[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 40 (Thursday, April 14, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              SENATOR LUGAR'S WORK ON THE AGRICULTURE BILL

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, yesterday, by a vote of 98 to 1 the Senate 
passed S. 1970, the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 
1994. I offer today my congratulations to Senator Dick Lugar, the 
ranking Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, for 
successfully steering this important reform legislation through the 
Senate with such overwhelming support.
  The success of this legislation is primarily the result of the bold 
work of Senator Lugar. In November of 1991, prompted by a report from 
the General Accounting Office and a series of articles printed in the 
Kansas City Star, Dick Lugar began a comprehensive review of USDA. He 
is a farmer and a businessman and used this knowledge to recommend some 
common sense reforms at USDA. Lugar urged then Secretary of Agriculture 
Ed Madigan to close inefficient local field offices. Madigan eventually 
identified over 1,200 offices that were no longer needed. Prior to 
Lugar's investigation, USDA could not even identify where these 
employees were located--let alone propose a bold downsizing plan.
  The passed bill reduces the number of USDA agencies from 43 to 28. 
USDA payroll will be reduced by 7,500 employees, and the stage is set 
for the closing of over 1,200 field offices. According to 
administration budget estimates, spending on salaries and overhead will 
be reduced by $2.3 billion over 5 years. Two years ago most thought 
this task was impossible. But with Senator Lugar's leadership we have 
achieved the impossible. Bureaucracy has been dealt a serious setback 
and taxpayers and farmers will be better off as a result.
  I ask unanimous consent that an article regarding Senator Lugar be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 20, 1992]

       Lugar Finds Unearthing Facts On USDA Is a Hard Row to Hoe

       Employees of the Department of Agriculture have long 
     boasted that they have an office in practically every county 
     in the United States, dispensing everything from bank loans 
     to farm subsidy payments and advice about seed corn, catfish 
     farms and the mating habits of various species of bees.
       In fact, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) found, USDA has 
     fallen short--but not by much. There are 3,158 counties in 
     the country, and USDA has offices in 2,977, or 94 percent.
       And that, Lugar said, is too many. In 1986 only 516 
     counties--16 percent of the U.S. total--were farm counties. 
     ``On the face of it,'' Lugar said in a recent interview, 
     ``some of these offices need to be closed.''


                         Nuggets of Information

       Lugar, quiet-spoken ranking minority member of the Senate 
     Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, has made 
     Agriculture Department reform his cause for 1992 and perhaps 
     beyond.
       In as-yet-sketchy research he and his staff have discovered 
     several not-so-golden nuggets of information:
       Fifty-three counties have Agricultural Stabilization and 
     Conservation Service offices (the ones paying subsidies) that 
     spend more than $1 on administrative expense for every $1 
     they disburse to farmers. ASCS in eastern Kentucky's Pike 
     County spends $8.50 in overhead for every paid-out dollar.
       The Farmers Home Administration, the poor farmer's lender 
     of last resort, spends an annual average of $250 to 
     administer each loan. The rest of the farm credit system 
     (land banks, co-ops and the like) averages $92.
       Twenty-five percent of counties have at least two USDA 
     offices, doubling administrative costs (copiers, telephone 
     switchboards, etc.). Even in cases where all the agencies are 
     under one roof, personnel in one office often share nothing 
     with the others and may not even know their colleagues.
       In 1932, when 25 percent of the population lived on farms, 
     the USDA had 32,000 employees, one for every 100 farm 
     resident. Today the ratio is about one employee for every 45 
     farm residents.
       Changing USDA may be a noble task, but it is also a 
     daunting one, made even more difficult because almost no one 
     seems to know all the tunnels in the USDA's rabbit-warren 
     bureaucracy.
       Even the USDA is scratching its head. In September and 
     November 1991, for instance, the Office of Personnel 
     Management listed 135,478 and 118,645 people respectively as 
     the number of full- and part-time Agriculture Department 
     employees, attributing the discrepancy to the need for extra 
     seasonal labor during the September harvest.
       But don't believe everything you read. OPM said there is no 
     ``standard or average'' figure for USDA employment, even 
     though USDA uses 110,000 people as its rule of thumb.
       Lugar's staff, however, also noted that the OPM figures did 
     not include 19,075 county employees working for USDA, which 
     would have raised the September 1991 total to 154,553. If 
     true, this means USDA could be undercounting by as many as 
     44,553, or 29 percent.
       Lugar became interested in USDA's problems last year after 
     reviewing a General Accounting Office study which suggested 
     that the venerable agency--created in 1862--needed a ``major 
     overhaul,'' an exercise not attempted with any seriousness 
     since the Great Depression.
       The study found that USDA appeared to be overstaffed, over-
     represented and inefficient in many areas of the country.
       Bureaucratic jealousy mitigated against sharing office 
     equipment and facilities, computer training was woefully 
     inadequate and certain areas of emerging importance, like 
     food safety, water quality, biotechnology and marketing, were 
     not getting the attention they deserved. Agriculture 
     Secretary Edward R. Madigan issued a brief statement saying, 
     ``I believe many of the criticisms of the GAO report are 
     justified, but all are not.''


