[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 39 (Wednesday, April 13, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1994

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report S. 1970.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1970) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture 
     to reorganize the Department of Agriculture, and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to present to the Senate the 
results of 2 years of work by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry: The Department of Agriculture Reorganization 
Act of 1994.
  What it does is mandate the first comprehensive reorganization of the 
Department of Agriculture since the 1930's. It is a result of 2 years' 
work.
  I am pleased to have been joined in that work by the distinguished 
senior Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar]. We have, in our capacities as 
the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee, realized for some time that the Department of Agriculture 
needed reorganization. In the past year especially, there have been 
intense efforts on behalf of all members of the committee to craft a 
bill to do that. Shortly before the last recess, we were able to come 
together as a committee and pass out, with only one dissenting vote, 
the bill S. 1970 that is before the Senate.
  Let me tell you what it does. The last comprehensive reorganization 
of the Department of Agriculture occurred in the 1930's. The world 
changes. The Department of Agriculture, unfortunately, has not changed 
with it. And so, what we are going to do here is to make change--real 
change. This bill saves $2.3 billion. It is a $2-3 billion downpayment 
on reinventing Government. It is saving $2.3 billion for the American 
taxpayers. I believe a better Department of Agriculture will be the 
result.
  Every one of us has heard back home that people would like to see us 
cut the Federal deficit. Certainly my fellow Vermonters feel, as I do, 
that we ought to be cutting it. Here is a chance for us to prove 
something, not to talk about whether or not we will cut it, but to 
actually cut the deficit.
  This bill gives the American people more for their money not only 
because it saves money--obviously it does; it saves $2.3 billion--but 
also because it allows the Department of Agriculture to better serve 
those it is supposed to serve.
  We have had a proud past in the Department of Agriculture, from the 
time President Lincoln established it as ``the people's department'' 
back in the 19th century. But now we are about to go into the 21st 
century. We need a USDA that is looking to the future. When we 
streamline its operation, when we eliminate numerous levels of 
bureaucracy, you end up with a USDA more focused on the critical 
challenges facing American agriculture.
  Just as we had one vision for a Department of Agriculture in the 19th 
century, we are going to have a much different vision in the 21st 
century. In the 21st century, American agriculture has to be ready to 
take advantage of new opportunities not in just the United States 
marketplace but a global marketplace; to take the lead in developing 
new technologies not just for ourselves but for other parts of the 
world; and to face the challenge of balancing agricultural production 
with environmental protection--protection we need so that our children 
and our children's children can reap the benefits of our agricultural 
expertise.
  We ought to protect our consumers. We have to ensure the safety of 
our food supply. Today we have the safest food supply in the world. But 
we all know that it could be safer.
  We should be trying to preserve the quality of life in rural 
communities. As a product of rural America, that is very, very near and 
dear to me.
  Lastly, we should have a Department of Agriculture that combats 
hunger in our country, a country where 1 out of 10 people still need 
food stamps to feed themselves, a country where millions of children go 
hungry each day.
  The new USDA which will result from this bill is organized around the 
basic missions I have just described. With this bill we have given 
Secretary Espy the tools he needs to bring USDA into the 2lst century.
  If I could take a couple more minutes, I would like to tell you some 
of the things it does. It provides budget saving by streamlining 
Federal employment and the Department's administration. That is where 
the $2.3 billion in savings between now and 1998 will come from.
  It also cuts the size of the USDA bureaucracy by reducing the number 
of Federal employees by 7,500. The Department anticipates that most of 
these staff reductions will come through employees taking advantage of 
the buyout legislation that we passed, and which the President signed 
recently. The rest will be from normal attrition. I believe that it can 
be done without firings or RIF's.
  It also streamlines USDA operations. We now have 43 independent 
agencies. Maybe at one time it was necessary, but we can shrink that to 
28.
  This bill does not limit cuts to the States. It requires a higher 
percentage cut in Department of Agriculture headquarters here in 
Washington than in the field. And it requires consolidation of the 
Washington, DC, offices.
  But it creates out of this a new Farm Services Agency, which 
consolidates all farm programs. This makes way for an entirely new 
field structure based on field service centers, and allows the 
Secretary to close and consolidate over 1,100 county offices. Mr. 
