Miller making his markWASHINGTON — Farm programs need to be simplified so the Agriculture Department can run them more efficiently, but crop insurance should remain a public-private partnership rather than return to USDA, according to Jim Miller, the former agriculture undersecretary for farm and foreign agricultural services who is now a senior adviser to Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D.
By: Jerry Hagstrom, Special to Agweek
WASHINGTON — Farm programs need to be simplified so the Agriculture Department can run them more efficiently, but crop insurance should remain a public-private partnership rather than return to USDA, according to Jim Miller, the former agriculture undersecretary for farm and foreign agricultural services who is now a senior adviser to Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D.
In an exclusive interview with Agweek on his experience at USDA and on Capitol Hill, Miller also said addressing trade barriers was the most frustrating part of his job as undersecretary.
Miller is a rare figure in Washington in several ways. He farmed before becoming active in farm organizations and turning to policy work, and after holding a Senate-confirmed position as undersecretary, he chose to return to Capitol Hill.
In the interview, Miller said that as much as he enjoyed his work at USDA, he could not give up the opportunity to help write the next farm bill. Miller did not discuss the proposal that agriculture committees are expected to present to the supercommittee in charge of deficit reduction because that proposal still is being finalized.
Edited excerpts of the interview:
Q. AGWEEK: A lot of people say there should be a real farmer who is in charge of writing these programs to understand what is needed and how they would work. You are that rare case of someone who started out as a farmer and then became active in farm groups and went from there to being a policymaker.
Tell us about this evolution from being a farmer to a policymaker, both on the Hill and at USDA.
A. MILLER: My family farmed in Washington state before statehood. My great-grandfather homesteaded in Washington Territory, and over a period of time, the family farm has moved a few times geographically.
I farmed what was a piece of property that my grandfather purchased just before World War I, and the land is still in the family. When I left the farm, I leased my part of the farm interest to my sister and brother-in-law, who are operating it with their son today. So we’ve been involved in Washington state agriculture for a long time.
The farm is a dryland diversified grain farm. We raise wheat — both spring and winter wheat — barley, lentils. We’ve dabbled in a number of things from canola to dry peas, and my brother-in-law has even attempted to raise soybeans. But wheat and lentils and barley are the major crops in that area of the Palouse Hills region of eastern Washington.
Q. AGWEEK: My recollection is that your first involvement in a farm organization was with the wheat growers. Is that right?
A. MILLER: Yes. When I moved back to the farm (after college) and I had farmed for a few years, some good friends got me involved in the Wheat Growers Association out there at the county level. It was at that point that I began to develop an interest in agricultural policy and gradually rose through the chairs of the Washington Association of Wheat Growers to become president in 1981.
I kept my involvement in that organization for a number of years, both at the state and national level, and was also involved with the Dry Pea and Lentil Association out there, which was an organization that my father helped establish.
Q. AGWEEK: When I look at your background, it appears that when you were president of the National Association of Wheat Growers, you must have enjoyed lobbying so much that you decided to go into it. Is that the case?
A. MILLER: Maybe I caught a case of the dreaded Potomac Fever, but I did enjoy it. My interest in agricultural policy continued to grow. I was fortunate to serve as an officer of the National Association of Wheat Growers, including as its president, and had the opportunity to spend a lot of time in Washington, as well as other parts of the country, which I think really helped broaden my perspective, not just in terms of what affected the wheat industry but also what affected farmers in general.
After I went through the chairs of the wheat growers, I was involved in some other associations, got involved in some work on some trade issues with Canada, and then more by coincidence than by seeking a position, I was asked if I would move to Washington to work for the National Association of Wheat Growers, so I did that in 1995. I haven’t managed to leave yet.
I went from the National Association of Wheat Growers in 1999 to work for the National Farmers Union. Tom Buis (who had been an aide to then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.) had just moved over to head up their Washington office, about a year before. I worked for (NFU) for about five years and then joined Sen. Conrad’s budget committee staff.
Q. AGWEEK: Then you went back to NFU, right?
A. MILLER: For a short period of time, after the 2008 farm bill was completed and ultimately enacted, I did go back to the National Farmers Union. They were involved in a major reorganization effort, and I went back to work with Tom Buis trying to get that finalized, and was there for about six months before I went to USDA.
