[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 138 (Wednesday, September 28, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1400
 
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Penny). The gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Derrick] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DERRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 544 is an open rule 
providing 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Agriculture Committee.
  All points of order are waived against consideration of the bill. The 
rule makes in order the Agriculture Committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute now printed in the bill as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment.
  The substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order are 
waived against the substitute. Finally, the rule provides one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
  H.R. 3171 responds to the administration's reinventing Government 
proposal introduced last September. Among its provisions, the plan 
recommends reorganizing the streamlining the operations of the 
Department of Agriculture. This legislation clearly answers the demands 
for a Government that works better and costs less.
  The Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act requires the 
administration to meet the goals for job reduction and cost savings set 
forth in the reinventing Government initiative.
  H.R. 3171 requires the elimination of 7,500 full-time positions by 
the end of fiscal year 1999.
  The measure mandates that the Agriculture Department merge, 
consolidate, or close a number of its farm program field offices.
  The consolidation plan will create a new system of about 2,500 farm 
service centers. These service centers will provide one-stop shopping 
for farmers for such now-separated farm services as crop support 
payments, rural housing loans, and crop insurance.
  The bill projects savings of $2.5 billion over the 5 years following 
its enactment.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't need to remind my colleagues that there is a 
general perception that we know how to create agencies and programs, 
but we don't know how to eliminate them, even when they are obsolete.
  Industry replaced farming as America's principal business over 100 
years ago. However, the Agriculture Department still operates more than 
12,000 field service offices.
  That is an average of nearly four offices for every county in the 
Nation--that is rural, urban, and suburban communities.
  H.R. 3171 will help us focus the debate on performance--how the 
Agriculture Department works and how it does its business.
  We have the opportunity to make the Agriculture Department more cost 
effective and efficient. That will make Government work better for all 
of us.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 544 will allow this body to fully 
debate the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and H.R. 3171.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Derrick] for being so gracious with his time. And, Mr. Speaker, I 
might just also take a moment to point out, as I speak about the 
gracious gentleman from Edgefield, SC, who has been a Member of this 
body for 20 years: He has made a decision not to seek reelection. He is 
going to retire, and, as my colleagues know, he and I have had some 
pretty heated arguments over the last couple of decades, but I say, 
when you think about the phrase ``southern gentleman,'' Mr. Butler 
Derrick does epitomize those words ``southern gentleman.'' So, in spite 
of all the perhaps misunderstandings and arguments, Mr. Speaker, he is 
truly a southern gentleman, and we are going to miss him.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I insert in the Record the following 
information:

   Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on H.R. 3171, Department of 
                     Agriculture Reorganization Act

       1. Derrick Motion to Report Rule.--One-hour, open rule, 
     waiving all points of order against bill and substitute. 
     Adopted: 5-2. Yeas: Moakley, Derrick, Frost, Slaughter, and 
     Solomon. Nays: Dreier and Goss. Not Voting: Beilenson, 
     Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon, and Quillen.

              OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Open rules       Restrictive rules
  Congress (years)   Total rules ---------------------------------------
                      granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).....          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).....          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).....          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).....          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).....          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)....          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)....          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).....          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).....           99      31         31       68         69 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported   
  from the Rules Committee which provide for the initial consideration  
  of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive 
  points of order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged
  are also not counted.                                                 
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane    
  amendment to a measure so long as it is otherwise in compliance with  
  the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules  
  as a percent of total rules granted.                                  
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments     
  which can be offered, and include so-called modified open and modified
  closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing  
  for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the     
  Whole. The parenthetical percentages are restrictive rules as a       
  percent of total rules granted.                                       
                                                                        
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-   
  102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,'' Committee on Rules, 103d     
  Cong., through Sept. 27, 1994.                                        


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  A: VV (May 19, 1994).            
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   ................  100 (D-80; R-20)..........  A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).    
                                           1995.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System   16 (D-10; R-6)..  5 (D-5; R-0)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 25, 1994).    
                                           Designation.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 443, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps,  39 (D-11; R-28).  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 233-191 A: 244-181 (May 25,  
                                           FY 1995.                                                                     1994).                          
H. Res. 444, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4454: Leg Branch Approp,  43 (D-10; R-33).  12 (D-8; R-4).............  A: 249-177 (May 26, 1994).       
                                           FY 1995.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 447, June 8, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4539: Treasury/Postal     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 236-177 (June 9, 1994).       
                                           Approps 1995.                                                                                                
H. Res. 467, June 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4600: Expedited           N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 240-185 A:Voice Vote (July   
                                           Rescissions Act.                                                             14, 1994).                      
H. Res. 468, June 28, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4299: Intelligence        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 19, 1994).   
                                           Auth., FY 1995.                                                                                              
H. Res. 474, July 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3937: Export Admin. Act   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 14, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 475, July 12, 1994....  O         H.R. 1188: Anti. Redlining in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 20, 1994).   
                                           Ins.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 482, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3838: Housing & Comm.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 21, 1994).   
                                           Dev. Act.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 483, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3870: Environ. Tech. Act  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 26, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 484, July 20, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4604: Budget Control Act  3 (D-2; R-1)....  3 (D-2; R-1)..............  PQ: 245-180 A: Voice Vote (July  
                                           of 1994.                                                                     21, 1994).                      
H. Res. 491, July 27, 1994....  O         H.R. 2448: Radon Disclosure    N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 492, July 27, 1994....  O         S. 208: NPS Concession Policy  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 494, July 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4801: SBA Reauth &        10 (D-5; R-5)...  6 (D-4; R-2)..............  PQ: 215-169 A: 221-161 (July 29, 
                                           Amdmts. Act.                                                                 1994).                          
H. Res. 500, Aug. 1, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4003: Maritime Admin.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 336-77 (Aug. 2, 1994).        
                                           Reauth..                                                                                                     
H. Res. 501, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         S. 1357: Little Traverse Bay   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Bands.                                                                                                       
H. Res. 502, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         H.R. 1066: Pokagon Band of     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Potawatomi.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 507, Aug. 4, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4217: Federal Crop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 5, 1994).    
                                           Insurance.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 509, Aug. 5, 1994.....  MC        H.J. Res. 373/H.R. 4590: MFN   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 9, 1994).    
                                           China Policy.                                                                                                
H. Res. 513, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4906: Emergency Spending  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 17, 1994).   
                                           Control Act.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 512, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4907: Full Budget         N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 255-178 (Aug. 11, 1994).      
                                           Disclosure Act.                                                                                              
H. Res. 514, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4822: Cong.               33 (D-16; R-17).  16 (D-10; R-6)............  PQ: 247-185 A: Voice Vote (Aug.  
                                           Accountability.                                                              10, 1994).                      
H. Res. 515, Aug. 10, 1994....  O         H.R. 4908: Hydrogen Etc.       N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 19, 1994).   
                                           Research Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 516, Aug. 10, 1994....  MC        H.R. 3433: Presidio            12 (D-2; R-10)..  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 19, 1994).   
                                           Management.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 532, Sept. 20, 1994...  O         H.R. 4448: Lowell Natl. Park.  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
H. Res. 535, Sept. 20, 1994...  O         H.R. 4422: Coast Guard         N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 22, 1994).  
                                           Authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 536, Sept. 20, 1994...  MC        H.R. 2866: Headwaters Forest   16 (D-5; R-11)..  9 (D-3; R-6)..............  PQ: 245-175 A: 246-174 (Sept. 21,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 542, Sept. 23, 1994...  O         H.R. 4008: NOAA Auth. Act....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 26, 1994).  
H. Res. 543, Sept. 23, 1994...  O         H.R. 4926: Natl. Treatment in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Banking.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 544, Sept. 23, 1994...  O         H.R. 3171: Ag. Dept.           N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Reorganization.                                                                                              
H. Res. 551, Sept. 27, 1994...  MO        H.R. 4779: Interstate Waste    22 (D-15; R-7)..  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 552, Sept. 27, 1994...  O         H.R. 4683: Flow Control Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I have opposed the majority on the 
Committee on Rules as aggressively as any Member of this body when the 
Committee has tried to restrict the amendment process on this floor. 
However, Mr. Speaker, today the Committee on Rules is finally reporting 
one of those all-too-rare open rules, and it should be commended for 
that step in the right direction. I say to the gentleman, ``I commend, 
you, sir.''
  Mr. Speaker, this rule also waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill and the substitute. However in this case that 
waiver of all points of order actually covers three specific violations 
of House rules:
  First, there are two sections in the Agriculture Committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute which are not germane, because they fall 
in the jurisdiction of other committees.
  Second, the bill provides for interagency transfers of unexpended 
balances of appropriations, and technically this is an appropriation on 
legislation.
  Third, while the bill overall cuts positions, it does raise salary 
levels for certain departmental positions, and because it is 
theoretically possible that this spending could still take effect this 
fiscal year, the Parliamentarians view this as a technical violation of 
the Budget Act.
  Before the Committee on Rules' meeting, I discussed this rule with 
the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Agriculture, the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts]. He supported an open rule to move 
this bill to the floor of the House, so that the House would have the 
opportunity to make some needed improvements in this legislation, and, 
Mr. Speaker, this legislation has the potential to cause some major 
problems in a large rural district like the one I represent. The 
district I represent covers most of the territory as one heads north 
out of New York City all the way to the border with Canada. That is 
about 250 miles long and covers about 10,000 square miles. If there is 
not an Agriculture Department office in at least every one of those 
huge counties along that 250-mile stretch, Mr. Speaker, it becomes a 
major problem just for farmers to get into the office to transact their 
business.
  I understand the need to combine offices for one-stop service, and 
the need to save as much money as possible, but it has to be done in 
the right way or we can do more harm than good and actually cost the 
Federal Treasury more money.
  So, Mr. Speaker, while I do not support this bill in its present 
form, hopefully I will after the amending process. If it is going to be 
considered in this House, it should be considered under an open rule so 
the House will have the opportunity to improve some of the problems in 
the bill. Since the rule before us now is an open rule, the subjects of 
the rule waivers can be stricken entirely or amended. I will vote for 
this open rule and hope we get more of them, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to our next speaker I 
want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] very much for 
his kind words, and I assure him that the feeling is mutual.
  Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak on the rule. I 
am for the rule; I am for the bill. I commend the chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], 
for the work he has done as well as the ranking member.
  However, Mr. Speaker, I thought I would just take a minute to talk 
about the fine gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] who is 
leaving, who at times has put me through some trips. I think we are 
going to lose a great Member.
  Mr. Speaker, my position on trade is that I feel our country is 
giving away the farm, and the gentleman from South Carolina is a member 
of the leadership that I thought could have made a difference.

                              {time}  1410

  I am saddened the gentleman is leaving. I think there are a lot of 
American workers that are saddened by the fact that the gentleman from 
South Carolina is leaving us. So I am not going to take a whole lot of 
time, because then the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] will ask 
for a favor. But I mean that, Mr. Chairman. A lot of people, working 
people, agree with you very much, and know that we had a leader that 
took some of our concerns to heart.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and wish the 
gentleman the best.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, ``Thank you very 
much, Mr. Traficant, for your kind words. I assure you the feelings are 
mutual.''
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith]. Mr. Speaker, we all remember the 
movie, ``Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.'' My colleagues know we had a 
Smith that came to Washington 2 years ago, and he comes from Addison, 
MI, population 425.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and concur with the 
comments of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. I was hoping he 
would also include some comments on the importance of buying American 
food and fiber as we discuss this agriculture bill. The American farmer 
is in a predicament right now in several areas of production.
  I would like to compliment the members of the Rules Committee for 
making this rule open, so that we can have a thorough debate. If you 
will, this legislation is a prelude to the important 5-year farm bill 
that we are going to develop next year.
  The agricultural industry in this country is our largest industry. It 
contributes the greatest support to our balance of trade worldwide. And 
this total body, not only the Members from the agricultural community, 
but every Member of Congress, needs to consider the importance of 
strengthening this very important industry. On the specific amendments 
that we will be talking about during general debate, I will also be 
offering amendments and contribute to that discussion.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 544 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3171.