President, in your State, in my State, in Senator Lugar's State, and 
the other 47 States offices will be closed.
  But I daresay in every one of those States we will have better 
services as a result, because it will also establish a Natural 
Resources Conservation Service. The bill will give local control over 
the final decisions of program recipients to county ASCS Committees. At 
the same time it will consolidate the Department of Agriculture's cost 
share programs in the new NRCS.
  It also means we will have a single food safety agency to oversee all 
of the food safety inspection programs that the Department now runs. So 
one agency will have the responsibility.
  It will consolidate the planning and policy development for all of 
USDA's research and education programs, some of which are the best in 
the world but some of which are overlapping and duplicative. It will 
consolidate them so we know where they are, and so we can nurture the 
best and get rid of those that do not work.
  So it is good for taxpayers. It is good for farmers. It is good for 
the Department of Agriculture. It is not often you get a piece of 
legislation that you can say that about.
  I think it will do more than that--it shows that we can cut costs and 
improve services at the same time. Maybe, Mr. President, with the 
Department of Agriculture, one of our largest Departments, we may set 
the standard for the rest of Federal Government.
  As I said in my opening statement, I would not be at this point 
without the help, the cooperation, the expertise, and encouragement of 
the distinguished Senator from Indiana. So I yield to Senator Lugar.
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] is 
recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I thank my distinguished chairman for his thoughtful 
comments, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue and for the 
many other ways in which we work together in a bipartisan way in the 
Agriculture Committee.
  This is one such instance, and a very important one in my judgment. I 
am here to speak in favor of these important efforts to reorganize the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
  As many Senators will recall, this has been an issue of priority 
interest to me for the past 2 years. A GAO report and series of 
articles in the Kansas City Star and other distinguished newspapers 
throughout our country sparked my interest in the management and the 
structure of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
  I continued my review in mid-November of 1991 by requesting a 
comprehensive account of the U.S. Department of Agriculture employees, 
their offices, and work performed in each office in Washington and 
throughout our country.
  After 3 months, I received a response memo from USDA stating:

       You asked for the number of local USDA offices around the 
     country. We have tried to get a straight answer to this 
     question for as long as I have been here. Our staff still 
     cannot give us an accurate number. It will be some time 
     before we see the fruit of all these efforts. Until more 
     progress is made, we will be unable to answer exactly how 
     many of these offices ``overlap or are just unnecessary.''

  Mr. President, from that rather low point of accountability and 
management, I must commend the Secretary because the USDA today knows 
how many employees it has, where they are located, and clearly USDA has 
a much better handle on the functions of those employees.
  Based upon current data, I believe that the USDA can better perform 
its services to farmers, and to the general public, and save taxpayer 
resources.
  I would note, Mr. President, that mature corporations in America have 
been undertaking a very difficult task of downsizing and streamlining 
in the private sector. They must do so or they would go out of 
business, into bankruptcy. Government agencies such as the USDA must 
look to the future and continually evaluate their effectiveness if they 
are to survive as viable servants of the people.
  The legislation before us today was approved, as the chairman 
mentioned, by the Senate Agriculture Committee by a vote of 17 to 1, 
and the one dissent was really on other issues not pertaining to the 
size or the structure that Secretary Espy has proposed. This 
legislation represents a new era of a smaller and more streamlined 
department.
  S. 1970, the bill before us, provides Secretary Espy with broad 
authority to downsize the U.S. Department of Agriculture, moving from 
43 agencies to 28.
  This bill differs from the plan initially proposed by the Secretary 
in several ways that I wish to discuss for a moment, Mr. President.
  Under the bill now before us, conservation programs will come under 
the jurisdiction of the newly created natural resources conservation 
service, the NRCS. Program rules and regulations for the agriculture 
conservation program would be set by the NRCS with the concurrence of 
the new farm service agency, both at the Federal and State levels.
  At the local level, the current ASCS county committee, which is 
retained in the bill before us, would determine whether an individual 
farmer receives assistance under the ACP.
  Secretary Espy's plan would have created agricultural conservation 
committees for each USDA field service center. Those committees, with 
equal representation from the ASCS committees and the Soil and Water 
Conservation districts, would have had the authority to approve NRCS 
recommendations on individual cost-share applications.