Q. AGWEEK: When the Obama administration nominated you and you were confirmed by the Senate, they did not violate their viewpoint that they shouldn’t be hiring lobbyists for these high-level positions?
A. MILLER: No, that’s right. When I went back to NFU, I was doing more administrative work, primarily within the organization trying to reorganize things, so I was not working on specific policy issues or lobbying Congress on those issues for that period of time.
Q. AGWEEK: What was it like to go from working in farm organizations and working on Capitol Hill to being undersecretary for farm and foreign agricultural services?
A. MILLER: It was thrilling. It was a bit of culture shock. For someone who has been around agriculture and agriculture policy and Washington for a number of years, you think you know everything there is to know about the department or agencies, and I certainly was pretty well acquainted down there.
But the Department of Agriculture is a gigantic operation. I felt very fortunate to be nominated by the president to take on the responsibilities with the Farm Service Agency and Foreign Agricultural Service. Really, the components of that mission area were the things I had been working on for years, so that was truly a great experience.
But there are certainly things that I don’t think (an appointee) realize(s). A lot of that is just the totality of the kinds of issues that the department is involved in that are outside the areas that you may have been focused on, and how big some of those projects are and how difficult many of them are. It’s a department that employs nationwide well over 100,000 people. In my mission area, I had somewhere just under 20,000 people that worked in the agencies that I oversaw. It’s a big operation.
Policy and implementation of policy is certainly a large part of what we do, but in anything of that scale, you always find that there are things that you weren’t expecting. In a lot of cases, it was dealing with a number of personnel issues and the more hands-on management of agency budgets rather than federal budget and allocation of resources, not just money.
There is very little discretionary allocation of money that goes on, but trying to establish priorities when you have a whole table full of things that all needed to be done yesterday. At that time, we were in the throes of trying to implement the 2008 farm bill. There was a tremendous amount of work to be done and, fortunately, a lot of extremely talented and dedicated people down there that were willing to do it or we might still be trying to get some major parts of the farm bill implemented.
Q. AGWEEK: Since you brought up implementation, let’s talk a little bit about the three major agencies that you oversaw. What is your view of the Farm Service Agency, the system of county offices and how they go about their work and implementation of farm bills?
A. MILLER: The Farm Service Agency faces some very real challenges going forward. It’s a big agency. Within USDA and within the federal government, it’s one of the very few agencies that has the scale of direct links to its stakeholders or to the general population, so that’s unique.
The way it’s organized is unique because part of the agency encompasses federal employees and part of it does not. Yet they are both working on the same projects and trying to accomplish the same mission.
The biggest challenge the agency faces is trying to modernize, both in terms of its work force and in terms of its responsibilities. Maybe the most critical element right now is in terms of its information technology. A lot of work has been done the last few years to upgrade a system. I don’t know of anyone in the country that operates with a computer system and the software that we’re trying to make do with at the Farm Service Agency.
As these programs get more and more complex, it poses a tremendous challenge and a significant increase in workload for the folks at FSA, both in the national office here in Washington as well as our other big offices in Kansas City, Mo., and St. Louis, but more specifically at those county-level offices, where our people are interacting with our constituents on a day-to-day basis.
Q. AGWEEK: You sometimes said publicly when you were undersecretary that you realized that if you had known you were going to hold that job, you might have written some provisions in the 2008 farm bill differently, but I don’t recall that you’ve ever said exactly what you would have done differently. Can you be a little more specific?
A. MILLER: The 2008 farm bill was a very good piece of legislation and something that captured a level of bipartisan support in the Congress that we probably haven’t seen since, and was pretty rare even if one looks back in history.
But when I look at many of the programs that we implemented — not that the programs aren’t beneficial or important programs — but when you look at the disaster program, the ACRE program and energy title that had a number of new components to it, an increased emphasis on nontraditional crops, specialty crops, horticulture, organics — we created a significant level of new programs that needed to be implemented, which meant you had to go through a very thorough regulatory process to define the rules of the game, get those approved through what is a rather cumbersome process within any administration, then get the information out to the individuals who actually are on the front lines. (That) was very challenging.
Look at the disaster program and the ACRE program. Those programs were complex, and that’s not to say that complexity is necessarily an issue. Given the ability of FSA to deal with the kinds of data requirements that those programs require and while the data is available, FSA just doesn’t have the capacity with these old computer systems to easily move it from one place to another and make use of it.