                              {time}  1412


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3171) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to reorganize the 
Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Kennelly 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
  (Mr. de la GARZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, let me begin by saying to Mr. Solomon, I appreciate 
his enthusiasm, and I am glad we were able to accommodate his great 
desire to have open rules. My only question is, Why start with us?
  Otherwise, let me mention very briefly, because I know Members would 
like to conclude at an early hour today, that this bill has nothing to 
do with the programs at USDA. This bill is solely to consolidate, 
reorganize, and streamline. If anyone has any interest or concern in 
the programs, that will be dealt with next year on the farm bill.
  This is also not about money, although this bill saves some money, 
about $2.5 billion. But what we do in Agriculture is serve all of the 
people. Since it was started by President Lincoln, the guidance and the 
direction is to serve farmers and ranchers, to promote economic and 
community development in rural areas, to provide good assistance and 
educate the general population about proper nutrition. That is across 
the spectrum in the United States. To promote soil and water 
conservation, clean air, clean water, to meet other environmental goals 
in rural areas, to ensure the quality and safety of our food, and to 
carry out agriculture research, economic analysis, and educate the 
American public: This is the Extension Service, the research, the land 
grant institutions, all of those areas are covered under the mandate of 
the Department of Agriculture.
  But this consolidation and streamlining under H.R. 3171 is done to 
accommodate the changing times. Let me say that in the beginning, that 
now, from the people's Department of President Lincoln, it is still the 
people's Department. But almost 60 percent of the Department of 
Agriculture budget is devoted to domestic nutrition programs. Only 20 
percent of the budget is devoted to the farm commodity program. So the 
reorganizing we are dealing with here and the streamlining of USDA--60 
percent entails the domestic programs. It deals with the nutrition, 
food stamps, feeding the elderly, nutrition information--60 percent.
  Also we have the Forest Service and Soil Conservation. That is only 
like about 9 percent. Rural Development is about 8 percent. And, as I 
mentioned, the commodity program.
  But everything that USDA does entails supporting programs that bring 
income. The balance of trade, where we deal with the world, everything 
on agriculture, manufactured items, there is one here, one there, that 
is selling. But collectively, we have a deficit of about $125 billion, 
a deficit. The only thing that brings money in collectively is 
agriculture, about $18 to $20 billion. And I have a chart here, the 
green part, that is agriculture collectively. The red part, that is 
everybody else. So that is what we are dealing with.
  Also, let me state--the top 10 entitlements, the bottom one of the 
entitlements is the price support programs that we have for 
agriculture. But of the top 10 entitlements, it is the only one 
projecting a decrease in cost, 1.4 percent in the years between 1991 
and 1997. We are dealing with food safety; we are dealing with all of 
the agencies of the Department of Agriculture, all of the offices out 
there in the countryside. And this bill gives the Secretary authority 
that he does not have to reorganize and to meet the challenges that the 
people of this country have presented to us. The bill also requires the 
Secretary to reduce personnel and staff over the next 5 years. We have 
local elected farmer committees closer to field offices. That might 
save some money.
  So, Madam Chairman, the bulk of this legislation is basically 
technical--to consolidate, to streamline, and to make, in 1994, the 
Department of Agriculture what President Lincoln wanted it to be in 
1862.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My colleagues, about 2 years ago, the Clinton administration and, 
more especially, Secretary Espy announced they were going to reorganize 
the Department of Agriculture and that reform effort, although that 
always worries me, what lurks under the banner of reform in terms of 
unintended effects, but that reform effort followed a similar effort in 
the Bush administration by Secretary Madigan to consolidate and to 
reorganize and to achieve cost savings within the Department of 
Agriculture and also in regards to the field offices that serve as the 
infrastructure, the delivery system of the farm program to our 
producers.
  The effort by Secretary Madigan was to achieve cost savings and, 
hopefully, to make the farm program or the delivery of the farm program 
more farmer-friendly. And I know that is Secretary Espy's goal as well.
  At the time we examined the Secretary's authority. And when I say 
``at the time,'' I am talking about both Secretary Madigan and 
Secretary Espy, and when I say ``we,'' I am talking about members of 
the House Committee on Agriculture which have been very much involved 
with this effort for several years. And we examined the secretary's 
authority to restructure the agencies of the Department and found that 
the Secretary of Agriculture has 85 to 90 percent of the authority that 
he needs to complete the job. In other words, the secretary can act on 
his own behalf without passing legislation in the Congress to achieve 
these cost savings that the chairman of the committee has mentioned 
and, hopefully, again, make the delivery service of our farm program 
more farmer-friendly.
  And, that is certainly an issue out in farm country with, all the 
paperwork and regulations and time spent in regards to the farm 
program.
  Well, hindsight and personal observation, and I understand that 
hindsight is always 20/20 around here, but that tells me that instead 
of really beginning that task on an administrative basis immediately, 
the administration simply sent up a bill and waited for its passage. 
And I would tell my colleagues that when we have legislation of this 
magnitude and that will attract this much interest, it does engender 
significant controversy and has consumed a great deal of time, almost 2 
years.
  So after a lengthy committee process, we are now bringing a bill to 
the floor today that may not be what the Secretary wants or what this 
Member wants or what the chairman wants or what other Members want or 
certainly what the farmer and rancher wants, and this bill has created 
significant controversy.
  But having said that, let me say that too much time has already been 
wasted. There is a need to get on with reorganizing the Department of 
Agriculture, so while I still have serious, very serious reservations 
about the course this legislation has taken, I support the effort to 
move the process along.
  I will also be supporting the amendment to be offered today by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard], a member of the committee, to 
provide a better farmer support agency structure for the Department. 
This is needed to ensure that we avoid any unnecessary disruption of 
service to our farmers while streamlining the work of the Department of 
Agriculture.
  My colleagues, the one really innovative section of this bill, in my 
personal opinion, was offered in committee by my colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], to require a careful assessment 
of risk and evaluation of the benefits of risk management for actions 
of the department, and I am talking about health and safety or 
environmental regulations. This is an integral part of the ongoing 
effort to produce more careful and reasonable risk management 
regulation in all departments, all departments of government. The 
Condit amendment has attracted a considerable difference of opinion 
between other committees, other Members, I understand that. But the 
Condit amendment also is boilerplate legislation.
  And let us tell it like it is. Something like the Condit amendment 
should be applied to all Federal agencies in order to make our 
Government be a partnership with people, not an adversary, and 
hopefully to make government much more cost effective and to protect 
the individual rights of the people who are affected by the regulations 
that tend to stream out of Washington.
  I may be offering an amendment to strengthen the Condit provision. 
The amendment that I am going to be offering, in behalf of the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and myself, would ensure that the 
rulemakers in fact carry out a proper risk assessment.
  A strengthened Condit provision would take a major step toward, I 
think, bringing balance and reason back to the whole business of 
environmental regulation.
  The issues in this bill and the amendments I have mentioned are 
directed to the structure and the functioning of the Department of 
Agriculture as a whole. While they are important, while they have 
attracted considerable difference of opinion, let me echo the statement 
of my distinguished chairman.
  I hope that my colleagues who have other individual issues they want 
to address will keep this in mind, that this is more of a technical 
bill and defer their amendments until we take up programs in the farm 
bill or some other appropriate vehicle and we will do that.
  Our purpose here today is to restructure the Department, to achieve 
the cost savings, to make it more farmer-friendly. And we should keep 
that in mind as we consider any other amendments.
  Madam chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me thank my distinguished colleague from Kansas for his 
presentation and his always very wise statements. We have no 
disagreement. This is not the best or times. This may not be the bill 
that each one of us wants. But now is the time for us to act, and that 
is why we find ourselves here.
  I would like to add further, though, that this process began back 
with the Bush administration and Secretary Madigan. They had a 
Commission to go out throughout the countryside and, my humble 
colleague did not mention the fact that our colleagues, the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], 
were part of that Commission. So a lot of the information and a lot of 
the thrust that has been incorporated came from that Commission, and 
these two gentlemen played a major part in the endeavor.
  Madam Chairman, H.R. 3171, the Department of Agriculture 
Reorganization Act of 1994, provides for a major restructuring and 
streamlining of the Department of Agriculture.
  The committee believes this legislation is needed--not because USDA 
is a burden on the budget, for it is not--but because we believe the 
Department's structure must change to meet our Nation's changing needs.
  The bill the Committee on Agriculture brings to the floor today has 
three principal objectives.
  First, the bill mandates revisions in USDA's organizational structure 
to better reflect its modern-day activities. It endorses the six broad 
mission areas carried out by the Department and creates Under Secretary 
positions to head up each area. Those missions are:
  To serve farmers and ranchers.
  To promote economic and community development in rural areas.
  To provide food assistance and educate the general population about 
proper nutrition.
  To promote soil and water conservation and to meet other 
environmental goals in rural areas.
  To ensure the quality and safety of our food.
  To carry out agricultural research, economic analyses and educate the 
American public.
  Madam Chairman, each of these missions is vitally important to our 
Nation. In particular, I would point out that this bill establishes a 
separate Under Secretary for Food Safety at USDA, whose sole 
responsibility will be to administer USDA's vital food safety and meat 
and poultry inspection programs.
  Second, the bill allows the Secretary to improve services to all who 
use USDA programs through a more efficient management of USDA personnel 
and the use of modern technology.
  The bill requires USDA to combine farm-related agencies and field 
offices to provide ``one-stop shopping.'' It establishes an independent 
appeals process. It encourages the development of computer and other 
information systems that will allow the exchange of information between 
programs and agencies.
  Third, the bill requires USDA to undergo organizational and 
management changes that are designed to save the taxpayers' money in 
the years to come.
  The bill requires the Secretary to reduce total USDA personnel by 
7,500 staff years over the next 5 years--a process USDA has already 
begun. Improved computer capabilities are also designed to save money 
in the years ahead. And of course, the bill allows the Secretary to go 
forward with his announced intentions to close and consolidate USDA 
farm agency field offices.


                what the reorganization bill does not do

  Madam Chairman, I also think it important that the Members understand 
what this bill does not do.
  Field office closures: This bill does not limit in any way the 
Agriculture Secretary's current authority to consolidate or close USDA 
field offices around the country. The Secretary has pledged to begin 
downsizing the field office network once Congress completes action on 
the reorganization bill. This bill supports that end by reaffirming the 
Secretary's authority to downsize the field office network.
  Locally elected farmer committees: The committee bill also maintains 
the successful system of using locally elected committees of farmers to 
help implement USDA farm programs at the county level. These committees 
are a democratic institution that helps ensure that USDA programs are 
implemented with common sense at the local level.
  The committee-reported bill recognizes the need to increase the 
involvement of minority farmers in the county committee system. The 
bill continues the Secretary's authority to appoint nonvoting minority 
advisors to local committees. In addition, the committee-reported bill 
adds a new directive for outreach to encourage greater diversity among 
the farmer nominees who stand for election to these local committees.
  Separate conservation agency: Finally, this bill continues the 
separate administration of research conservation programs from our farm 
commodity programs.
  The majority of the committee believe--and I share this view--that 
our Nation's farmers are best served by a separate and strong agency at 
USDA to oversee our resource conservation programs. This enhances the 
credibility of USDA's conservation and environmental efforts. And it 
also recognizes the fact that a significant portion of USDA activities 
in this area is actually serving State and local governmental entities.
  Let me make clear that this provision does not in any way limit the 
Secretary's authority to colocate these conservation agency offices 
with the farm program agency in the same town and the same building.


        additional provisions to be offered in en bloc amendment

  Madam Chairman, I intend to offer in the Committee of the Whole 
several amendments packaged en bloc. These amendments--which has been 
agreed to on both sides of the aisle--seek to address the concerns 
raised by various Members since the committee reported the bill. Let me 
briefly explain what these en bloc amendments do.
  National Appeals Division: The en bloc amendment includes additional 
legislative guidance on the structure and procedures to be used by the 
new independent National Appeals Division.
  Local farmer committees: The en bloc amendment reaffirms the 
authorities of the local-elected farmer committee in two very important 
ways. First, the en bloc includes an amendment that clarifies that the 
county or area elected committee will continue to have the authority to 
appoint the executive director for the local Agricultural Service 
Agency offices. Second, the en bloc amendment includes a provision that 
prohibits the Secretary from merging farmer-elected county committees 
unless the farmers vote for the merger.
  Socially disadvantaged farmers: The en bloc amendment strengthens the 
Secretary's authority to ensure the fair and equitable treatment of all 
socially disadvantaged farmers who participate in USDA farm programs. 
The en bloc includes an amendment that requires the Secretary to take 
certain actions with respect to farm program operations to rectify any 
past USDA decisions not made in accordance with laws against 
discrimination. It also requires a GAO study to determine whether 
socially disadvantaged farmers are underrepresented on the farmer-
elected county and area committees, and whether such 
underrepresentation has led to bias in committee decisions.
  Computer purchases: The en bloc includes an amendment that clarifies 
the budgetary aspects of the bill's requirement that new computer 
equipment purchases by USDA facilitate interagency communications. 
Simply put, the en bloc requires that when the Secretary procures 
computer systems authorized in advance through appropriations acts, the 
Secretary is to do so in a manner that enhances efficiency, 
productivity, and client services.


               significance of the reorganization effort

  Madam Chairman, the Department of Agriculture is one of our Nation's 
most important domestic agencies, and its work and activities touch the 
lives of all Americans. The Department is not a static, unchanging 
bureaucracy. While farm programs are still an important function at 
USDA, they actually involve only about one-quarter of its total 
outlays.
  The Department of Agriculture has, in fact, evolved to meet the 
changing needs and priorities of our society. More than half of its 
funding goes to our vital domestic food assistance programs. USDA is a 
major force in recreation and the environment through its management of 
our national forests and its soil and water conservation assistance for 
private lands.
  The Department also oversees the Federal-State research partnership 
at our Nation's land-grant universities that have provided so many 
scientific advancements for our society. USDA helps provide housing and 
water services for low-income people living in rural areas. And its 
Extension Service helps people in urban and rural areas improve their 
lives.
  Today's Department of Agriculture truly serves all Americans. The 
Department's success in developing our Nation's agricultural system and 
improving the lives of the American people is in no small part due to 
the dedicated service and work of its employees.
  What this reorganization bill represents is another step forward in 
the Department's continuing evolution. This bill will provide for a 
renewal and, we hope, a reinvigoration of the Department's activities.
  Madam Chairman, the changes proposed in this bill reflect USDA's 
modern-day responsibilities as we see them today. We recognize USDA's 
responsibilities will continue to change, and that the Department's 
structure will continue to evolve.
  Making USDA a more cost-effective and efficient department of 
Government that works for the benefit of taxpayers, farmers, consumers, 
and all who use USDA programs requires an on-going commitment by both 
Congress and the executive branch. H.R. 3171 fulfills that commitment 
to improve USDA's organization and management structure as we see it 
today. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3171.

 Brief Summary of H.R. 3171, Department of Agriculture Reorganization 
  Act of 1994 as Amended and Reported by the Committee on Agriculture