  The bill before us addresses the concerns raised by farmers that 
somehow the newly created conservation agency will be less farmer 
friendly. The convenience provisions and the involvement of the farmer-
elected county committees will ensure that farmers' interests will be 
protected. And the testimony of farmers has found that the bill is 
indeed farmer friendly.
  This bill also proposes collocation of farm service agency local 
offices with natural resources conservation service local offices in 
order to improve service to farmers, to achieve computer compatibility 
and to share administrative resources.
  The farm service agency and the conservation agency will no longer 
act and operate as independent entities but will instead be fully 
integrated in offering services to farmers.
  (Mrs. FEINSTEIN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. LUGAR. I underline this new provision, Madam President, because 
the fact is that, in the past, the allegation was made by this Senator 
and others that USDA was seemingly composed of 43 separate empires, 
loosely held together under a Secretary of Agriculture, who was 
nominally in control. At the local level, farmers frequently had to go 
to different locations for various services. In subsequent years, many 
of the offices were co-located, which means they were in the same 
building, in a particular county seat or site, but still insulated by, 
really, a firewall in terms of cooperation--separate computers, 
receptionists, telephones, and separate forms and procedures. 
Therefore, the average farmer coming into this situation still had to 
deal with very separate circumstances at much loss of time and 
bureaucratic hassle.
  The whole quest has been to co-locate and then to try to reduce the 
walls and bring compatibility of function. A large stride, we hope, is 
being made at the top, with the superstructure now reduced from 43 to 
28 agencies. Still ahead--and I will discuss this in a moment--is what 
occurs out in the field where producers come into contact with the 
Department in most cases.
  Because of issues raised by land grant colleges around this country, 
the Cooperative State Research Service and the Extension Service will 
be merged to form the Cooperative State Research and Education Service. 
This combination recognizes the unique roles of these two agencies in 
carrying out partnership programs with the States, and that will help 
to ensure that local and State research and education needs are 
addressed appropriately.
  I underline that situation because it was one that brought a great 
deal of attention and a great number of distinguished university 
leaders to Washington to make certain that the situations were 
addressed. In my judgment, they have been, and they testified to that 
effect.
  Finally, I mention an amendment that I proposed to reduce the number 
of congressionally mandated reports that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture must prepare. My amendment was included in the bill, and I 
am grateful for that inclusion.
  Last summer, I wrote to Secretary Espy requesting a comprehensive 
list of the reports and studies conducted by the Department of 
Agriculture. The Secretary responded last fall and indicated that the 
Department had identified 284 congressionally mandated reports that 
would have cost the U.S. Department of Agriculture $40 million to 
complete, if all the reports were in fact completed.
  My amendment, which has been included in the bill, makes clear that 
USDA will not be required to produce any of the 284 reports. However, I 
recognize that there may be some reports that are particularly 
important to the Secretary or useful to Congress and the public. 
Therefore, my amendment permits the Secretary to complete not more than 
30, or about 10 percent of these mandated reports each year, at his 
discretion.
  Mr. President, some may have wondered why the focus of our reform 
effort has been on the Department of Agriculture. In fact, many 
farmers, many people in agribusiness, many citizens in general, suggest 
that USDA was probably worthy of attention, but they have asked why the 
searchlight of truth has focused on this specific agency as opposed to 
the U.S. Department of Defense or of Transportation or of Commerce or 
of many other agencies throughout the Government.
  In fact, in Vice President Gore's efforts, a number of Department 
agencies have been targeted for a great deal of attention. I commend 
the Vice President on his attention to USDA. His staff came to almost 
the same conclusions as those contained in this legislation, in order 
to obtain the savings of $2.3 billion, that Senator Leahy, chairman of 
the committee, has cited.
  It is my hope--and I am sure that is the case with the chairman--that 
our efforts in the Agriculture Committee will focus the attention of 
other committees on the Departments for which they have jurisdiction. 
The USDA is by no means the best or the worst, but it is--at least for 
those of us in the Agriculture Committee--our responsibility. For 2 
years, we believe we have pressed Secretary Madigan, and now Secretary 
Espy, to take action that would be important to the American people.