A lot of these programs literally had to be implemented. Farmers had to sign up, and the folks within FSA had to do these calculations in what is considered to be a manual basis, which meant they had to download data, re-enter it into a new program similar to an Excel spreadsheet and then do these calculations for each one.
I knew their system was outdated. I just didn’t realize how difficult that was going to be. Until that agency can get into the 21st century, Congress needs to be somewhat mindful of the challenges that we face, because both Congress and the department want to be able to deliver these programs to our stakeholders in a very efficient and timely manner. Our producers across the country are very understanding of that, but we’d like to be able to do it better.
Q. AGWEEK: Will you be keeping this in mind as you help write the next farm bill?
A. MILLER: It’s a goal, not only of Sen. Conrad and one of my personal goals, but a goal that is broadly shared among those involved in agriculture that we need to find a way to reduce the complexity of these programs. We need to eliminate duplication where it exists. That will help us be more effective in delivering the programs that we believe are priorities for farmers and ranchers, for rural communities and others that have a stake in what USDA does.
Q. AGWEEK: On this issue of the computers, on the sharing of data, I’ve had people tell me that among the county offices and the Risk Management Agency and the conservation programs there are some bureaucrats who really don’t want an integration of the computer system, because they fear that it could mean a loss of jobs. They also have strong feelings about their programs.
How much of this is a matter of money and how much is it a matter of bureaucratic resistance? Do you think there is resistance to integration or is this just idle speculation?
A. MILLER: There is always a certain amount of resistance to change, no matter what you are looking at. It is a new frontier. Once you are used to using a particular system and you know what it can and can’t do, you develop a comfort level and a prospect of having to go through retraining in a system that has a lot different capabilities. I’m sure it’s daunting for some people.
My experience is the number of naysayers is extremely small within my agencies, and I think that’s true across the department. Everyone there, whether a program technician out in a county office in Middle America or whether a high-ranking official at the department, understands we have to be able to do a better job, and that we have to be able to have the systems in place that allow us to share information, because these programs are all becoming more integrated. Moving information within an agency or between agencies is very important, and we are making headway.
We do have a system in place now that allows RMA (Risk Management Agency) and FSA to share information. The first couple stages of that have been launched.
There is more work to be done. FSA is well along in its modernization project, which is not just a question of having new machines. That is the easiest part of this. It is developing the software that allows that agency to adapt to its responsibilities and then be able to share that information with the stakeholders and with the other agencies that may need some of the work that FSA has done. That is a very significant job.
It is compounded because we don’t get to shut down and say, “We’re going to take two weeks off and put a new system in place.” We are in operation. We have a very substantial database that we have to maintain and want to maintain, even if it isn’t easily accessible, because we don’t know what the future demands are going to be on it.
We have to be able to develop the software that has the flexibility to allow us to adjust to the kinds of complex programs that we are going to be implementing in the future. It is a big challenge, but I can tell you there are some extremely bright people who are working on this and a lot of progress has been made.
It’s certainly a question of money, but it’s these things (that) take time to develop and test to make sure that things don’t fall through the cracks.
Q. AGWEEK: The budget for the computer system always seems to be something that appropriators look at as something that they can cut to use the money for other purposes.
A. MILLER: Historically, that’s certainly been true, whether it’s USDA’s budget or some other department’s budget. But over the last few years, the agriculture committees and agricultural appropriations subcommittees and Congress in general have recognized that the system that USDA has is totally antiquated, and that there are a lot of efficiencies to be gained by improving that system.
The Obama administration and Congress both committed significant resources. That’s been one of USDA’s highest priorities, particularly as it relates to the Farm Service Agency. We are going to get over the goal line, but in this budget climate, some of these issues are compounded. It is a challenge that we have to face up to and we have to resolve.
Q. AGWEEK: The county committee system is one of the most revered aspects for the farm programs that started in the ’30s. Do you think it still works, or is it antiquated now?
A. MILLER: I think it’s still a very important aspect of what we do. We are dependent upon the kind of feedback that we get from our stakeholders, and a lot of that feedback occurs through the country committee system. The people that are elected to those committees know the growers in that area. That’s very beneficial.
