[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
            REORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I might--I understand no one is seeking 
the floor at the moment--tell the Members some of the things the Senate 
Agriculture Committee has been doing in the last few hours.
  The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry this 
morning reported out legislation to restructure the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture. In fact, this is going to be the first comprehensive 
overhaul of the Department of Agriculture since the 1930's. I want to 
praise Senators on both sides of the aisle who have made that possible, 
and the Senate staffs on both sides of the aisle who have been working 
almost around the clock on this reorganization.
  It could not be understated what we did in the Department of 
Agriculture today. With reorganization, we have made a $2.3 billion 
downpayment on reinventing Government. It is a real victory for the 
American taxpayer. It means a more efficient and a better directed 
Department of Agriculture. The world is changing and we know that, and 
the Department of Agriculture has to change with it. What we have done 
is given the Secretary, Secretary Espy, the tools he needs to bring the 
Department of Agriculture into the 21st century. We have shown that 
Congress is ready to deliver on the Vice President's plan to make 
Government work better.
  The legislation proves that we can cut costs and improve services at 
the same time. I hope we are setting a standard for the rest of the 
Federal Government to follow. I know that Senator Lugar--as the ranking 
member--and I have been working on this for a number of years. I think 
that we have made a giant step forward this morning in the committee 
with the support of 17 members of the committee.
  Let me just briefly summarize what the bill does. It provides budget 
savings by streamlining Federal employment and departmental 
administration. That is a savings of $2.3 billion through 1998.
  It cuts the size of the Department of Agriculture bureaucracy and 
reduces the number of Federal employees by 7,500. It reduces the number 
of independent agencies from 43 down to 28. These are real cuts, and 
cuts in Washington, the headquarters, by requiring a higher percentage 
of cuts at the Department of Agriculture than in the field, and it 
requires consolidation of the Department of Agriculture's Washington 
offices. In other words, whatever cuts are going to be made, more will 
be done in Washington, than out in the field, to set the standard.
  It creates a new Farm Service Agency. It consolidates all the farm 
programs. It makes way for entirely new field structures based on field 
service centers. This will lead to closing and consolidating over 1,100 
county offices. It establishes the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service. That is going to give local control over final decisions on 
program recipients to county ASCS committees. It is going to 
consolidate the Department of Agriculture's cost-share programs in the 
new NRCS. It creates a single food safety agency to oversee all USDA 
food safety and inspection programs. It consolidates planning and 
policy development for all of USDA's research and education programs.
  Mr. President, this bill is good for taxpayers, it is good for 
farmers, it is good for the Department of Agriculture, it is good 
Government. It is going to save money. It is going to cut personnel, 
and I should note for my colleagues, every State will be affected, 
including the State of Vermont. I am not going to say we will do cuts 
in the other 49 States and we will not do any in my own State. Every 
State will see consolidation, every State will see savings, every State 
will see cuts. But all of us will be better off for it. The American 
taxpayers will spend $2.3 billion less than they would have without it, 
and I think rural areas and farmers and ranchers in this country will 
be better off in the long run.

                          ____________________