                    Foot-Dragging by the Department

       Nothing further was heard for some time. Lugar's staff in 
     November asked USDA to provide information on size of the 
     USDA payroll, amount of money spent by employees and nature 
     of the work being performed.
       The USDA dragged its feet through the last part of 1991, 
     but staffers are not sure whether it was because they were 
     reluctant to part with the information, had not collected it 
     or simply did not know.
       ``I was patient,'' Lugar said. ``I was aware we had gaping 
     holes of data that needed to be filled. I told USDA that, 
     ``This is for real, and it would be helpful if you came 
     forward promptly.' ''
       On Feb. 3, Lugar said, the USDA produced some documents 
     with an accompanying memorandum, which said in part: ``You 
     asked for the number of local USDA offices around the 
     country. We have tried to get a straight answer to this 
     question. * * * Our staff still cannot give us an accurate 
     number.''

              [From the South Bend Tribune, Feb. 13, 1992]

                           Lugar versus USDA

       There are many reasons why U.S. Sen. Richard G. Lugar is 
     and deserves to be one of the most respected members of the 
     Senate. Now there is another one.
       The Indiana Republican is taking on the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture. He describes it as a ``bloated'' bureaucracy, 
     with a $61 billion budget, that administers a farm policy 
     that is a ``gargantuan mess.''
       It will be a tough battle for Lugar as he seeks to force 
     the USDA to cut out waste and duplication and to move away 
     from market-distorting policies. But it is a job that needs 
     to be done.
       And Lugar is the man to do it. He is not going after the 
     USDA as a foe of agriculture. Far from it. Lugar, the ranking 
     Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, has 
     represented the interests of agriculture in Indiana and still 
     manages his family's 604-acre farm.
       What the senator proposing is a leaner USDA, reorganized 
     for the first time since the 1930s, that will be better able 
     to serve agriculture.
       Virtually every member of Congress rails against waste in 
     government these days. Few, however, point to specific and 
     substantial savings that could be obtained and then plunge 
     into a fight with the bureaucrats and their protectors to 
     bring about change. Lugar has cited where costly duplication 
     and inefficiency exist and is demanding change.
       He is calling, for example, for consolidation of various 
     USDA offices that operate in the same county and elimination 
     of some offices that operate in non-farming counties.
       All the changes won't be popular with people in 
     agriculture. And Lugar, obviously aware of that, is willing 
     to take the heat.
       But he is convinced that most farmers will welcome 
     consolidation and reorganization because of the greater 
     efficiency and less buck-passing that would occur.
       In the speech on the Senate floor in which he took aim at 
     the USDA, Lugar called on ``all farmers who have wrestled 
     desperately with the overwhelming tangle of red tape and form 
     filling to let us hear about it loud and clear.'' He added, 
     ``To every farmer I ask: If you have ever stomped out of a 
     local ASCS, Farmers Home, SCS or Cooperative Extension 
     Services office in frustration, let us know now that you 
     support a remedy such as consolidation.''
       Yes, anybody in agriculture and anybody who is sincere in 
     wanting to trim government waste ought to salute the efforts 
     of Sen. Lugar and back him in this effort.

                          ____________________