  Madam President, Secretary Espy, when he came into office, inherited 
research done by the previous incumbent, Secretary Ed Madigan. 
Secretary Madigan had conducted his research after being pressed 
substantially by this Senator and Senator Leahy and by others on our 
committee, who noted likewise a General Accounting Office report and 
the articles in the papers. The fact that there was, if not 
inattention, simply a sense of lack of organization throughout the 
country found in field offices, in addition to the problems in 
Washington, DC.
  Early on in the consideration, I suggested that 50 field offices be 
closed. I identified those on the basis of the GAO report. I identified 
the fact that the overhead expenses for these offices were 
significantly higher than the amount of payments to farmers in their 
areas. It appeared to me that many of these offices served very few 
farmers and that they could be consolidated with other offices to the 
benefit, really, of farmers, the public, and the taxpayers as a whole. 
My initial call for the closure of the 50 offices did not rate an 
immediate response from the Department. I did further research and 
suggested 150 that had expenses, overhead expenses, substantially 
greater than benefits to farmers in their areas.
  In due course, I pressed long enough that Secretary Madigan, who is 
my friend and for whom I have great regard, decided to set up in May of 
1992 a so-called swat team. This was made up of some Members of the 
Congress and others, who went out as a staff for field hearings to take 
a look at the field office situation. Unfortunately, our report did not 
come in until after the election of 1992, and by that time, it was 
apparent that Secretary Madigan would no longer be serving as Secretary 
of Agriculture, with a new administration coming in.
  Nevertheless, to his credit, he persisted to publish a final report, 
and over 7,000 field offices were listed in terms of their importance 
on five standards, which included the number of farmers being served, 
the amount of payments, the proximity of these offices to each other or 
to the people they were serving, the conditions that made it difficult 
to get to the offices, and various other criteria. Secretary Madigan 
and his group suggested that approximately 1,200 of these offices 
should be consolidated. He made that recommendation about 5 days before 
leaving office. Secretary Espy inherited that report at that point.
  Secretary Espy met with Senator Leahy and with me at a breakfast 
meeting at which he indicated his priorities. His priorities were to 
tackle the Washington situation first, to take the most significant 
cuts in the Washington bureaucracy, as opposed to the field. It was a 
judgment call. My own choice would have been to approach both 
simultaneously and to do both very quickly upon the Secretary's coming 
into office and then having an enthusiastic mandate to do this work.
  It has taken awhile. Obviously, this is April 1994 as opposed to 
February 1993. But to the credit of the Secretary, he has followed 
through, as has his staff, and it took some time for that staff to come 
into place and now the superstructure situation is being addressed. 
That is what this bill is about.
  I am hopeful that we will pass the bill today and that we will offer 
at least our advice to the House. They have moved, at least, in 
subcommittee form, and I am hopeful their committee will do more work. 
But then we have before us still a task--I hope the Secretary will 
offer extensive leadership toward that objective very rapidly. That is, 
to take a look at the field office situation.
  I am certain the Secretary is aware of that. He has studied the same 
report Secretary Madigan has. He has had recommendations now from all 
of the State directors in the field and, hopefully, is on the 
threshold, with the knowledge of this legislation, of acting on those 
recommendations.
  In my judgment, Madam President, he can do the job administratively. 
He may require legislation. I pledged to work with Chairman Leahy if 
that is the course the Secretary takes to try to expedite those 
recommendations, too.
  I think the credibility of all of our efforts--the administration and 
congressional--relies on prompt activity on a subject that has been 
discussed very substantially now for 2 years with intensive thought by 
the Agriculture Committee.
  I conclude this opening presentation by saying, frequently it is 
asked at Farm Bureau meetings and other agricultural meetings in my 
State, what is the constituency for this? Who is in favor of all of 
this?
  Let me just say, first and foremost, farmers in the United States of 
America are in favor of this. If this is a source of wonderment to 
some, I would point out that farmers, by and large, understand 
bureaucratic inefficiency when they see it. They have endured a great 
deal. They are eager for someone to take cognizance of their 
predicament. And they applaud constructive efforts, whether it be by 
the Secretary or by the Congress.