       Streamlines national office structure: Realigns functions 
     and establishes 6 top appointed Under Secretary positions, 
     subject to Senate confirmation, based on USDA's 6 basic 
     mission areas as outlined by the Administration proposal.
       Downsizes USDA employment and field offices: Requires 
     reduction in Federal employment by at least 7,500 staff years 
     by Fiscal Year 1999. Requires greater staff cuts in 
     Washington headquarters than in field offices. Clears the way 
     for the Secretary of Agriculture to proceed with announced 
     plans for the closure or consolidation of 1,100 USDA field 
     offices.
       Improves services to farmers: Consolidates direct farm 
     program functions (Agricultural Stabilization and 
     Conservation Service, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and 
     farm-lending by Farmers Home Administration) into a single 
     Agricultural Service Agency. Requires collocation of USDA 
     field offices to provide ``one-stop'' service and budget 
     savings.
       Strengthens rural development activities: Consolidates 
     rural economic development functions under an Under Secretary 
     for Rural and Community Development.
       Elevates food safety responsibilities: Designates for the 
     first time an Under Secretary for Food Safety to administer 
     USDA's food safety activities, and separates this function 
     from USDA's farm marketing activities.
       Enhances sensible environmental efforts: Elevates 
     conservation activities within USDA by creating an Under 
     Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment. Permits the 
     Secretary to create a Natural Resources Conservation Service. 
     Ensures farmer-elected committee input into initial producer 
     appeals of conservation decisions by the USDA conservation 
     agency. Establishes an office at USDA to analyze the risk/
     benefit of proposed regulations.
       Establishes independent appeals process: Establishes an 
     independent National Appeals Division to handle 
     administrative appeals of agency decisions.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm], chairman of the subcommittee, who did yeoman work on this 
endeavor.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, passage of H.R. 3171 will clear the way 
for the long-needed restructuring of the Department of Agriculture. The 
bill has three very important objectives: First, to create a USDA 
structure that can better respond to the future challenges facing the 
food and fiber industry, consumers, rural Americans, and taxpayers; 
second, to improve services to USDA's many diverse clients; third, to 
streamline the Department to achieve management efficiencies and cost 
savings for taxpayers.
  This legislation culminates a painstaking and bipartisan process that 
began during the 102d Congress. Work was started during the previous 
administration under Secretary Madigan. At that time, I, along with the 
ranking minority member of the committee, the gentleman from Kansas, 
were asked to travel across the country with the Department to hear 
from USDA employees, farmers, ranchers, and other clients about how to 
improve structures and services.
  Last fall, the administration brought our committee a bill to achieve 
modernization. Since last year, the committee and the Subcommittee on 
Department Operations and Nutrition held four hearings in Washington, 
DC, and nine hearings in the field--in Iowa, Georgia, Arkansas, 
Nebraska, North Dakota, Indiana, Texas, California, and Pennsylvania--
to receive testimony on how the Department should be reorganized. We 
gathered extensive testimony from Department officials, including the 
Secretary and Deputy Secretary, and from approximately 250 public 
witnesses.
  Utilizing that input, my subcommittee, in February, marked up a 
comprehensive bill that was amended and approved by the full 
Agriculture Committee on June 16. The bill we have brought to the 
floor: first of all, reflects the six missions of the Department that 
the Secretary originally spelled out--elevating and putting on an equal 
level with production agriculture other increasingly important 
functions including nutrition, food safety, the environment, and rural 
development; our bill provides the Department with broad flexibility to 
reorganize. Too many times, we in Congress tie the hands of the 
Secretary by trying to micro-manage his or her work, often creating 
more problems than we solve; it requires an independent national 
appeals division; it locks into law the staff cuts, the consolidation 
of field office administrative functions, and the computer improvements 
that the administration says it wants.
  Some may argue that this bill will not accomplish much more than the 
Department can already do. We disagree. The issue at hand is whether we 
will provide the appropriate guidance to achieve our goals in the most 
thoughtful, prudent manner possible--and not undermine those USDA 
programs and services that producers, consumers, food program 
recipients, and other clients rely on.
  This bill does not change those programs and policies--that is our 
job for next year--when we will be writing the 1995 farm bill. This 
bill today will give us a USDA that will become more efficient, client-
friendly, and prepared for the challenges of tomorrow.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett] who represents the Third 
District, the area from which many fine football players come.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Madam Chairman, I thank my ranking member 
for yielding time to me, and for the generous introduction.
  Madam Chairman, I want to thank the Agriculture Committee chairman, 
and his staff, for including my provision relating to county committees 
in his en bloc amendment.
  This is an important provision to the many farmers who participate in 
USDA commodity programs involving the election of county committees. 
The measure prevents the termination and consolidation of existing 
county committees, with another county committee, or area committee, 
unless the farmers vote to do so.
  I had previously offered a similar version at the subcommittee and 
full committee level, and am indeed grateful to the chairman for 
understanding the importance of having farmer-elected county 
committees. These committees will be allowed to continue to help 
administer farm programs at the local level.
  Farm programs and rules for compliance are becoming more and more 
complicated. It is vital to agricultural producers to have trust and 
confidence in those who will administer these programs. It is 
imperative we keep those with local knowledge, and who understand the 
different conditions which may exist in their county, when considering 
farmers compliance.
  The administration's proposal for the Agriculture Department 
reorganization will close or consolidate approximately 1,200 USDA field 
offices. The original bill would have terminated county committees and 
established a new procedure of selection by appointment. Area-wide 
field offices would be served by one committee.
  Eliminating hundreds of county committees would have removed 
important elements of local control. There is no way a committee member 
can be as knowledgeable about a large area of up to five or more 
counties, as committee members who serve a single county.
  In fact, some States now have consolidated field offices which serve 
one or more counties. In those instances, they have kept in place the 
individual county committees to keep local control over questions 
relating to farmer compliance and appeals.
  It is clear, the present traditional system within USDA which allows 
for local administration of farm programs works. The Barrett provision 
will ensure that it continues with this new reorganization.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to our 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson].
  (Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of 
H.R. 3171, which contains provisions which would establish an 
independent National Appeals Division within the Department of 
Agriculture. I want to thank Chairman de la Garza and Chairman Stenholm 
for working with me to include this title in the reorganization 
legislation.
  Among the changes we could see with reorganization, the establishment 
of a National Appeals Division is among the most important in terms of 
its direct impact on farmers and ranchers. We have amended the various 
appeals statutes a number of times over the last several years, but we 
still have an appeals process that farmers do not trust and many do not 
participate in because they feel they are not going to receive an 
impartial hearing.
  That is why I introduced H.R. 2950 with a number of my colleagues. A 
National Appeals Division clear of any undue influence from the 
agencies which are making the determinations, should help to bolster 
producers' confidence in their ability to receive a fair and impartial 
hearing. We have designed the process so that producers will know what 
to expect and when to expect it.
  The NAD title does nothing to change the current county and State 
committee informal appeal process through the ASCS and also encourages 
the use of mediation where it is available to avoid having to go to the 
NAD. However, to make the process farmer-friendly, the hearing officers 
of the NAD will be located out in the field as is the case with the 
Farmers Home NAD. I would tell my colleagues that most of the language 
in the NAD title is taken from current law. All we are doing is 
bringing the appeal provisions to each of the agencies under one 
entity.
  Again, I want to thank Chairmen de la Garza and Stenholm for working 
with me to include this important provision in the USDA reorganization 
legislation.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Madam Chairman, having served 4 years, from 1969 to 1974, as a deputy 
administrator in ASCS, I am firmly convinced that it is very important 
to give the Secretary of Agriculture flexibility to design, organize, 
and implement the administrative operation and organization of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture.
  I am frustrated that the consolidation of USDA field offices to 
increase the efficiency, throughout the farm communities of the United 
States has to be accomplished through passage of another law rather 
than action by the administration. It was not accomplished under 
Secretary Madigan and it has not been accomplished under Secretary 
Espy. Those individuals, Secretaries of Agriculture have had the 
authority to consolidate but have not acted because of potential 
political pressure of Congressmen arguing that their county offices 
should not be closed, consolidated, or reorganized.
  However, these are administrative decisions that ultimately must rest 
with the administration and with the respective secretaries of the 
different departments of the Federal Government. I urge this 
administration and every administration to be responsible and not to 
seek cover through congressional mandates.
  Make no mistake, this bill is a cover from criticism from the 
Secretary of Agriculture to close and make efficient changes in the 
organizations of those USDA field offices by having it mandated under 
law. I would strongly urge this administration and every other 
administration to make the changes necessary, rather than putting off 
those decisions and asking for a congressional mandate by law.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our 
distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. 
Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Madam Chairman, I am appreciative of the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. de la Garza] for his diligent work, and also for the efforts 
of the ranking member, Mr. Roberts, and the subcommittee chairman, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], in putting this critical USDA 
reorganization legislation together. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 
3171, I rise in strong support of this legislation. Consistent with the 
Vice President's Reinventing Government, this legislation will allow 
the Secretary of Agriculture to make the necessary changes in the 
Department to prepare us for the needs of the next century.
  H.R. 3171 will refashion not only the USDA national headquarters 
through streamlining and making current operations more efficient, it 
modifies the way we think about local services by providing one-stop 
shopping and colocation of services for the benefit of our nation's 
farmers and ranchers in ways which are sensible and workable.
  Madam Chairman, I also applaud the gentleman for his work in 
addressing the issue of diversity for our local Agricultural Service 
Agency county committees. As the gentleman knows, this is an issue of 
major significance for those who have been traditionally left out of 
the equation--that is, women, minorities, and limited-resource farmers. 
Through opening up the nomination process, allowing the Secretary 
discretion to adjust yields for the purposes of administering various 
farm programs, and requiring a GAO report on this historical problem, I 
believe we are taking a significant step forward. Although I would have 
chosen a more direct remedy to resolve this representation issue, I 
look forward to working with the gentleman and my other colleagues in 
the future to address this matter of concern.
  As a new Member from an extremely rural region in eastern North 
Carolina, I believe that this legislation is good for rural America. 
The bottom line for the Department is that it serve the needs of 
Americans who depend on it for its services. The USDA plays a profound 
role in insuring that American agriculture and nutrition remain at the 
highest levels of quality and accessibility. I urge my colleagues to 
support American farmers and those who depend on USDA services by 
supporting this legislation.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Madam Chairman, as an original cosponsor of 
this bill, I would like to first of all commend our embattled Secretary 
of Agriculture Mike Espy. Whatever challenges he may currently face, 
let us give credit where credit is due. This administration is 
committed to reinventing Government and Mr. Espy has fulfilled that 
promise by getting to us a plan focused on improving efficiency and 
service while at the same time, cutting costs.
  I would also like to express my admiration and support of Chairman de 
la Garza and Mr. Stenholm's diligence and dedication to this 
reorganization bill.
  Madam Chairman, in its current form this bill contains a provision 
that would create an Office of Environmental Risk within the Department 
of Agriculture which would effectively mandate risk and cost-benefit 
analysis for public health and safety, and environmental regulations.
  The risk assessment provision was adopted in full committee at the 
last minute, with no prior warning, and was passed with little debate, 
by voice vote, and with few members present.
  This is a very controversial provision that is being presented to my 
colleagues and to the public as a good government provision. It would 
require the Office of Environmental Risk to certify that benefits to 
public health and safety justify the costs.
  If this is a good government provision then I am sure that those 
supporting it will be willing to come forward and reassure me that it 
applies to all major USDA regulations including commodity programs.
  If they are not able to do this, then it will be clear that it is 
targeted at certain types of regulations including nutrition programs 
and environmental programs.
  I look forward to developments on this issue on the floor today. If 
there are no positive developments, I may be forced to withdraw my 
support for this bill.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Washington [Mr. Kreidler].
  Mr. KREIDLER. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the provisions in 
this bill that will help USDA do a better job protecting the public 
health and the safety of meat and poultry.
  Nearly 2 years ago in Washington State, three children lost their 
lives, dozens more were hospitalized, and hundreds of people were 
affected by an outbreak of deadly food poisoning, traced to a microbe 
in undercooked hamburger. That tragedy was a wake-up call for USDA, for 
public health authorities, and for all of us.
  Since then, there have been at least 45 outbreaks of E. coli 
infection, and at least 15 deaths, in all parts of this country--
Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, California, Nebraska, North Carolina, 
Vermont, North Dakota, Ohio, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, 
Hawaii, New Jersey, Florida, Pennsylvania, Montana, Wisconsin, Alabama, 
Illinois, and Indiana.
  A system that spends half a billion dollars a year to inspect meat 
and poultry, and allows products to go on the market with a label 
saying they are safe or wholesome, is a system that can no longer 
ignore the microscopic pathogens that present the greatest danger.
  It is not enough to blame the victims who didn't cook the meat. It is 
not enough to require warning labels on raw meat and poultry. It is not 
enough to blame the inspectors who have to use 19th century methods on 
the threshold of the 21st century.
  It is time to bring modern science to meat and poultry inspection, 
and Mike Espy has done more in the past year and a half than any of his 
predecessors in this century to improve food safety.
  Title VII of this bill will help him do more. It separates inspection 
from marketing. It requires that the person in charge of food safety 
actually know something about public health. It gives food safety the 
priority it should have, by making the Under Secretary for Food Safety 
a Presidential appointee.
  A lot of people--a lot of my constituents--believe that USDA cannot 
be trusted to protect the safety of meat and poultry. They think some 
other agency would do better. Maybe they are right. But I care more 
about getting the job done than about who does it.
  Mike Espy is committed to safer meat and poultry. He has appointed 
people who are committed and knowledgeable. He has proposed a Pathogen 
Reduction Act, to test for pathogens and trace back contaminated meat 
to the source--a bill which I hope the Committee on Agriculture will 
make its first order of business in the next Congress.
  Let us give him the tools to do the job, starting with title VII of 
this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his contribution. I can 
assure him and all of our colleagues that we on the committee certainly 
will continue working on this issue. We are satisfied that the 
Department has worked diligently on this issue and I commend Secretary 
Espy for his leadership in this area. We are appreciative of everything 
that he has done. This is to assure our colleagues that in this and 
several other areas of concern that do not rightly belong in this 
legislation, our commitment is to continue to work with our colleagues 
as we move into 1995 and draft the farm bill legislation.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  Mr. PENNY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Madam Chairman, I wanted to take this opportunity during general 
debate to express my strong support for the legislation before us 
today. I applaud the leadership of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la 
Garza], the chairman of the committee, in moving this legislation 
through committee and onto the House floor. I appreciate the interest 
expressed by those on the other side of the aisle. I understand they 
may have some amendments for us to consider today, but I believe we all 
share a desire to reorganize the Department of Agriculture and to 
position ourselves for leadership on rural and agricultural issues on 
into the next century. The reorganization plan has been in the works 
for literally years but that effort was accelerated under the 
leadership of our new Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy who in my 
opinion has done outstanding work on behalf of American agriculture.
  The effort to consolidate and co-locate offices makes eminent sense 
in the 1990's, a time when fax machines and 800 numbers and other 
conveniences allow us to achieve these sorts of cost-saving initiatives 
while still providing farmers with the sort of service they have come 
to expect from the Department of Agriculture.
  I am also supportive of the efforts of my colleague, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Farr], to include in this legislation risk 
assessment provisions which will help our farmers to be protected 
against unnecessary instrusions from bureaucrats who do not necessarily 
understand what it means to farm and make a living on the land and hope 
that his language can be contained in this bill as we move it on to the 
Senate.
  This is part of the President's reorganization of Government 
initiative. I think it is one of the most exciting aspects of his 
agenda for the Nation. We on the Committee on Agriculture should be 
proud that we are the first to step forward with a major restructuring 
plan. I trust that we will see other departments and agencies 
restructured accordingly. It will save taxpayers money and improve the 
services of government. Again I commend the chairman for his leadership 
in bringing this issue to the House.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his contribution. Let me 
add that the gentleman of his own volition and accord has decided not 
to remain a member of this body. Let me at this point in time pay 
tribute to his great contribution, his dedication in everything 
worthwhile for agriculture. Now and then we may not have agreed on an 
item, but his seriousness and his work and the efforts which he thought 
were correct and proper needs to be applauded. I do that at this point 
in time. I wish him well.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to echo the comments of my distinguished 
chairman, more especially relative to the outstanding service of the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny]. In behalf of my Kansas producers 
and all of us in agriculture and all of us on the minority side of the 
House Agriculture Committee I want to commend him for a very dedicated 
and conscientious career in public service, not only in regards to 
legislative matters, but the personal example that he certainly 
emulates in regards to comity and fairness and personal treatment of 
other Members. Simply said, Mr. Penny, you will be sorely missed.
  I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. de la GARZA. I thank the gentleman from Kansas and echo his 
sentiments. We wish well to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] in 
his further endeavors.
  Mr. BISHOP. Madam Chairman, I rise today in vigorous support of H.R. 
3171, as reported by the Agriculture Committee, of which I am a member, 
and I want to thank my chairman, Mr. de la Garza, for the courage and 
diligence he has shown in the enormous and complex task of crafting and 
refining legislation that reorganizes the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture.
  The issue of reorganizing the Department of Agriculture is one of 
agriculture's most important policy challenges in decades, and one of 
my first official actions as a Member this body was to make a formal 
request that field hearings be held on this matter, and that Georgia be 
the site of one of those hearings, and I also want to thank Chairman 
Stenholm of Texas for bringing the Subcommittee on Department 
Operations to Georgia for this purpose. The result of this legislation 
will have a profound impact on how all of our farm programs are 
implemented at the local level and here in Washington. For example, it 
will provide a new emphasis on nutrition, and save billions of dollars 
for the Treasury by streamlining the delivery of services to citizens 
throughout the Nation.
  The Department of Agriculture is an extremely complex organization 
which has developed into a bureaucratic monster, burdening our farmers 
with over regulation, compromising the nutrition of our children's 
school lunches, and providing fodder for negative connotations 
associated with agriculture in the mind of the public. We must take 
steps to correct this perception or all of our farm programs will 
remain in jeopardy.
  I believe that we must streamline the Department and its services, 
and on that I hope we can all agree. However, we must move in a logical 
and careful manner. Most importantly, we must not compromise our rural 
communities for the sake of bureaucratic convenience, and never forget 
that our No. 1 priority in this reorganization process is to improve 
the services provided to the customers of USDA--whether it be farmers 
who participate in conservation programs, farmers who use ASCS farm 
programs, or the children who are fed in our school lunch programs.
  The Agriculture Department Reorganization Act reduces costs, cuts 
waste, streamlines operations, and improves services to farmers and 
other customers of USDA. H.R. 3171 consolidates farm price support, 
crop insurance, and agricultural loan programs into a single farm 
service agency, which allows farmers a one-stop shop for farmer 
programs. The bill places all agricultural conservation programs within 
a natural resources conservation service and reorganizes various rural 
development and rural electrification programs into a rural community 
development service.
  H.R. 3171 streamlines USDA by requiring a reduction in the number of 
its employees by 7,500 staff-years by the end of 1999. It is important 
to note that the bill requires larger staff cuts in the Department's 
headquarters offices than in its field offices, and the measure 
specifies that the overall reduction in headquarters personnel must be 
twice as great, on a percentage basis, as the reduction in field office 
personnel. I mention these reductions to point out the wisdom in this 
bill that we are not abandoning our farmers and rural communities in 
this reorganization, but we hope to achieve a more effective and cost-
savings delivery of services to the people who feed and clothe all the 
citizens of the United States and increasingly the world.
  Secretary Espy should be commended for bringing this issue to the 
forefront, and for his commitment to start the reorganization process 
here in USDA Washington offices, before suggesting that field offices 
be closed. Therefore, I strongly support the passage of this substitute 
offered by Mr. de la Garza.
  Ms. LONG. Madam. Chairman, I rise to commend Chairman de la Garza, 
Subcommittee Chairman Stenholm, and the other members of the House 
Agriculture Committee who have worked so hard on this legislation. 
Contrary to some of the concerns that have been raised, this 
legislation is, on balance, a major undertaking that will reinvent and 
reorganize the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Madam Chairman, the USDA 
is the second largest department in the Federal Government--second in 
size and personnel only to the Department of Defense. Reorganizing USDA 
has not been easy. Secretary Espy has been an advocate of reorganizing 
the Department, not just by consolidating and coordinating the various 
agricultural offices located in the States, but by reorganizing the 
bureaucracy right here in Washington, DC. Despite some of the concerns 
raised today--and let me say that I also have several concerns which I 
hope can be addressed in the conference--but despite some concerns, 
this is needed and comprehensive legislation that should be approved by 
the Congress. Reorganization of USDA is the first major department to 
undertake this reinventing and reorganizing effort. It is my hope that 
others will take the lead of the House and Senate Agriculture 
Committees and get on with the business of reinventing and reorganizing 
some of the other Federal departments.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Madam Chairman, as we vote on this bill today, we must 
consider what we are hearing from people across the country, Americans 
are alienated from and angry with a distant, ineffective, and seemingly 
unresponsive Federal Government. Business as usual is over, it is time 
to reorganize the way government works. Those of us in agriculture must 
step up to the same challenge. The logical place to being is with the 
overwhelming size and complexity of the Department of Agriculture. The 
job will not be finished until, from top to bottom and headquarters to 
country office, we have transformed a 19th century leviathan into a 
structure able to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
  I have introduced two bills in the last 2 years, that laid the 
foundation and ground work for the bill we are debating today. This 
legislation will streamline both the farmer service agencies and the 
Washington bureaucracy of USDA. I strongly support H.R. 3171.
  The legislation introduced today calls for a transformation. It will 
map out a comprehensive reorganization plan for USDA, to streamline and 
make more efficient its county offices and cut its redtape. It will 
lead, I hope, to a more efficient, more responsive bureaucracy.
  This legislation includes consolidating farmer programs and services 
into one agency. Then for example, a farmer would be able to go to just 
one office for basic farm programs, for loans and crop insurance, 
instead visiting each office separately.
  The bill also requires the Secretary to establish an independent 
entity within USDA to hear farmer's appeals of program decisions. As it 
is now, essentially the same people in charge of carrying out the 
programs are also in charge of hearing appeals of rulings affecting 
those programs. This is obviously a basic conflict of interest which 
must be remedied.
  Furthermore, H.R. 3171 elevates the importance of food safety in the 
Department. In order to separate food safety programs from other 
agriculture interests, the bill establishes a new position, an Under 
Secretary for Food Safety.
  I am convinced that reorganizing USDA is a long overdue task. The 
time for study has passed. We have heard testimony from farmers, 
producer groups, USDA and county employees, and received numerous 
reports from the General Accounting Office. For example, in 1991 the 
General Accounting Office released a report of a 3-year review of 
USDA's management and structure, which stated in part:

       USDA's organizational structure--essentially unchanged 
     since the 1930's--is not responsive to the new challenges 
     facing the Department. Consolidating and integrating 
     organizational functions would allow USDA to provide the same 
     services and more efficiently to agribusiness customers and 
     give it flexibility to meet needs more effectively.

  The restructuring and evolution of the Department of Agriculture 
should have happened years ago. We must pass this legislation now. 
Farmers and taxpayers will ultimately be better served by a more 
efficient and streamlined bureaucracy. It will save money and will give 
farmers more time to be farmers. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 
3171.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute now printed in the bill is considered as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment and is considered as having 
been read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Department 
     of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.

              TITLE I--GENERAL REORGANIZATION AUTHORITIES

Sec. 101. Transfer of Department functions to Secretary of Agriculture.
Sec. 102. National Appeals Division.
Sec. 103. Reductions in number of Department personnel.
Sec. 104. Combination of field offices.
Sec. 105. Improvement of information sharing.
Sec. 106. Director of External affairs.
Sec. 107. Director for Administration.

            TITLE II--FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

Sec. 201. Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign 
              Agricultural Services.
Sec. 202. Agricultural Service Agency.
Sec. 203. State, county, and area committees.

          TITLE III--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Sec. 301. Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Economic and 
              Community Development.

            TITLE IV--FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

Sec. 401. Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food, Nutrition, and 
              Consumer Services.

               TITLE V--NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

Sec. 501. Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and 
              Environment.

              TITLE VI--RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

Sec. 601. Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and 
              Economics.

                         TITLE VII--FOOD SAFETY

Sec. 701. Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety.

                  TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. Expansion of issues covered by State mediation programs.
Sec. 802. Successorship provisions relating to bargaining units and 
              exclusive representatives.
Sec. 803. Conditions on implementation of alteration in level of 
              selenium allowed in animal diets.
Sec. 804. Office of environmental risk assessment.
Sec. 805. Repeal of superseded provisions.
Sec. 806. Conforming amendments.
Sec. 807. Proposed conforming amendments.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       Except where the context requires otherwise, for purposes 
     of this Act:
       (1) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of Agriculture.
       (2) National appeals division.--The term ``National Appeals 
     Division'' means the National Appeals Division of the 
     Department established under section 102.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
              TITLE I--GENERAL REORGANIZATION AUTHORITIES

     SEC. 101. TRANSFER OF DEPARTMENT FUNCTIONS TO SECRETARY OF 
                   AGRICULTURE.

       (a) Transfer of Functions.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b), there are hereby transferred to the Secretary 
     of Agriculture all functions of all agencies, offices, 
     officers, and employees of the Department that are not 
     already vested in the Secretary as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     following functions:
       (1) Functions vested by subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 
     5, United States Code, in administrative law judges employed 
     by the Department.
       (2) Functions vested by the Inspector General Act of 1978 
     (5 U.S.C. App.) in the Inspector General of the Department.
       (3) Functions vested by chapter 9 of title 31, United 
     States Code, in the Chief Financial Officer of the 
     Department.
       (4) Functions vested in the corporations of the Department 
     or the boards of directors and officers of such corporations.
       (5) Functions vested in the Alternative Agricultural 
     Research and Commercialization Board by the Alternative 
     Agricultural Research and Commercialization Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 5901 et seq.).
       (6) Functions vested in the advisory board of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation established by section 9(b) of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714g(b)).
       (c) Delegation of Authority.--
       (1) Delegation authorized.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary may delegate to any agency, office, officer, or 
     employee of the Department the authority to perform any 
     function transferred to the Secretary under subsection (a) or 
     any other function vested in the Secretary as of the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Exception.--The delegation authority provided by 
     paragraph (1) shall be subject to--
       (A) sections 105(b)(1), 106(b)(1), 201(b)(1), 202(b)(1), 
     301(b)(1), 401(b)(1), 501(b)(1), 601(b)(1), 601(c)(2), 
     701(b)(1), 803, and 904 of this Act;
       (B) sections 502 and 503 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 
     1978 (7 U.S.C. 5692 and 5693); and
       (C) section 8(b)(5) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
     Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)(5)), as amended by section 
     203(a) of this Act.
       (d) Cost-Benefit Analysis Required for Name Change.--
       (1) Analysis required.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (2), the Secretary shall conduct a cost-benefit analysis 
     before changing the name of any agency, office, division, or 
     other unit of the Department to ensure that the benefits to 
     be derived from changing the name of the agency, office, 
     division, or other unit outweigh the expense of executing the 
     name change.
       (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect 
     to any name change specifically provided for in this Act.
       (e) Public Comment on Proposed Reorganization.--To the 
     extent that the implementation of the authority provided to 
     the Secretary by this Act to reorganize the Department 
     involves the creation of new agencies or offices within the 
     Department or the delegation of major functions or major 
     groups of functions to any agency or office of the Department 
     (or the officers thereof), the Secretary shall, to the extent 
     considered practicable by the Secretary--
       (1) give appropriate advance public notice of the proposed 
     reorganization action or delegation; and
       (2) afford appropriate opportunity for interested parties 
     to comment on the proposed reorganization action or 
     delegation.
       (f) Interagency Transfer of Records, Property, Personnel, 
     and Funds.--
       (1) Related transfers.--Subject to paragraph (2), as part 
     of the transfer or delegation of a function of the Department 
     made or authorized by this Act, the Secretary may transfer 
     within the Department--
       (A) any of the records, property, or personnel affected by 
     the transfer or delegation of the function; and
       (B) unexpended balances (available or to be made available 
     for use in connection with the transferred or delegated 
     function) of appropriations, allocations, or other funds of 
     the Department.
       (2) Applicable law relating to funds transfer.--Section 
     1531 of title 31, United States Code, shall apply to any 
     transfer of funds under paragraph (1).

     SEC. 102. NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION.

       (a) Establishment.--Notwithstanding section 426 of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1433e) or section 333B of 
     the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 
     U.S.C.1983b), the Secretary shall establish a National 
     Appeals Division in the Department.
       (b) Jurisdiction.--The Secretary may assign to the National 
     Appeals Division established under subsection (a) all 
     administrative appeals arising under the laws referred to in 
     subsection (a) or under any other law that confers authority 
     upon the Secretary or the Department.
       (c) Director.--The National Appeals Division shall be 
     headed by a Director appointed by the Secretary from among 
     individuals with substantial experience in administrative 
     law.
       (d) Procedures.--The Secretary shall establish procedures 
     applicable to administrative appeals under the jurisdiction 
     of the National Appeals Division.
       (e) Effect on Rights of Program Participants.--
     Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, the 
     rights afforded program participants under the laws referred 
     to in subsection (a) shall not be limited or abridged by this 
     section.
       (f) Final Decisions in Appeals.--The Secretary may make 
     final decisions in appeals under the jurisdiction of the 
     National Appeals Division, including appeals filed under the 
     laws referred to in subsection (a), or delegate authority to 
     make such final decisions to the Director of the Division.

     SEC. 103. REDUCTIONS IN NUMBER OF DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL.

       (a) Number of Reductions Required.--The Secretary shall 
     achieve Federal employee reductions of at least 7,500 staff 
     years within the Department by the end of fiscal year 1999.
       (b) Top-Down Reductions Required.--In achieving the 
     employee reductions required in subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall ensure that the percentage by which total employee 
     staff years in headquarters offices is reduced is at least 
     twice as great as the percentage by which total employee 
     staff years in field offices is reduced.

     SEC. 104. COMBINATION OF FIELD OFFICES.

       (a) Combination of Offices Required.--The Secretary shall 
     combine field offices of agencies within the Department to 
     improve service to clients and reduce personnel and 
     duplicative overhead expenses.
       (b) Joint Use of Resources and Offices Required.--When two 
     or more agencies share a common field office, the Secretary 
     shall require the agencies to jointly use office space, 
     equipment, office supplies, administrative personnel, and 
     clerical personnel associated with that field office.

     SEC. 105. IMPROVEMENT OF INFORMATION SHARING.

       Subject to the provision of funds in advance in 
     appropriations Acts for this purpose, the Secretary shall 
     procure and use computer systems that enhance efficiency, 
     productivity, and client services and are consistent with the 
     goal of promoting computer information sharing among agencies 
     of the Department.

     SEC. 106. DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     the position of Director of External Affairs of the 
     Department of Agriculture. The Director of External Affairs 
     shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice 
     and consent of the Senate.
       (b) Functions of Director.--
       (1) Principal functions.--The Secretary shall delegate to 
     the Director of External Affairs those functions and duties 
     that were under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Secretary 
     of Agriculture for Congressional Relations and the Director 
     of Public Affairs of the Department as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Additional functions.--The Director of External Affairs 
     shall perform such other duties as may be required by law or 
     prescribed by the Secretary.
       (c) Succession.--Any official who is serving as Assistant 
     Secretary of Agriculture for Congressional Relations on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and who was appointed by 
     the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate--
       (1) shall be considered to be serving in the successor 
     position established by subsection (a); and
       (2) shall not be required to be reappointed to that 
     position by reason of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``Director of External Affairs of the Department of 
     Agriculture.''.

     SEC. 107. DIRECTOR FOR ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     the position of Director for Administration of the Department 
     of Agriculture. The Director for Administration shall be 
     appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       (b) Functions of Director.--
       (1) Principal functions.--The Secretary shall delegate to 
     the Director for Administration those functions and duties 
     that were under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Secretary 
     for Administration of the Department as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Additional functions.--The Director for Administration 
     shall perform such other duties as may be required by law or 
     prescribed by the Secretary.
       (c) Succession.--Any official who is serving as Assistant 
     Secretary of Agriculture for Administration on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and who was appointed by the 
     President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate--
       (1) shall be considered to be serving in the successor 
     position established by subsection (a); and
       (2) shall not be required to be reappointed to that 
     position by reason of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``Director for Administration of the Department of 
     Agriculture.''.
            TITLE II--FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

     SEC. 201. UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR FARM AND FOREIGN 
                   AGRICULTURAL SERVICES.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and 
     Foreign Agricultural Services. The Under Secretary shall be 
     appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       (b) Functions of Under Secretary.--
       (1) Principal functions.--The Secretary shall delegate to 
     the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign 
     Agricultural Services those functions and duties under the 
     jurisdiction of the Department that are related to farm and 
     foreign agricultural services.
       (2) Additional functions.--The Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services shall 
     perform such other functions and duties as may be required by 
     law or prescribed by the Secretary.
       (c) Succession.--Any official who is serving as Under 
     Secretary of Agriculture for International Affairs and 
     Commodity Programs on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and who was appointed by the President, by and with the 
     advice and consent of the Senate--
       (1) shall be considered to be serving in the successor 
     position established by subsection (a); and
       (2) shall not be required to be reappointed to that 
     position by reason of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Existing position.--Section 501 of the Agricultural 
     Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5691), relating to the Under 
     Secretary of Agriculture for International Affairs and 
     Commodity Programs, is repealed.
       (2) Executive schedule.--Section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for International Affairs and Commodity 
     Programs.'' and inserting ``Under Secretary of Agriculture 
     for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.''.

