care Program Inspection and Enforcement Activities.
                           33002-0003-SF. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2005.

                           Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Evaluation of the
                           Implementation of the Select Agent or Toxin Regulations, Phase I.
                           33601-0002-At. Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2005.

                           Review of Export Licensing Process for Animal and Plant Health
                           Inspection Service Listed Agents and Toxins. 33601-0004-At.
                           Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2005.

                           Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Transition and Coordination
                           of Border Inspection Activities Between USDA and DHS. 33601-0005-Ch.
                           Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2005.

                           Biosecurity Grant Funding, Controls Over Biosecurity Grant Funds
                           Usage. 50099-0017-KC. Washington, D.C.: February 17, 2005.


                           Page 81                                          GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
                          Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector
                          General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title




                          Security Over Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s Owned and
                          Leased Aircraft. 33601-0001-At. Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2004.

                          Controls Over Chemical and Radioactive Materials at U.S. Department of
                          Agriculture Facilities. 50601-0009-At. Washington, D.C.: March 24, 2004.

                          Followup Report on the Security of Biological Agents at U.S. Department
                          of Agriculture Laboratories. 50601-0010-At. Washington, D.C.:
                          March 8, 2004.

                          Homeland Security Issues for USDA Commodity Inventories.
                          50099-0013-KC. Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2004. 11


Title XV: Trade and Tax   Farm Service Agency: Hurricane Relief Initiatives: Livestock Indemnity
Provisions                and Feed Indemnity Programs. 03601-0023-KC. Washington, D.C.:
                          February 2, 2009. 12




                          11
                            Report also discusses information contained under Title I-Commodity Programs.
                          12
                            Report also discusses information contained under Title XII-Crop Insurance and
                          Disaster Assistance Programs.




                          Page 82                                                GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff
                  Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff
                  Acknowledgments



Acknowledgments

                  Lisa Shames, (202) 512-3841, or shamesl@gao.gov
GAO Contact
                  In addition to the individual named above, Susan Offutt, Chief Economist;
Staff             Thomas M. Cook, Assistant Director; Kevin S. Bray; Christine Feehan;
Acknowledgments   Andy Finkel; Joy Labez; Kathy Larin; Katie Mauldin; Thomas Melito;
                  Barbara J. El-Osta; Anne Rhodes-Kline; Cindy Saunders; William B.
                  Shear; Carol Herrnstadt Shulman; and Phillip Thomas made key
                  contributions to this report.




(361274)
                  Page 83                                      GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation
GAO’s Mission         The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
                      investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
                      constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
                      accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
                      examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
                      policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
                      to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions.
                      GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
                      accountability, integrity, and reliability.

                      The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
Obtaining Copies of   cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon,
GAO Reports and       GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and
                      correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products,
Testimony             go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

Order by Phone        The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
                      production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
                      publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
                      white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website,
                      http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
                      Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
                      TDD (202) 512-2537.
                      Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
                      MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.
                      Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Connect with GAO      Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
                      Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.
                      Contact:
To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in   Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
                      E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Federal Programs      Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

                      Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-
Congressional         4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
Relations             7125, Washington, DC 20548

                      Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs        U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
                      Washington, DC 20548




                        Please Print on Recycled Paper.