[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.
____________________