     SEC. 202. AGRICULTURAL SERVICE AGENCY.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     maintain an Agricultural Service Agency within the 
     Department.
       (b) Functions of Agricultural Service Agency.--
       (1) Principal functions.--The Secretary shall carry out 
     through the Agricultural Service Agency the following 
     activities that are under the jurisdiction of the Department:
       (A) Agricultural price and income support programs and 
     related programs.
       (B) General supervision of the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Corporation.
       (C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     agricultural credit programs formerly assigned by law to the 
     Farmers Home Administration (including farm ownership and 
     operating, emergency, and disaster loan programs) and other 
     lending programs for farmers and others engaged in the 
     production of agricultural commodities.
       (D) Agricultural conservation cost-share and demonstration 
     programs carried out by the Agricultural Stabilization and 
     Conservation Service or the Farmers Home Administration as of 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Additional functions.--The Secretary may assign to the 
     Agricultural Service Agency such additional functions as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate in connection with the 
     administration and implementation of authorities assigned to 
     the Secretary by law.
       (c) Jurisdiction Over Conservation Program Appeals.--
       (1) In general.--Until such time as an adverse decision 
     described in this paragraph is referred to the National 
     Appeals Division for consideration, the Agricultural Service 
     Agency shall have initial jurisdiction over any 
     administrative appeal resulting from an adverse decision made 
     under title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3801 et seq.), including an adverse decision involving 
     technical determinations made by the Soil Conservation 
     Service.
       (2) Treatment of technical determination.--With respect to 
     administrative appeals involving a technical determination 
     made by the Soil Conservation Service, the Agricultural 
     Service Agency, by rule with the concurrence of the Soil 
     Conservation Service, shall establish procedures for 
     obtaining review by the Soil Conservation Service of the 
     technical determinations involved. Such rules shall ensure 
     that technical criteria established by the Soil Conservation 
     Service shall be used by the Agricultural Service Agency as 
     the basis for any decisions regarding technical 
     determinations.
       (3) Reinstatement of program benefits.--Rules issued to 
     carry out this subsection shall provide for the prompt 
     reinstatement of benefits to a producer who is determined in 
     an administrative appeal to meet the requirements of title 
     XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 applicable to the 
     producer.
       (4) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``Soil Conservation Service'' includes any successor agency 
     to the Soil Conservation Service.
       (d) Use of Federal and Non-Federal Employees.--
       (1) Use authorized.--In the implementation of programs and 
     activities assigned to the Agricultural Service Agency, the 
     Secretary may use interchangeably in local offices of the 
     agency both Federal employees of the Department and non-
     Federal employees of county and area committees established 
     under section 8(b)(5) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
     Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)(5)).
       (2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), no personnel 
     action (as defined in section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, 
     United States Code) may be taken with respect to a Federal 
     employee unless such action is taken by another Federal 
     employee.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Crop insurance.--The Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C.1501 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in section 505(a) (7 U.S.C. 1505(a)), by striking ``the 
     Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary of Agriculture 
     responsible for the farm credit programs of the Department of 
     Agriculture,'' and inserting ``one additional Under Secretary 
     of Agriculture as designated by the Secretary,''; and
       (B) in section 507(d) (7 U.S.C. 1507(d)), by striking ``, 
     except'' and all that follows through ``agency''.
       (2) Farm and rural development.--Section 331(a) of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1981(a)) is amended by striking ``assets to the Farmers Home 
     Administration'' and all that follows through the period and 
     inserting ``assets to such officers or agencies of the 
     Department of Agriculture as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.''.

     SEC. 203. STATE, COUNTY, AND AREA COMMITTEES.

       (a) Amendment to the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
     Allotment Act.--Section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and 
     Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)'';
       (2) by designating the second through eighth undesignated 
     paragraphs as paragraphs (2) through (8), respectively; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (5) (as so designated) and 
     inserting the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) State, county, and area committees.--
       ``(A) Appointment of state committees.--The Secretary shall 
     appoint in each State a State committee composed of not fewer 
     than 3 nor more than 5 members who are fairly representative 
     of the farmers in the State. The members of a State committee 
     shall serve at the pleasure of the Secretary for such term as 
     the Secretary may establish.
       ``(B) Establishment of county or area committees.--(i) In 
     each county or area in which activities are carried out under 
     this section, the Secretary shall establish a county or area 
     committee.
       ``(ii) Any such committee shall consist of not fewer than 3 
     nor more than 5 members who are fairly representative of the 
     farmers in the county or area and who shall be elected by the 
     farmers in such county or area under such procedures as the 
     Secretary may prescribe.
       ``(iii) Only farmers within a local administrative area who 
     are producers who participate or cooperate in programs 
     administered within their area shall be eligible for 
     nomination and election to the local committee for that area.
       ``(iv) The Secretary shall solicit and accept nominations 
     from organizations representing the interests of socially 
     disadvantaged groups (as defined in section 355(e)(1) of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     2003(e)(1)).
       ``(v) Members of each county or area committee shall serve 
     for terms not to exceed 3 years.
       ``(C) Use of committees.--The Secretary shall use the 
     services of such committees in carrying out programs under 
     this section and the agricultural credit programs under the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et 
     seq.) and in considering administrative appeals under the 
     jurisdiction of the Agricultural Service Agency, as provided 
     by section 202(c) of the Department of Agriculture 
     Reorganization Act of 1994. In addition, to the extent the 
     Secretary determines appropriate, the Secretary may use the 
     services of such committees in carrying out programs under 
     other authorities administered by the Secretary .
       ``(D) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue such 
     regulations as the Secretary considers necessary relating to 
     the selection and exercise of the functions of the respective 
     committees, and to the administration through such committees 
     of the programs described in subparagraph (C). Regulations 
     governing payments or grants under this subsection shall be 
     as simple and direct as possible, and, whenever practicable, 
     they shall be classified on the following two bases:
       ``(i) Soil-depleting practices.
       ``(ii) Soil-building practices.
       ``(E) Mandatory duties of secretary.--In carrying out this 
     section, the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) insofar as practicable, protect the interests of 
     tenants and sharecroppers;
       ``(ii) accord such encouragement to producer-owned and 
     producer-controlled cooperative associations as will be in 
     harmony with the policy toward cooperative associations set 
     forth in Federal laws and as will tend to promote efficient 
     methods of marketing and distribution;
       ``(iii) in every practicable manner, protect the interests 
     of small producers; and
       ``(iv) in every practical way, encourage and provide for 
     soil-conserving and soil-rebuilding practices.
       ``(F) Discretionary authorities of secretary.--In carrying 
     out this section, the Secretary may use other approved 
     agencies.
       ``(G) Limitations.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall not have the authority to acquire any land or 
     any right or interest in land.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--The Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by striking section 332 (7 U.S.C. 1982); and
       (2) in section 333 (7 U.S.C. 1983)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (B) redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as 
     paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), respectively.
          TITLE III--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

     SEC. 301. UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR RURAL ECONOMIC 
                   AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural 
     Economic and Community Development. The Under Secretary shall 
     be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       (b) Functions of Under Secretary.--
       (1) Principal functions.--The Secretary shall delegate to 
     the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Economic and 
     Community Development those functions and duties under the 
     jurisdiction of the Department that are related to rural 
     economic and community development.
       (2) Additional functions.--The Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Rural Economic and Community Development 
     shall perform such other functions and duties as may be 
     required by law or prescribed by the Secretary.
       (c) Succession.--Any official who is serving as Under 
     Secretary of Agriculture for Small Community and Rural 
     Development on the date of the enactment of this Act and who 
     was appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate--
       (1) shall be considered to be serving in the successor 
     position established by subsection (a); and
       (2) shall not be required to be reappointed to that 
     position by reason of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Loan Approval Authority.--Approval authority for loans 
     and loan guarantees in the electric and telephone loan and 
     loan guarantee programs authorized by the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) shall not 
     be transferred to, or conditioned upon review of, a State 
     director or other employee whose primary duty is not the 
     review and approval of such loans or the provision of 
     assistance to such borrowers.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Existing position.--Section 3 of the Rural Development 
     Policy Act of 1980 (7 U.S.C. 2211b) is amended by striking 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Executive schedule.--Section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Small Community and Rural Development.'' and 
     inserting ``Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Economic 
     and Community Development.''.
       (f) Amendments to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936.--
     The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) 
     is amended--
       (1) in section 1 (7 U.S.C. 901), by striking the first 
     sentence;
       (2) in section 2(a) (7 U.S.C. 902(a)), by striking 
     ``Administrator'' and inserting ``Secretary of Agriculture'';
       (3) in section 3(a) (7 U.S.C. 903(a))--
       (A) by striking ``Administrator, upon the request and 
     approval of the Secretary of Agriculture,'' and inserting 
     ``Secretary''; and
       (B) by striking ``Administrator appointed pursuant to the 
     provisions of this Act or from the Administrator of the Rural 
     Electrification Administration established by Executive Order 
     Numbered 7037'' and inserting ``Secretary'';
       (4) in section 8 (7 U.S.C. 908)--
       (A) by striking ``Administrator authorized to be appointed 
     by this Act'' and inserting ``Secretary''; and
       (B) by striking ``Rural Electrification Administration 
     created by this Act'' and inserting ``Secretary'';
       (5) by striking section 11A (7 U.S.C. 911a);
       (6) in section 13 (7 U.S.C. 913), by inserting before the 
     period the following: ``; the term `Secretary' shall be 
     deemed to mean the Secretary of Agriculture'';
       (7) in sections 206(b)(2), 306A(b), 311, and 405(b)(1)(A) 
     (7 U.S.C. 927(b)(2), 936a(b), 940a, and 945(b)(1)(A)), by 
     striking ``Rural Electrification Administration'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``Secretary'';
       (8) in sections 305(c)(2)(C)(ii)(II) and 306E(d) (7 U.S.C. 
     935(c)(2)(C)(ii)(II) and 936e(d)), by striking 
     ``Administrator'' both places it appears and inserting 
     ``Secretary'';
       (9) in section 403(b) (7 U.S.C. 943(b)), by striking 
     ``Rural Electrification Administration or of any other agency 
     of the Department of Agriculture,'' and inserting 
     ``Secretary,'';
       (10) in section 404 (7 U.S.C. 944), by striking ``the 
     Administrator of the Rural Electrification Administration'' 
     and inserting ``the Secretary shall designate an official of 
     the Department of Agriculture who'';
       (11) in sections 406(c) and 410 (7 U.S.C. 946(c) and 950), 
     by striking ``Administrator of the Rural Electrification 
     Administration'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Secretary'';
       (12) in the heading of section 501 (7 U.S.C. 950aa), by 
     striking ``OF REA ADMINISTRATOR''; and
       (13) except as otherwise provided in this subsection, by 
     striking ``Administrator'' each place it appears in such Act 
     and inserting ``Secretary''.
       (g) Miscellaneous Amendments Related to Rural 
     Electrification Administration.--(1) Section 236(a) of the 
     Disaster Relief Act of 1970 (7 U.S.C. 912a) is amended by 
     striking ``Rural Electrification Administration'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary under the Rural Electrification Act of 
     1936''.
       (2) Section 505 of the Department of Agriculture Organic 
     Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 915) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Rural Electrification Administration'' 
     and inserting ``Secretary of Agriculture''; and
       (B) by striking ``its'' and inserting ``the Secretary's''.
       (3) Section 401 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1938 (7 
     U.S.C. 903 note, 52 Stat. 818) is amended in the second 
     paragraph by striking ``Administrator of the Rural 
     Electrification Administration'' and inserting ``Secretary of 
     Agriculture''.
       (4) Chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XXIII of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
     950aaa et seq.), relating to Distance Learning and Medical 
     Link Programs, is amended--
       (A) in section 2333--
       (i) by striking paragraph (1); and
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (11) as 
     paragraphs (1) through (10), respectively;
       (B) in section 2334(h)(2), by striking ``section 
     2333(3)(F)'' and inserting ``section 2333(2)(F)''; and
       (C) by striking ``Administrator'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Secretary''.
            TITLE IV--FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

     SEC. 401. UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR FOOD, NUTRITION, 
                   AND CONSUMER SERVICES.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food, 
     Nutrition, and Consumer Services. The Under Secretary shall 
     be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       (b) Functions of Under Secretary.--
       (1) Principal functions.--The Secretary shall delegate to 
     the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food, Nutrition, and 
     Consumer Services those functions and duties under the 
     jurisdiction of the Department that are related to food, 
     nutrition, and consumer services (except as provided in 
     section 701(b)(1)).
       (2) Additional functions.--The Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services shall 
     perform such other functions and duties as may be required by 
     law or prescribed by the Secretary.
       (c) Succession.--Any official who is serving as Assistant 
     Secretary of Agriculture for Food and Consumer Services on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act and who was appointed 
     by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate--
       (1) shall be considered to be serving in the successor 
     position established by subsection (a); and
       (2) shall not be required to be reappointed to that 
     position by reason of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Executive Schedule.--Section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign 
     Agricultural Services (as added by section 201(d)(2)) the 
     following:
       ``Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food, Nutrition, and 
     Consumer Services.''.
               TITLE V--NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

     SEC. 501. UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR NATURAL 
                   RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural 
     Resources and Environment. The Under Secretary shall be 
     appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       (b) Functions of Under Secretary.--
       (1) Principal functions.--The Secretary shall delegate to 
     the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and 
     Environment those functions and duties under the jurisdiction 
     of the Department that are related to natural resources and 
     the environment (except to the extent those functions and 
     duties are delegated to the Agricultural Service Agency under 
     section 202).
       (2) Additional functions.--The Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment shall 
     perform such other functions and duties as may be required by 
     law or prescribed by the Secretary.
       (c) Succession.--Any official who is serving as Assistant 
     Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and 
     Environment on the date of the enactment of this Act and who 
     was appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate--
       (1) shall be considered to be serving in the successor 
     position established by subsection (a); and
       (2) shall not be required to be reappointed to that 
     position by reason of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Executive Schedule.--Section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food, Nutrition, 
     and Consumer Services (as added by section 401(d)) the 
     following:
       ``Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and 
     Environment.''.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Soil conservation service.--Section 5 of the Soil 
     Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590e) is 
     repealed.
       (2) Soil and water resources conservation.--The Soil and 
     Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (16 U.S.C. 2001) is 
     amended--
       (A) in section 2(2) (16 U.S.C. 2001(2))--
       (i) by striking ``created the Soil Conservation Service''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``Department of Agriculture which'' and 
     inserting ``, has ensured that the Department of 
     Agriculture'';
       (B) in section 3(2) (16 U.S.C. 2002(2)), by striking 
     ``through the Soil Conservation Service''; and
       (C) in section 6(a) (16 U.S.C. 2005(a)), by striking ``Soil 
     Conservation Service'' and inserting ``Secretary''.
              TITLE VI--RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

