[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]

 
                     THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, just a few moments ago, the Senate 
Agriculture Committee marked up what will be known as the Senate's 
version of the reorganization of the United States Department of 
Agriculture. For over 40 years, this marvelous, old establishment of 
our Government has gone relatively unchanged. And I think most of us 
agree that to keep pace with modern times, it is appropriate we do look 
at changing the structure. Secretary Espy brought a managed plan for 
change before us. We have looked at it and proposed restructuring.
  In doing so, I think it is important we in this country do not forget 
that this phenomenal ability we have to produce food is a result of the 
productive capacity of American agriculture, and that this productivity 
has come about because Congress has given America's farmers support in 
their efforts to produce, and also to do so in an environmentally sound 
way. We must ensure that our effort to reorganize does not destroy the 
magic of the American agriculture system, which has become the envy of 
the world.
  The basis of this magical productivity, or capacity to produce, has 
largely been embodied in private property and the ability of 
individuals to own and manage private property to their benefit and to 
that of the rest of the country. We must ensure that, by our actions, 
the ability of the people to manage their private property is 
unfettered. We must never deny the value of private property in the 
name of the environment and the so-called ``good of the public.''
  I hope, in the reorganization effort we just passed out of committee, 
we are recognizing--more clearly, in my opinion, than the 
administration--this important responsibility. We must ensure we give 
direction to all segments, while at the same time making sure our 
message is clear: That USDA stands for and supports agricultural 
production in this country, instead of a lot of other alternatives and 
rather esoteric arguments that I think this administration has become 
involved in as to what ought to be the role of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture.
  For example, it has been my concern that in nutrition and 
environment, which are currently the buzzwords in this administration's 
role with USDA, they were attempting to direct reorganization in those 
two directions. Let me reemphasize that our American agricultural 
capacity today has been based on a USDA that supported production 
agriculture instead of one that got off into the other businesses of 
other agencies of our Government.
  I think our reorganizational effort, hopefully, today, reminds us our 
primary role must continue to fall in production agriculture.
  Let me also suggest I was extremely pleased today that Senator Leahy, 
the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and our ranking 
Republican member, Senator Lugar, allowed us to also say very clearly 
that there is a role in reorganization that the USDA and Secretary Espy 
had been relatively silent to: That in my State of Idaho, or other 
Western States where there are large U.S. Forest Service contingencies, 
and certainly large expanses of forest property, that we be very clear 
in what we expect out of reorganization as it relates to the Forest 
Service.
  We spoke clearly to that today. We spoke about ecosystem management 
and the continued work to understand what that is and the ability for 
us to define more clearly what it is. We talked of budget and budget 
structuring and budget structuring processes in the reinvention of 
Government as it relates to the U.S. Forest Service, and that that be 
more clearly defined. We talked about measures of accountability. In 
other words, we set forth for this administration, I think, respectable 
and yet fairly clear guidelines as to what we would want them to do 
inside USDA as it relates to Forest Service reorganization.
  Something else we also spoke very clearly to that was of great 
concern out in Idaho and other States across the Nation is the role of 
the ASCS, the role of the Soil Conservation Service, and the role of 
our land grant colleges as relates to agricultural research and the 
ability of land grant colleges in their important and primary 
agricultural research role to compete with Federal research.
  Today, we ``unfuzzed'' what I think had been administration policy 
and clearly spoke to an independent Soil Conservation Service, clearly 
a farm-service-center approach and also at least equal role for our 
land grant colleges, colleges of agriculture, and agricultural research 
services as it relate to the Federal research service.
  So, in conclusion, let me say I am extremely pleased with the product 
that we have now produced. It sends clear guidelines. I think it 
continues to maintain USDA as a primary support group for the 
production of agriculture and stimulates agriculture research and all 
of those interests that we remain strongly interested in.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________