At the same time, it provides a direct link back to those producers, that they know when they have problems, there is a group that they can go to, and those problems will get a fair hearing and when appropriate will be transmitted further up the chain for decision. It is a great system.
We are unique in that regard, just as in a lot of ways I think agriculture and the kind of the social climate that exists in rural communities is a bit unique in this world. I would hate to see it just completely disappear, because I think that link to people at the local level is tremendously important.
Having said that, budget pressures, improved communication, improved transportation systems probably mean that we need to take a look at this system. We still want to keep a system that is as close as possible to farmers and ranchers and our local communities.
Q. AGWEEK: When you bring up the budget pressures, it reminds me of the many battles to try to consolidate county offices to create efficiency and provide better service. Often, that is resisted, particularly by some of the municipal officials in those small towns.
While you were at USDA, did you try to merge any of these offices, and how did you find that?
A. MILLER: There is a procedure at USDA that allows for the closure of county offices and merging of responsibilities or sharing of administrative tasks. We did not develop a formal office-closing plan, something that has been done by previous administrations of both parties, but I think there is an increasing recognition that it’s something that is going to have to be taken very seriously in the future.
In the same way, we are going to have to take a look at the resources that we are spending at the national level as well. There are efficiencies that can be gained, not just budget efficiencies, but programmatic efficiencies that could be gained if we take a hard look at that system.
We have a number of offices around the country that only have part-time management. We may have a county executive director who really directs the operations in two counties. We have a number of counties that only have one or two employees.
Given the complexity of these programs, it’s very difficult for those people to have the level of expertise in the administration of each of these programs that we would like to see and that I think our producers deserve.
So some consolidation is going to be a fact of life in the future. The question is how do we do it in a way that does not create an extreme level of hardship on our stakeholders or an extreme level of hardship on our employees that are really the best asset Farm Service Agency has. It is, I expect, going to be a work in progress and something that the secretary and the undersecretary are going to have to deal with.
Q. AGWEEK: The National Association of State and County Employees says the county committee employees should be able to process crop insurance claims. This has caused a conflict with the crop insurance companies and agents. Do you have a view on whether that should be done?
A. MILLER: (The) agencies and the people that help administer those programs probably have an adequate amount of work to do currently.
The crop insurance program has evolved as a public-private partnership because, historically, when it was truly a federal program, delivery — even with more simple policies than we have today — was not as good as we would like. The program was promoted in some parts of the country, less so in others.
We’ve seen a tremendous change with this partnership, and I think the companies and the agents and the Risk Management Agency, all being overseen by the (Federal Crop Insurance Corp.) board, have experienced a phenomenal growth and much greater understanding.
Before there is a serious effort to reconsider that type of delivery system, we need to look — and I hate to say it — at what might be some unintended consequences of doing so.
By the same token, we need to do a better job within the FSA offices. Some of them are quite small. We need to do a better job of training, and we need to have even better collaboration between FSA and the other agencies where our policies do intersect, whether it’s the crop insurance program or the conservation programs or in some cases even the rural development programs.
Q. AGWEEK: When you were at USDA, under your direction, RMA negotiated a substantial cost savings in the new standard reinsurance agreement. Now the administration wants more cuts, but you’re on Capitol Hill. Do you think you did enough in cutting the crop insurance program in your SRA negotiations? How do you feel about what the administration has proposed?
A. MILLER: Our goal in renegotiating the contract was not just one of “Oh, we want to cut the crop insurance program.” Our goal was to try to make rational changes to the program, recognizing the dynamics of crop insurance had changed somewhat, and that the United States government and the taxpayer is still a significant investor in that program. We wanted to ensure that we’re delivering the programs to farmers that they need for risk management, but that it is still a good value for the American taxpayer.
The SRA that was negotiated made a number of changes that were necessary to accomplish those two goals, while ensuring that we still have a vibrant crop insurance industry that is very reliant on the private sector, both for the implementation of the programs as well as the delivery through private agents.
Is there more that could be done in terms of budget savings? That’s something that we always have to look at, but we also need to understand that we are in kind of a unique period in terms of crop insurance with generally high commodity prices at least among the major crops that are covered under that program, a neighborhood that is driving a lot of things that could change fairly quickly.