     SEC. 601. UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR RESEARCH, 
                   EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, 
     Education, and Economics. The Under Secretary shall be 
     appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       (b) Functions of Under Secretary.--
       (1) Principal functions.--The Secretary shall delegate to 
     the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, 
     and Economics those functions and duties under the 
     jurisdiction of the Department that are related to research, 
     education, and economics.
       (2) Additional functions.--The Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics shall 
     perform such other functions and duties as may be required by 
     law or prescribed by the Secretary.
       (c) Cooperative State Research and Education Service.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     maintain within the Department a Cooperative State Research 
     and Education Service.
       (2) Duties.--The Secretary shall delegate to the 
     Cooperative State Research and Education Service functions 
     related to cooperative State research programs and 
     cooperative extension and education programs that are under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department.
       (3) Officer-in-charge.--The officer in charge of the 
     Cooperative State Research and Education Service shall report 
     directly to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, 
     Education, and Economics.
       (d) Executive Schedule.--Section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources 
     and Environment (as added by section 501(d)) the following:
       ``Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, 
     and Economics.''.
                         TITLE VII--FOOD SAFETY

     SEC. 701. UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR FOOD SAFETY.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     of Agriculture the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture 
     for Food Safety. The Under Secretary shall be appointed by 
     the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate, from among individuals with specialized training or 
     significant experience in food safety or public health 
     programs.
       (b) Functions of Under Secretary.--
       (1) Principal functions.--The Secretary shall delegate to 
     the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety those 
     functions and duties under the jurisdiction of the Department 
     that are related to food safety.
       (2) Additional functions.--The Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Food Safety shall perform such other 
     functions and duties as may be required by law or prescribed 
     by the Secretary.
       (c) Executive Schedule.--Section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, 
     Education, and Economics (as added by section 601(d)) the 
     following:
       ``Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety.''.
                  TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 801. EXPANSION OF ISSUES COVERED BY STATE MEDIATION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Expansion of Mediation Programs.--Section 501 of the 
     Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``an agricultural loan 
     mediation program'' and inserting ``a mediation program'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``agricultural loan''; 
     and
       (3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(c) Requirements of State Mediation Programs.--
       ``(1) Issues covered.--To be certified as a qualifying 
     State, the mediation program of the State must provide 
     mediation services for the persons described in paragraph (2) 
     who are involved in agricultural loans or agricultural loans 
     and one or more of the following issues under the 
     jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture:
       ``(A) Wetlands determinations.
       ``(B) Compliance with farm programs, including conservation 
     programs.
       ``(C) Agricultural credit.
       ``(D) Rural water loan programs.
       ``(E) Grazing on National Forest System lands.
       ``(F) Pesticides.
       ``(G) Such other issues as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(2) Persons eligible for mediation.--The persons referred 
     to in paragraph (1) are producers, their creditors (if 
     applicable), and other persons directly affected by actions 
     of the Department of Agriculture.
       ``(3) Certification conditions.--The Secretary shall 
     certify a State as a qualifying State with respect to the 
     issues proposed to be covered by the mediation program of the 
     State if the mediation program--
       ``(A) provides for mediation services that, if decisions 
     are reached, result in mediated, mutually agreeable decisions 
     between the parties to the mediation;
       ``(B) is authorized or administered by an agency of the 
     State government or by the Governor of the State;
       ``(C) provides for the training of mediators;
       ``(D) provides that the mediation sessions shall be 
     confidential;
       ``(E) ensures, in the case of agricultural loans, that all 
     lenders and borrowers of agricultural loans receive adequate 
     notification of the mediation program; and
       ``(F) ensures, in the case of other issues covered by the 
     mediation program, that persons directly affected by actions 
     of the Department of Agriculture receive adequate 
     notification of the mediation program.''.
       (b) Participation of Department.--Section 503 of such Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 5103) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``agricultural loan'' each place it 
     appears;
       (2) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of subsection 
     (a)(1)--
       (A) by inserting ``or agency'' after ``program''; and
       (B) by striking ``that makes, guarantees, or insures 
     agricultural loans'';
       (3) in subsection (a)(1)(A)--
       (A) by inserting ``or agency'' after ``such program''; and
       (B) by inserting ``certified under section 501'' after 
     ``mediation program'';
       (4) in subsection (a)(1)(B)--
       (A) by striking ``, effective beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``certified under section 501'' after 
     ``mediation programs''; and
       (5) in subsection (a)(1)(C)--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``described in'' and 
     inserting ``certified under''; and
       (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``if applicable,'' before 
     ``present''.
       (c) Regulations.--Section 504 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 5104) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Within 150 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the'' and inserting ``The''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary shall require 
     qualifying States to adequately train mediators to address 
     all of the issues covered by the mediation program of the 
     State.''.
       (d) Report.--Section 505 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 5105) is 
     amended by striking ``1990'' and inserting ``1998''.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 506 of such 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 5106) is amended by striking ``1995'' and 
     inserting ``2000''.
       (f) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) References to agricultural loans.--Subtitle A of title 
     V of such Act is amended--
       (A) in sections 502 and 505(1) (7 U.S.C. 5102, 5105(1)), by 
     striking ``agricultural loan'' each place it appears; and
       (B) in section 505(3) (7 U.S.C. 5105(3)), by striking ``an 
     agricultural loan mediation'' and inserting ``a mediation''.
       (2) Waiver of farm credit system mediation rights by 
     borrowers.--Section 4.14E of the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 
     U.S.C. 2202e) is amended by striking ``agricultural loan''.
       (3) Waiver of fmha mediation rights by borrowers.--Section 
     358 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2006) is amended by striking ``agricultural loan''.

     SEC. 802. SUCCESSORSHIP PROVISIONS RELATING TO BARGAINING 
                   UNITS AND EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Voluntary Agreement.--
       (1) In general.--If the exercise of the Secretary's 
     authority under this Act results in changes to an existing 
     bargaining unit that has been certified under chapter 71 of 
     title 5, United States Code, the affected parties shall 
     attempt to reach a voluntary agreement on a new bargaining 
     unit and an exclusive representative for such unit.
       (2) Criteria.--In carrying out the requirements of this 
     subsection, the affected parties shall use criteria set forth 
     in--
       (A) sections 7103(a)(4), 7111(e), 7111(f)(1), and 7120 of 
     title 5, United States Code, relating to determining an 
     exclusive representative; and
       (B) section 7112 of title 5, United States Code 
     (disregarding subsections (b)(5) and (d) thereof), relating 
     to determining appropriate units.
       (b) Effect of an Agreement.--
       (1) In general.--If the affected parties reach agreement on 
     the appropriate unit and the exclusive representative for 
     such unit under subsection (a), the Federal Labor Relations 
     Authority shall certify the terms of such agreement, subject 
     to paragraph (2)(A). Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     considered to require the holding of any hearing or election 
     as a condition for certification.
       (2) Restrictions.--
       (A) Conditions requiring noncer- tification.--The Federal 
     Labor Relations Authority may not certify the terms of an 
     agreement under paragraph (1) if--
       (i) it determines that any of the criteria referred to in 
     subsection (a)(2) (disregarding section 7112(a) of title 5, 
     United States Code) have not been met; or
       (ii) after the Secretary's exercise of authority and before 
     certification under this section, a valid election under 
     section 7111(b) of title 5, United States Code, is held 
     covering any employees who would be included in the unit 
     proposed for certification.
       (B) Temporary waiver of provision that would bar an 
     election after a collective bargaining agreement is 
     reached.--Nothing in section 7111(f)(3) of title 5, United 
     States Code, shall prevent the holding of an election under 
     section 7111(b) of such title that covers employees within a 
     unit certified under paragraph (1), or giving effect to the 
     results of such an election (including a decision not to be 
     represented by any labor organization), if the election is 
     held before the end of the 12-month period beginning on the 
     date such unit is so certified.
       (C) Clarification.--The certification of a unit under 
     paragraph (1) shall not, for purposes of the last sentence of 
     section 7111(b) of title 5, United States Code, or section 
     7111(f)(4) of such title, be treated as if it had occurred 
     pursuant to an election.
       (3) Delegation.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal Labor Relations Authority may 
     delegate to any regional director (as referred to in section 
     7105(e) of title 5, United States Code) its authority under 
     the preceding provisions of this subsection.
       (B) Review.--Any action taken by a regional director under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be subject to review under the 
     provisions of section 7105(f) of title 5, United States Code, 
     in the same manner as if such action had been taken under 
     section 7105(e) of such title, except that in the case of a 
     decision not to certify, such review shall be required if 
     application therefor is filed by an affected party within the 
     time specified in such provisions.
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``affected party'' means--
       (1) with respect to an exercise of authority by the 
     Secretary under this Act, any labor organization affected 
     thereby; and
       (2) the Department of Agriculture.

     SEC. 803. CONDITIONS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERATION IN LEVEL 
                   OF SELENIUM ALLOWED IN ANIMAL DIETS.

       (a) Conditions.--The Food and Drug Administration shall not 
     implement or enforce the final rule described in subsection 
     (b) to alter the level of selenium allowed to be used as a 
     supplement in animal diets unless the Commissioner of the 
     Food and Drug Administration makes a determination that--
       (1) selenium additives are not essential, at levels 
     authorized in the absence of such final rule, to maintain 
     animal nutrition and protect animal health;
       (2) selenium at such levels is not safe to the animals 
     consuming the additive;
       (3) selenium at such levels is not safe to individuals 
     consuming edible portions of animals that receive the 
     additive;
       (4) selenium at such levels does not achieve its intended 
     effect of promoting normal growth and reproduction of 
     livestock and poultry; and
       (5) the manufacture and use of selenium at such levels 
     cannot reasonably be controlled by adherence to current good 
     manufacturing practice requirements.
       (b) Final Rule Described.--The final rule referred to in 
     subsection (a) is the final rule issued by the Food and Drug 
     Administration and published in the Federal Register on 
     September 13, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 47962), in which the 
     Administration stayed 1987 amendments to the selenium food 
     additive regulations, and any modification of such rule 
     issued after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 804. OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT.

       (a) Office of Environmental Risk Assessment.--The Secretary 
     shall establish in the Department an Office of Environmental 
     Risk Assessment (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Office''), which shall be independent of other offices and 
     agencies of the Department, but shall have the authority to 
     advise such offices and agencies regarding the environmental 
     risks addressed by Department regulations and the 
     implementation and compliance costs associated with such 
     regulations. The Office shall be under the direction of a 
     Director appointed by the Secretary.
       (b) Strategy to Analyze Risks and Benefits.--The Director 
     of the Office shall develop a strategy for performing, to the 
     greatest extent practicable and consistent with the 
     provisions of this section and other provisions of the law 
     applicable to the Department, risk/benefit analyses in 
     connection with the regulations described in subsection (c) 
     that are performed consistently and employ state-of-the-art 
     scientific techniques that are practicable with the resources 
     available. The implementation of the strategy shall be 
     subject to the approval of the Secretary.
       (c) Review and Certification of Department Regulations.--In 
     connection with each proposed major regulation relating to 
     public health, public safety, or the environment that is 
     issued by the Department after the date on which the 
     Secretary approves of the risk/benefit analysis strategy 
     under subsection (b), the Director of the Office shall 
     publish in the Federal Register--
       (1) an estimate, with as much specificity as practicable, 
     of--
       (A) the risk to the health and safety of individuals that 
     is addressed by the regulation, including the effect of the 
     risk on human health or the environment;
       (B) the costs associated with the implementation of, and 
     compliance with, the regulation; and
       (C) a comparative analysis of that risk relative to other 
     risks to which the public is exposed; and
       (2) subject to subsection (d), a certification by the 
     Director that--
       (A) the estimate under paragraph (1)(B) and the analysis 
     under paragraph (1)(C) are based on a scientific evaluation 
     of the risk referred to in paragraph (1)(A) and are supported 
     by the best available scientific data;
       (B) the regulation will substantially advance the purpose 
     of protecting the public health and safety or the environment 
     against the risk referred to in paragraph (1)(A); and
       (C) the regulation will produce benefits to public health 
     and safety or the environment that will justify the costs 
     incurred by local, State, and Federal Government and other 
     public and private entities as a result of the implementation 
     of, and compliance with, the regulation, as estimated in 
     paragraph (1)(B).
       (d) Report to Congress of Lack of Certification.--If the 
     Director of the Office cannot make the certification required 
     under subsection (c)(2) for a regulation, the Director shall 
     submit to Congress a report containing a statement of the 
     reasons why the certification cannot be made. The statement 
     shall be included in the final regulation.
       (e) Effect on Other Laws; Judicial Review.--This section, 
     and any certification made under subsection (c), shall not be 
     construed to amend, modify, or alter any law and shall not be 
     subject to judicial review. This section shall not be 
     construed to grant a cause of action to any person.

     SEC. 805. REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--The following provisions of law are 
     repealed:
       (1) Section 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 (5 
     U.S.C. App; 7 U.S.C. 2201 note).
       (2) Section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act to enlarge the 
     powers and duties of the Department of Agriculture and to 
     create an Executive Department to be known as the Department 
     of Agriculture.'', approved February 9, 1889 (7 U.S.C. 2212).
       (3) The first paragraph designated ``Office of the 
     Secretary:'' under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'' 
     of the Act entitled ``An Act making appropriations for the 
     Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 
     thirtieth, nineteen hundred and seven.'', approved June 30, 
     1906 (34 Stat. 670; 7 U.S.C. 2212).
       (4) Section 604(a) of the Rural Development Act of 1972 (7 
     U.S.C. 2212a).
       (5) Section 2 of Public Law 94-561 (7 U.S.C. 2212b).
       (6) Section 8(a) of Public Law 97-325 (7 U.S.C. 2212c).
       (7) Section 1413(d) of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     3128(d)).
       (8) Section 306(a)(15)(C) of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(15)(C)).
       (9) Section 2322(d)(2) of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 1926-1(d)(2)).
       (10) Section 364 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2006f).
       (b) Termination of Authority for Assistant Secretaries.--
     Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``Assistant Secretaries of Agriculture (7).''.
       (c) Termination of Other Executive Schedule Positions.--
     Section 5316 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 
     Service, Department of Agriculture.'';
       (2) by striking ``Administrator, Agricultural Research 
     Service, Department of Agriculture.'';
       (3) by striking ``Administrator, Agricultural Stabilization 
     and Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture.'';
       (4) by striking ``Administrator, Farmers Home 
     Administration.'';
       (5) by striking ``Administrator, Foreign Agricultural 
     Service, Department of Agriculture.'';
       (6) by striking ``Administrator, Rural Electrification 
     Administration, Department of Agriculture.'';
       (7) by striking ``Administrator, Soil Conservation Service, 
     Department of Agriculture.'';
       (8) by striking ``Chief Forester of the Forest Service, 
     Department of Agriculture.'';
       (9) by striking ``Director of Science and Education, 
     Department of Agriculture.'';
       (10) by striking ``Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 
     Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture.''; and
       (11) by striking ``Administrator, Federal Grain Inspection 
     Service, Department of Agriculture.''.