  I mention this very candidly, because the thought has been out there 
for a long time that not a single field office could be closed in 
America without an enormous political storm; that a field office closed 
in any of our States or any of our districts would lead people to come 
to Washington to demand that every bit of those offices be kept open 
and every employee and every dollar be kept alive, almost in a base 
closing situation.
  Let me just say, Madam President, from my own experience in Indiana 
in 1992 prior to the change of administration, Don Villwock, who was 
the State director for ASCS, came to the conclusion that in Ohio 
County, IN, the office ought to be consolidated with nearby Dearborn 
County along the Ohio River. And the State office, in fact, issued 
directions that the office be closed and the records be consolidated.
  This created an enormous storm, not from the farmers in Indiana but 
from bureaucrats in Washington, because they said, how can this be? Do 
you have to have the three members of the local board and the State 
board and national office even to close a single local office?
  Secretary Madigan, I believe, was in some puzzlement about this. Our 
staff did some research utilizing the Library of Congress to note that 
the Secretary alone has the ability to make those consolidations as he 
had since the 1930's. He can deputize the State director to do this 
and, in essence, my advice to Secretary Madigan was to let the local 
level prevail, which, in fact, occurred.
  I mention this, Madam President, because in my earlier press 
conferences I raised the question; is it conceivable that a single 
office anywhere in America can be closed? And until that point the 
answer was, no, not a single one. But as of that time, a single one was 
closed.
  Madam President, the second closure occurred in a way that that was 
even more personal with regard to my situation. My farm is in Marion 
County in Indiana. Just before Christmas, as a matter of fact, I 
received a mimeograph notice from the ASCS, the Agriculture 
Stabilization and Conservation Service office in Marion County, my own 
home county, that as of early January the Marion County office would be 
consolidated with nearby Johnson County to the South; that the record 
of my farm would go to Franklin, IN, about 20 miles away from where we 
were; that the three-member board simply held a meeting and decided the 
number of farmers left in very urban Indianapolis, and Marion County 
did not justify having the office. In a very sensible way, it decided 
to consolidate.
  Once again there was a firestorm back in Washington as to how anyone 
can do such a thing, actually create a consolidation. But once again my 
advice to Secretary Espy was to let people in my home county do this if 
they wished to do so. I did not press the issue. Just simply, as a 
farmer in Marion County, I received notice that it had occurred. I 
applauded it, as a matter of fact, on that day and hoped it was 
occurring throughout America.
  It has not yet occurred throughout America, but I hope it will soon, 
as do I believe most farmers and surely most taxpayers also hope.
  Therefore, I commend those who have been pioneering in this quest. I 
am grateful for the very strong advocacy of Chairman Leahy and a 
majority of members of the Agriculture Committee who have clearly been 
in the vanguard in reform in a bipartisan way now through two 
administrations. And I see this day as a moment of triumph for good 
government.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Indiana for his 
statement. I point out that this has been a joint effort, and I think 
one that can bear fruit.
  As I said earlier, offices will be closed or consolidated in Vermont, 
Indiana, and California. But I think every one of us knows no matter 
what part of the country we are from, we are going to have a better 
department as a result.
  Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I know the distinguished senior Senator 
from New Mexico is on the floor and wishes to speak on another subject. 
If I might inquire how much time he will need. Obviously he has all the 
time he wants. This is just for planning purposes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished chairman. I would probably 
use 7 to 8 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, may I suggest this, and I am going to 
soon, in just a moment, yield to the Senator from New Mexico for 
whatever time he needs: Might I suggest that, if anyone else has 
anything they want to add to this bill or amendments they want to bring 
forth, they may want to come over while the Senator from New Mexico is 
speaking, because there has been a long gestation period on this bill 
and I think the Senator from Indiana and I, in our role as delivery 
service, would like to deliver this package for the consideration of 
the other body. So we would be ready to move very quickly.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, let me indicate that I would clearly 
not want to interrupt and delay a matter such as the Leahy-Lugar bill 
that is on the floor. But I understand that by my speaking a few 
moments, I am not delaying it, because they are waiting for Senators 
with amendments. I clearly will try to accommodate wherever I can.

                          ____________________