We want to recognize that while things may be going quite well for the industry in the short term, agriculture is inherently a risky business. That’s why we have the federal crop insurance program, and I think we want to be cautious that we don’t assume that what is occurring today in the industry is going to continue on indefinitely.
Q. AGWEEK: RMA was one of the agencies that you supervised. Anything more you want to say about what it was like to oversee that part of USDA?
A. MILLER: The people at RMA, whether in Washington or in our office in Kansas City, take their job very, very seriously, and they always are trying to figure out ways to ensure that the new products that are being developed get a fair hearing, that they conform to the statute or that we can find better ways of delivering the crop insurance program to our producers.
We have to understand that over the last decade or so, crop insurance has become probably the most important single element of the producers’ safety net. A lot of what we do in other areas is really kind of an add-on to that underlying level of risk management that is provided through the crop insurance program.
It is extremely important not just to farm families but to agribusinesses. These families try to finance their operations going forward, whether it’s to expand the size of the operation or build in new technology. Certainly creditors look at crop insurance as one element of assurance that the farmers are going to be a good risk. The thing that we try to do in crop insurance is to make sure that these programs continue to be a value to everyone that relies on them.
Q. AGWEEK: Compared with the work you had done before, it would seem like your work on international trade and supervising the Foreign Agricultural Service was something that you had done less on. You spent a lot of time on those issues and did a lot of travel. How did you find your experience dealing with the international issues facing agriculture and USDA?
A. MILLER: It probably was the most interesting and, at the same time, the most frustrating part of that job. We are in extremely interesting times. We have been able to expand our exports both in terms of value, in terms of tonnage. We’re finding new markets for some of our more unique products overseas, so there are a lot of wonderful things that are happening in terms of U.S. agriculture’s ability to become an even larger player on the world stage.
But the functioning of some of these markets is extremely frustrating. We’ve dealt with any number of trade restrictions that were imposed upon us for reasons that were certainly not based on any science, and we continue to face those struggles.
We have trade agreements that in many cases don’t function as well or as efficiently as we or the world community should like. Whether we’re trying to open new markets or trade barriers, it takes years to accomplish that. (Those were) some of the frustrations that we faced in terms of trying to regain access, particularly because of a number of things that have occurred in the past.
One of the real challenges and an area I spent a lot of time was on livestock markets. I’m not a livestock producer, but whether it was poultry or pork or cattle, it seemed like every time we turned around, we were facing a challenge in trying to keep markets open or re-establish markets that had heretofore been lost because of a disease. A disease can be very real, but the implications of that can have long-lasting trade effects, and we’re certainly facing that with everything from avian influenza to BSE.
It’s hard work. It requires a lot of cooperation among a number of federal agencies, because it’s not just agriculture that’s interested in trade. Certainly, the State Department and Commerce and Treasury and our partners at the United States Trade Representative’s Office all have big roles to play in this, but there’s also a lot of work in terms of partnering with the private sector to try to get these markets open, get them functioning, and then promote U.S. products overseas. They all go hand-in-hand, and that’s just the commercial trade side.
We also have a very large role with FAS on the food security side internationally through our food aid programs, our collaboration with USAID and the State Department, and there’s no shortage of challenges and frustrations in that realm as well, particularly with the level of global economic insecurity that exists today. It’s certainly bad in developed countries such as United States or in Europe, but in developing countries, it’s a question of life or death for many people.
Some of the things that we’re beginning to implement now, both on behalf of the U.S. citizens but also in cooperation through a variety of international agencies, are very important. The “Feed the Future” initiative finally has begun in a serious way to at least identify and develop a plan to attack this issue of global poverty and development in a way that goes far beyond just the U.S. or other countries providing food assistance.
That’s going to be still a key part of it, but ultimately, we have to enhance productivity in those countries. We have to in many cases assist them in building the institutions, so that they can have viable agriculture.
That’s a long-term challenge, but one that we have to confront, recognizing we can’t do it by ourselves.
Q. AGWEEK: You had the most changes of leadership in the international division of USDA that you supervised — the deputy undersecretary for international affairs and the administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Service. How do you feel about the administration of that part of USDA since you left?
A. MILLER: They are doing quite well. We have gotten to the point now where there is an element of stability, a much better understanding of the big role that the Foreign Agricultural Service plays, rather than pieces of what is a very big role.