     SEC. 806. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) United States Grain Standards Act.--The United States 
     Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 3 (7 U.S.C. 75)--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subsection (y);
       (B) by striking subsections (z) and (aa); and
       (C) by redesignating subsection (bb) as subsection (z);
       (2) by striking section 3A (7 U.S.C. 75a);
       (3) in section 5(b) (7 U.S.C. 77(b)), by striking ``Service 
     employees'' and inserting ``employees of the Secretary'';
       (4) in sections 7(j)(2) and 7A(l)(2) (7 U.S.C. 79(j)(2) and 
     79a(l)(2)), by striking ``supervision by Service personnel of 
     its field office personnel'' both places it appears and 
     inserting ``supervision by the Secretary of the Secretary's 
     field office personnel'';
       (5) in section 12(c) (7 U.S.C. 87a(c)), by striking ``or 
     Administrator'';
       (6) in section 12(d) (7 U.S.C. 87a(d)), by striking ``or 
     the Administrator'';
       (7) except as otherwise provided in this subsection, by 
     striking ``Administrator'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Secretary''; and
       (8) except as otherwise provided in this subsection, by 
     striking ``Service'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Secretary''.
       (b) Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921.--Section 407 of the 
     Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 228), is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), as 
     subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e), respectively; and
       (3) in subsection (e) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``subsection (e)'' and inserting ``subsection (d)''.

     SEC. 807. PROPOSED CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress recommended 
     legislation containing additional technical and conforming 
     amendments to Federal laws that are required as a result of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to the bill?


                 amendments offered by mr. de la garza

  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. de la Garza: Strike section 801 of 
     the bill (page 35, line 3, through page 39, line 22) relating 
     to State mediation.
       Strike section 803 of the bill (page 43, line 12, through 
     page 44, line 17) relating to selenium levels in animal 
     diets.

  Mr. de la GARZA (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Chairman, this amendment is basically 
technical in nature. That is the purpose of this amendment.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman 
from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I thank my chairman for yielding. The 
minority is in full accord with the chairman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. allard

  Mr. ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Allard: Strike section 202 of the 
     bill (page 14, line 9 through line 10, page 18) and insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 202. COLLOCATION OF AGENCY OFFICES.

       (a) Collocation of Offices.--
       (1) Collocation.--As provided in section 104 regarding 
     Department field offices, the Secretary shall collocate, as 
     soon as practicable and to the maximum extent consistent with 
     efficiency and effectiveness, the offices of the Department 
     located at county, regional, and State levels, which carry 
     out the functions, duties, and programs of the following 
     existing agencies:
       (A) the Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service;
       (B) the Soil Conservation Service;
       (C) the Farmers Home Administration and the Rural 
     Development Administration;
       (D) the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation; and
       (E) such other agencies as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate upon subsequent notice to the Congress of such 
     actions.
       (2) Economy of operation.--The Secretary shall implement 
     and maintain the collocation of the agencies and entities as 
     effected by this subsection by reducing to the maximum extent 
     administrative and overhead costs, by reducing the cost of 
     agency personnel, equipment, computer, and telecommunications 
     services through the sharing of their use and utilization, 
     and by otherwise reducing duplication and utilizing other 
     management and personnel improvement practices that will 
     provide the efficiency and effectiveness of the individual 
     and collective agencies that are collocated.
       (3) Prohibition.--The Secretary shall not establish any 
     agency, nor shall any agency be given authority, that would 
     have single supervisory authority over the individual 
     entities or their successors to be collocated as provided for 
     in this subsection.
       (b) Jurisdiction Over Conservation Program Appeals.--
       (1) In general.--Until such time as an adverse decision 
     described in this paragraph is referred to the National 
     Appeals Division for consideration, the Agriculture 
     Stabilization and Conservation Service shall have initial 
     jurisdiction over any administrative appeal resulting from an 
     adverse decision made under title XII of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.), including an adverse 
     decision involving technical determinations made by the Soil 
     Conservation Service. The Agriculture Stabilization and 
     Conservation Service may reverse an adverse decision of the 
     Soil Conservation Service if the Agriculture Stabilization 
     and Conservation Service finds that such decision was 
     arbitrary and capricious.
       (2) Treatment of technical determination.--With respect to 
     administrative appeals involving a technical determination 
     made by the Soil Conservation Service, the Agriculture 
     Stabilization and Conservation Service, by rule with the 
     concurrence of the Soil Conservation Service, shall establish 
     procedures for obtaining review by the Soil Conservation 
     Service of the technical determinations involved. Such rules 
     shall ensure that technical criteria established by the Soil 
     Conservation Service shall be used by the Agriculture 
     Stabilization Conservation Service as the basis for any 
     decisions regarding technical determinations.
       (3) Reinstatement of program benefits.--Rules issued to 
     carry out this subsection shall provide for the prompt 
     reinstatement of benefits to a producer who is determined in 
     an administrative appeal to meet the requirements of title 
     XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 applicable to the 
     producer.
       (4) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``Soil Conservation Service'' includes any successor agency 
     to the Soil Conservation Service.
       (a) Crop Insurance.--The Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is amended in section 505(a) (7 U.S.C. 
     1505(a)), by striking ``the Under Secretary or Assistant 
     Secretary of Agriculture responsible for the farm credit 
     programs of the Department of Agriculture,'' and inserting 
     ``one additional Under Secretary of Agriculture as designated 
     by the Secretary,''.
       Page 20, beginning line 7, strike ``and in considering 
     administrative appeals under the jurisdiction of the 
     Agricultural Service Agency, as provided by section 202(c) of 
     the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994'' 
     and insert ``and in considering administrative appeals under 
     the jurisdiction of an agency of the Department of 
     Agriculture described in section 202(a)(1) of the Department 
     of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994''.
       Page 30, beginning line 4, strike ``(except to the extent 
     those functions and duties are delegated to the Agricultural 
     Service Agency under section 202)'' and insert ``(except to 
     the extent jurisdiction over conservation program appeals are 
     assigned to the Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation 
     Service under section 202(b))''.

  Mr. ALLARD (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam Chairman, despite the yeomanlike job of Congressman 
Stenholm, the chairman of the subcommittee that initiated the 
reorganization of the Department of Agriculture, and the leadership of 
Mr. de la Garza, chairman of the full committee, H.R. 3171 remains 
flawed. The stated purpose behind USDA reorganization has not been met, 
that is to save taxpayers money and to provide better services to 
USDA's clients. No portion of H.R. 3171 better illustrates its 
deficiencies than the creation of the Agricultural Service Agency 
[ASA], which combines the Farmers Home Administration, the Agriculture 
Stabilization and Conservation Service, and the Federal Crop Insurance 
Corporation, into one new super bureaucracy. While the ASA is supposed 
to reorganize and streamline operations at USDA headquarters in 
Washington, and in field offices across the Nation, it creates more 
problems than it solves.
  Among the many problems this new super bureaucracy presents is that 
it merges Federal and non-Federal employees under one agency. In the 
States ASCS employees administer the Farm Commodity Programs. They 
serve a county committee that has been elected by farmers, they are not 
Federal employees. By merging them into one agency with Federal 
employees we are setting the stage for big problems in the future, such 
as, how will future reductions in force at USDA work when certain 
employees will have retention rights, based on serving in the Federal 
service, and others will not? And when new employees are hired will 
they be hired through the local system or through the Federal hiring 
process? Also, since it is illegal for non-Federal employees to 
supervise Federal employees, what check does the administration have in 
mind to avoid this problem? I think the answer to these questions is 
that the administration is going to Federalize local ASCS employees, a 
solution that will not serve agriculture producers and would actually 
add to the Federal work force. Furthermore, this new bureaucracy will 
not reduce the number of people required to run these programs, the 
agencies they are merging have different responsibilities, one is 
responsible for credit programs, one for an insurance program, another 
for commodity programs. It is not possible for one person to have 
working knowledge of all these programs.
  The amendment I am offering will eliminate this new bureaucracy, 
maintaining the current structure, while mandating the Secretary of 
Agriculture close and collocate USDA field offices so that our farmers 
can go to one office for the services they need, making the field 
office structure more efficient and saving the taxpayer over $700 
million.
  The final portion of this amendment follows closely on an action 
taken by Mr. Stenholm in committee. In committee Mr. Stenholm allowed 
the farmer elected county committee more oversight on enviromental 
decisions that have an impact on farmers. This amendment would give the 
county committee further authority over environmental decisions that 
they determine are arbitrary or capricious.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Allard amendment. It will save taxpayers 
money and serve the clients of USDA better than what has been proposed 
in this legislation.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in again somewhat reluctant but very strong 
opposition to the gentleman's amendment. This is a discussion that we 
carried on in subcommittee and in full committee, and the results of 
four hearings in Washington and eight hearings in our various States 
that prompted us to make the recommendation that we truly do move to 
one-stop shopping. This amendment would gut that.
  Basically what the gentleman from Colorado is saying is the status 
quo is OK, we should not make any changes to the current structure, 
that somehow, some way we can achieve all of the goals. I readily agree 
on what he says about the savings, the majority of which occur from the 
consolidation of offices, but there is also a savings that will be 
reached in the long term, I believe very strongly, in the long term by 
forcing a change in the manner in which we administer and supervise and 
man various farm programs at the local level.
  To do that we are going to have to make some changes in the status 
quo. That is the only reason basically that we are here today.
  I know there are some who would suggest we really do not have to 
change anything, that we can just fine tune this and fine tune that. 
But how quickly we forget the problems we saw in the agricultural 
appropriation bill last week. If we do not believe that was a serious 
problem, wait until next year and the year after that as we have to 
make tough decisions in prioritization, and where we are going to spend 
our scarce dollars in the agricultural function.
  I know the gentleman is well meaning. He can make a good argument. It 
resonates good with a lot of people. But in my opinion, if his 
amendment should pass today, as we stated in the full committee, it 
will really gut the intent of this reorganization effort, and it will 
gut the intent of a large number of our employees and others out there 
who have given their best shot in seeing that we in this case, when we 
do reorganize, that we give the department the tools to get on with 
doing the job.
  So I would strongly encourage all of our colleagues to oppose this 
amendment, stay with the committee bill in its current form. Many of 
the desired results can only be achieved by us biting some tough 
bullets today.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Madam Chairman, this has been a difficult discussion we have had on 
this whole issue of reorganization of the USDA. As our chairman, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], has indicated, we do have a 
difference of opinion, not about reorganization of the department 
because we all agree to that, but how to do that so that it is farmer 
friendly.

                              {time}  1500

  I think those of us from agricultural areas around this country have 
that one prerequisite in mind, and that is how do we do this so it is 
farmer friendly, it can be efficient, and it can save money, and the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] certainly 
gets to that issue, as far as I am concerned. It does so in several 
ways.
  First of all, the committee bill establishes a broad new bureaucracy 
called the Agricultural Service Agency, and while doing that, it leaves 
out a very important function, and that is the Soil Conservation 
Service. It seems to me, and to a lot of us, if, indeed, we are going 
to reorganize the Agriculture Department into a broad new agency which 
is going to cost a lot of money, by the way, we ought to have all of 
the agricultural services within it. So in that manner, the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] says simply this, 
let us save the money we all agree by collocating offices that will be 
saved, and let us allow our farmer-elected committees to continue to 
serve in their manner advising the USDA and officials about the best 
way to take care of these farm programs on the ground.
  Now, beyond that, there is this question about how we satisfy the 
environmentalists. Supposedly the environmentalists want us to create 
this new service agency but leaving the Soil Conservation Service out 
on its own to be probably directed by some official in Washington, DC; 
as to their attempts, we call it the new EPA for agriculture, their 
attempts to determine what may occur on the ground for agriculture 
through the Soil Conservation Service. That would be a horrible thing 
to occur in farm country, and I do not think farmers want it, and 
certainly I do not want it either.
  So rather than the status quo, the Allard amendment is not so. We 
want reorganization. We want collocation of offices. We do not want to 
be subservient to some environmental organization in Washington, DC, 
that directs the Soil Conservation Service to implement their programs 
in farm country. We do not want that.
  Therefore, the Allard amendment is certainly the best alternative. 
Without that, this bill is not farmer friendly and ought not to be 
supported.
  Mr. EWING. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Allard amendment.
  We have, indeed, spent a lot of time talking about reorganization, 
and in most of those conversations, we get down to the bottom line that 
it is needed so that we can save funds that have been projected to be 
saved through reorganization for other uses.
  The Allard amendment will save most of the funds that are projected 
to be saved by the reorganization of USDA, and it will avoid a number 
of other problems, for instance, the problems of commingling Federal 
employees with non-Federal employees.
  The way it operates, ladies and gentlemen, out in the country now for 
the ASCS office, if you have employees that are not needed, they can be 
let off; they can be put on part time. If we make them all Federal 
employees, you lose that flexibility. Then we are going to hire people, 
they are going to be there whether there is work or not, and in the 
ASCS offices out in the country, there are busy times and there are 
down times.
  If we want to save money, we would not be doing this. Actually the 
operation of these different offices is working well now.
  To reorganize it into a new superagency, I think, will lead to more 
bureaucracy and less direct service to the farmers.
  I am also very concerned about the creation of the Natural Resource 
Conservation Service out of the Soil and Water Conservation Service. I 
do not want an EPA out there. I want a Soil and Water Conservation 
Service that is friendly to American agriculture, and we are making 
great headway.
  For those reasons, I support the Allard amendment and would ask my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Madam Chairman, let me state that the collocation, there is a lot of 
confusion, but collocation as it is being used now by USDA means that 
all of the different offices of USDA would be put in one location, in 
one building, and that is already being done in my home county. The 
USDA offices are collocated, and farmers come to one specific spot, and 
all of the agencies are there. The bill does that.
  The argument here is that we should not have a consolidation of some 
of the programs, and basically this amendment will undo the thrust of 
the bill basically, but there is a reason for separation of a highly 
technical area.
  And my colleagues who just spoke, all that we do on the Soil 
Conservation is change the name. It does not do any basic change, but 
the important thing is that we are moving to collocation. That is where 
the savings are going to be. That is where the savings are, and the 
service to farmers, and not necessarily to the farmers, because the 
Soil Conservation Service works in the countryside with different 
owners of different lands, and as I mentioned in the beginning, and I 
repeat it now, what a farmer needs besides being a good farmer is he 
needs good soil, he needs good water, and he needs clean air.
  This is the area where historically the Soil Conservation has worked, 
and they have technical expertise that cannot be merged with book and/
or desk-type operations like the ASCS office, although the ASCS office 
goes and measures farms and acreage, some with Soil Conservation 
figures, and in cooperation with, and if you have them side by side, 
collocated, then you would have fulfilled the desire to streamline. You 
would have a more efficient operation to have the farmers come to one 
location.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment, because 
otherwise, the thrust of this legislation would fall by the wayside.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Madam Chairman, I still consider myself a farmer, so I want you to 
take my ideas with a grain of salt and use them to suit your taste.
  This amendment, the Allard amendment, improves the bill for a couple 
of reasons. First, the 10,000-plus ASCS employees are not technically 
Federal employees. The reason that we have made this provision in law 
distinguishing a difference between Federal Government employees and 
ASCS employees is so that the county committee system and that county 
executive director have greater latitude to hire, change job 
discriptions, and discharge these individuals as opposed to the more 
complicated process through Civil Service. Once we comingle these 
individuals with other Federal employees as provided in the original 
legislation, it moves us in the direction of designating ASCS employees 
as Federal employees. If you look on page 9, section 104 says that you 
are going to use common administrative personnel, you are going to use 
common receptionists, you are going to use employees of ASCS, FCIC, and 
FmHA interchangeably to gain the efficiency the sponsors of the bill 
envision. So the danger is to lose the flexibility that has 
traditionally been a benefit within our State and county ASCS system.
  Let me just conclude by saying I see a danger in Congress trying to 
direct the administration to be more efficient. Our goal is to increase 
efficiency, but, ladies and gentlemen, there are counties out there, 
and there are multicounty units for ASCS and SCS and the Federal Crop 
Insurance and FmHA that are going to be disrupted and are going to lose 
efficiency by a mandate of either collocation or consolidation.
  The reason I am going to vote against this legislation is because of 
those inefficiencies that are going to result from Congress' attempt to 
mandate administrative efficiency rather than give the Secretary the 
authority that he or she needs to make these kinds of changes. The 
Secretary should not be saddled with a one-size-fits-all mandate. It's 
not going to work out.
  With the Allard amendment that mandates that field offices be 
collocated or with the original language of the bill, where we mandate 
that they be combined into a single agency, we are going to disrupt 
some of the efficient operations in some parts of this country. In some 
of those agricultural communities we are going to end up with less 
efficient operations and poorer service to farmers. We will be coming 
back to Congress to make changes in this bill to gain what we 
ultimately are trying to achieve.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me, and I say that I am one Member who truly appreciates the experience 
that you bring to this floor.