Getting Darci Vetter as deputy undersecretary overseeing the international side of that operation was just outstanding. Darci has got a broad range of experience. In the political sense, she’s just perfect for that job. (Note: Vetter now is on maternity leave.)
Finally, we have a career person from FAS as acting administrator, Sue Heinen. Again she has a wealth of experience, both on the commercial and export promotion side of FAS as well as the food assistance programs.
It’s a really good team, something that FAS has needed and deserves. I am fully expecting that they are going to be very successful.
Q. AGWEEK: Here you were, the Honorable Jim Miller with a big office on the Mall, and you decided to give that up and come back to Capitol Hill. Why?
A. MILLER: First of all, I didn’t get involved in public policy or public service for the trappings of something, so that was never a big issue.
It was a tremendous honor to be undersecretary at USDA. It was certainly a highlight of my career, and there are a lot of things about the Department of Agriculture I really like. The people were phenomenal. The issues were interesting and challenging, but my heart always has been in the development of policy. As we began to finalize the implementation of the 2008 farm bill, got the SRA completed and made some significant headway on a number of very important trade issues and started looking at another farm bill, I began weighing what I wanted to do.
I literally made a list, kind of the old pro and con list. Staying there had a lot of things that were enticing, but by the same token, moving back to the Hill, particularly with the opportunity to come back and work for Sen. Conrad, also was something that was enticing.
I’d almost say that it came down to a flip of the coin. I thoroughly enjoyed working with Secretary (Tom) Vilsack. He’s a wonderful secretary of agriculture, a very personable individual.
But I’ve had a longtime relationship with Sen. Conrad preceding (that), when I first went to work for him. It was a unique opportunity, again, with some very challenging times ahead of us, but a decision that I don’t think I am going to have ever regretted.
Q. AGWEEK: What title do you have now working for Sen. Conrad?
A. MILLER: Senior policy adviser, and I work for the Budget Committee.
Q. AGWEEK: In the past, some other staffers have affectionately called your predecessors “chart boy,” because the person in your position is always holding the charts when Sen. Conrad appears on the Senate floor or in front of the committee. Will you be holding his charts?
A. MILLER: I’ve had the privilege of doing that in the past, so I fully expect in the future I may, in fact, be doing that, although we have gotten to the point where we are doing a lot more with technology these days, not on the floor in the Senate, but in a number of other venues.
We still produce a lot of charts. Sen. Conrad makes outstanding use of those, whether it’s agriculture or budget or the other things that he’s involved in. It created a whole new way of communicating in the Senate, and there’s any number of senators now who are following his lead. I think it is a very effective way to communicate with people all across the country, and he is great at it.
To get a chart, simplify it and be able to convey a message that the average person can understand about what are some very difficult topics is a real talent.
Q. AGWEEK: Some people think members of Congress try to keep USDA on as tight a tether as possible. Do you think members of Congress keep a pretty tight rein on farm policy? Did you feel constrained by the way the farm bill was written when you were trying to implement it?
A. MILLER: Yes, I think they do, and I think that has added to the complexity of programs. In a perfect world, you could provide some general direction to the secretary and expect that he’s going to read the minds of Congress and implement programs that we like.
This has been something that’s evolved over time, because the agriculture committees or Congress in general didn’t always feel that the department was acting consistent with the statutory authority or the guidance that Congress had provided. When that’s the case, Congress ultimately has the last word, and they begin, as you characterized it, implementing a much tighter tether on USDA. Anyone who is trying to administer the program would like all the freedom in the world. So it’s a question of finding the balance.
Having said that, the relationship between the agriculture committees and the Department of Agriculture, in my experience over a lot of Congresses, a lot of administrations and a lot of years, always has been quite good.
There is a desire on a bipartisan basis to want USDA to be successful. I don’t see anything that is changing that, even with the difficulties that we face in the current Congress.
The unique thing is (that) the Department of Agriculture and the agriculture committees recognize that they share the same constituents, the same stakeholders and have very significant responsibilities to those that benefit from our programs, whether they are farmers and ranchers or the neediest among us across the country.
So I think that ensures that there is going to be hopefully a very good working relationship, but always going to be room for some differences of opinion and a desire to impose one’s will on the process.