                              {time}  1510

  The gentleman knows a lot of what he is speaking about in this 
instance. The concerns that he brings up we have tried to address in 
the bill itself regarding the supervision by non-Federal employees of 
Federal employees and we believe that there is a general concurrence 
that may occur except in instances where hiring and firing and other 
instances in which you are protected under Civil Service law.
  I do not believe for a moment that this bill today, if we pass it, 
will create a major hindrance for the county elected committee system. 
Were I as convinced of that as apparently the gentleman is, I would be 
arguing with him. The important thing, though, that I think we have to 
establish here when we talk about there are no savings to be accrued--
it seems to me in all of these deliberations that if we can more 
efficiently utilize personnel by having an FSA concept whereby we have 
one manager of an office who can direct how the various employees shall 
spend their time, whether they be in Farmers Home, whether they be 
FCIC, whatever that end up being in FSA, whether it be AFCS, wherever 
it, but there has to be one boss. Why I said respectfully to the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] in opposing his amendment, it is 
absolutely critical that we are able to gain efficiencies other than 
closing offices. We may have one office open somewhere under the 
gentleman's amendment in which the personnel will be utilized 50 
percent. We may have another office open somewhere under his amendment 
in which the personnel will be utilized 120 percent. That seems to be 
intolerable in consideration of the goals we are trying to pursue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Smith of Michigan was allowed to proceed 
for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Chairman, I have tremendous respect for 
the gentleman from Texas. I appreciate his comments. He is well 
respected in my congressional district in the agricultural community. 
However, we do have some counties in Michigan that use, for example, 
one agency very little but have a very high use of some of the other 
agencies. So where we demand consolidation come hell or high water, we 
may in some areas in some counties cause greater inefficiency rather 
than the efficiencies we desire.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the amendment introduced by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  Madam Chairman, this is not fine-tuning with what we are about; this 
is a major colocation effort, saving $2.5 billion in an effort, that 
whatever we do in regards to reorganization, it should be primarily 
farmer-friendly. If it is farmer-friendly, we achieve the other goals 
of the legislation.
  In other words, the Allard amendment gives the taxpayers what they 
want and farmers what they want. That is, less expensive government 
services. In regards to the farmer, they want user-friendly services. 
The Allard amendment retains the logical--let me emphasize the word 
logical--field-based agencies while mandating they be located in order 
to achieve the budgetary savings that we all want. It also provides the 
farmer one-stop shopping. And obviously that is what we want. And it 
accomplishes this without really creating what can be, and I predict 
will be, a personnel nightmare caused by this bill.
  Without the Allard amendment, we have what is called now a new 
superagency or what some of us are worried about, a superbureaucracy, 
it is called the ASA, Agriculture Service Agency. In doing that, we 
merge the field structure of Farmers Home and Federal Crop Insurance 
program, ASCS, the Agricultural Conservation and Stabilization Service, 
but we leave a fourth field agency in a separate pasture, that is, the 
environmental pasture. The Soil Conservation Service is renamed and it 
now stands alone.
  This is unnecessary to achieve the budget savings in field office 
restructuring. I do not know how many times we have to say that. The 
Secretary can do that, 80 to 90 percent of his effort, all by himself. 
All of the savings associated with this legislation derive from the 
closure and consolidation of the USDA field offices. And as I have said 
before, the Secretary of Agriculture enjoys that authority.
  What the Allard amendment does is it maintains the existing technical 
expertise of the four field-based USDA agencies. They are all separate, 
they all have different expertise. Since each of the agencies perform 
entirely different functions, it would be one thing if you have one 
boss under four separate agencies with very similar functions. They are 
not. They have different sets of policies and procedures and also 
regulations. It just makes sense to hold on to their separate 
identities.
  Finally, the Allard amendment will avoid the personnel, again I say, 
possible disaster that will be created by this bill when you blend the 
non-Federal, get this now, blend the non-Federal ASCS employees with 
Farmers Home Federal employees in joint retention rights, creating 
management nightmares. Who gets promoted? How does the boss settle on 
that one?
  Language in this bill to mitigate the adverse impact, while well-
intentioned, I think is very inadequate and perhaps could even confuse 
the matters worse. The Allard amendment can eliminate this conflict 
altogether. I understand what the proponents of this bill want. They 
want greater environmental emphasis. I want greater environmental 
emphasis but emphasis that works with producers and not a stand-alone 
agency which could present some real problems down the road. We have an 
honest difference of opinion about this. Goodness knows, I understand 
an administration that wants their name in lights in regard to the ASA. 
Throughout this whole business for the last 5 or 10 years we have had 
people in both the House and the Senate purging the USDA like it is 
some water buffalo out of some past history book that is no longer 
useful. That is not correct. Much of the criticism in regard to the 
USDA is not factual. We have people down there doing an excellent job 
under very difficult circumstances.
  I understand any administration that wants to come in brand new and 
reform and change, but change for the sake of change does not work out 
a lot of the time. I do not see any need to change the stationery and 
the name on the door and go through all of this when we have separate 
agencies doing an outstanding job on behalf of the consumer, the 
taxpayer and the farmer. The Allard amendment allows us to continue to 
save money; it continues the march in regard to the USDA doing a good 
job and makes it better. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Madam Chairman, I do so in order to say that this amendment was 
introduced by Mr. Roberts, or almost the text of this amendment, in the 
committee, and it was defeated in the committee.
  Yes, there is some philosophical disagreement, I guess, amongst us, 
but the fact is nonetheless that this bill as we are considering now 
does save money. It does provide for streamlining. We are already in 
the process of collocating to save money, and there are areas where you 
need to consolidate and streamline. This bill does that.
  All of the work that we have done through the months and maybe years 
now would be undone by this amendment. This amendment will just keep 
the status quo. The status quo is not acceptable any more.
  Yesterday there was a group outside here, in front of the Capitol, 
with 10 items that they want to change because they do not want the 
status quo. Some of those areas I might even agree with.
  So, the fact now is, and the issue now is, do we want streamlining, 
do we want to enhance USDA operations to where Mr. Lincoln wanted it 
100-some years ago? Or, if you vote for this amendment, then you will 
undo, you keep the status quo as it is. This is a bill for change. This 
is a time for change. Everyone around this Hill is clamoring for 
change.

                              {time}  1520

  So, Madam Chairman, a ``no'' vote on this amendment is a vote for 
change, for better change, and streamlining the Department of 
Agriculture.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Is the gentleman suggesting this is point 11 in the 
contract with America? Is the gentleman suggesting that the Espy plan 
for reorganization is point 11 in the Republican contract with America?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I do not know that it is. I have not been able to 
find out who the Mr. Gillespie is that is putting out the press 
releases.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Is the gentleman talking about Mr. Gillespie or Mr. 
Espy?
  Mr. de la GARZA. Gillespie.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Gillespie.
  Mr. de la GARZA. That is what I read about this contract thing, but 
this may not be the time or the place to discuss this issue.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I say to the gentleman, I think that's probably a very 
wise comment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. de la GARZA. I am still looking for Mr. Gillespie.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I would just like to make a few comments in summary. 
In my view this does eliminate a new bureaucracy that was created by 
the legislation that has just come to the floor. What it does also is 
that it allows for, provides, the collocation of offices, and that is 
where the real savings are; that is, collocation. That is $700 million 
of realized savings actually that is in this effort to bring everything 
together in ``one-stop shopping,'' and it is something that has been 
recognized by both sides, how important it is that we have central 
office there where it serves the farmer, where it is convenient for the 
farmer. This amendment maintains that. What it does, Madam Chairman, it 
takes away this new bureaucratic level that is created through the 
legislation.
  I am asking for a ``yes'' vote on the Allard amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 247, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 445]

                               AYES--177

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Carr
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--247

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Applegate
     Brooks
     Ford (MI)
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Lloyd
     McNulty
     Sangmeister
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington
     Wheat

                              {time}  1543

  Mr. OWENS and Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. ROUKEMA changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas for this 
work in this area and raise with him an additional problem that my 
staff and I have uncovered. My staff and I have uncovered a variety of 
problems relating to whistleblower protection at the Department of 
Agriculture.
  For example, we have come across instances where Forest Service 
employees who expose timber theft by contractors were the subject of 
retaliation by their supervisors. Specifically, we have been concerned 
about the prospect that they would be subjected to various forms of 
harassment.
  We have also been concerned, in addition to the protections for 
employees who uncover timber theft, about the matter of non-Federal 
employees who blow the whistle, for example, with respect to violations 
of sanitary practices in restaurants and meat packing.
  I had intended to offer an amendment to this bill to address this 
need and further protect whistleblowers, but I have understood, after 
some discussions with the distinguished chairman from Texas, that he 
would prefer that this matter be dealt with in the farm bill.
  I am anxious to work with the gentleman and would ask him whether he 
would be willing to address the need for stronger whistleblower 
protection in the farm bill that he will be tackling next year.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WYDEN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concerns of the 
gentleman on the issue of protecting so-called whistleblowers. We 
appreciate his interest, appreciate his going into this area, and we 
will be happy to work with the gentleman.
  Unfortunately, this is not the time or the area where we can address 
fully this issue, but the gentleman has a commitment from me and from 
the committee that we will work with him, that we will address this 
issue fully and hopefully to his satisfaction.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. My concern is, in 
these tight budgetary times, to take the steps that we need to protect 
the public, particularly in the area of health and safety practices, we 
need these whistleblower protections. I look forward to working with 
the chairman as we tackle the farm bill.
  The Wyden amendment would have strengthened the protections contained 
in the Whistleblower Protection Act for Federal Government employees 
who expose wrongdoing involving the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The 
amendment also protects employees of private sector businesses and 
other persons who help to expose improper activities involving the 
Department of Agriculture against discharge and other forms of 
retaliation. Specifically, the amendment prohibits discharge, 
discipline, harassment and discrimination against employees and other 
persons because that person commences or participates in a proceeding 
arising out of Department of Agriculture functions or responsibilities. 
The language of the amendment is as follows:

  Amendment to H.R. 3171, as Reported, Offered by Mr. Wyden of Oregon

       Page 47, after line 15, add the following new section (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 805. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.

       (a) Prohibitions.--A person may not discharge, discipline, 
     harass, or discriminate against an employee or other person 
     because the employee or other person--
       (1) commences, causes to be commenced, or is about to 
     commence a proceeding arising out of any function or 
     responsibility of an agency, office, or unit of the 
     Department of Agriculture;
       (2) testifies or is about to testify at such a proceeding; 
     or
       (3) assists, participates in, or is about to assist or 
     participate in any manner in such a proceeding or in any 
     other action to carry out any function or responsibility of 
     an agency office, or unit of the Department of Agriculture.
       (b) Identification and Treatment of Violations.--Subject to 
     subsection (c) of this section, subsections (b), (c), and (d) 
     of section 31105 of title 49, United States Code, shall apply 
     with respect to the filing of a complaint alleging a 
     violation of subsection (a) and the handling of such a 
     complaint.
       (c) Burden of Proof.--If the complainant establishes by a 
     preponderance of the evidence that an activity protected by 
     subsection (a) was a contributing factor in the alleged 
     prohibited discharge, discipline, harassment, or 
     discrimination, the burden of proof in the hearing shall be 
     on the adverse party to prove by clear and convincing 
     evidence that the alleged discharge, discipline, harassment, 
     or discrimination would have occurred for legitimate, 
     independent reasons even if the complainant had not engaged 
     in an activity protected by subsection (a).

                              {time}  1550

  (Mrs. BENTLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. BENTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, today I planned to offer an amendment that would have 
prohibited foreign-owned grain traders from participating in USDA's 
export programs. I also planned to offer an amendment requiring 
foreign-flag ships carrying U.S. Government cargoes to comply with 
American labor standards. After consulting with the Parliamentarian 
about the germaneness of these amendments, and after discussing them 
with my good friends on the Agriculture Committee, I have decided to 
withdraw both amendments.
  While I have long supported USDA's export promotion efforts, the time 
has come for us to end the abuses in the export programs in order to 
preserve their intended mission. This mission is to help America's 
family farmers. Perhaps the most outrageous abuse is the siphoning off 
of hundreds of millions of dollars per year in export subsidies by 
foreign-owned grain traders.
  The New York Times discovered last year that while USDA's regulations 
require that grain traders incorporate in the United States and 
maintain a presence here, some are little more than mail drops. For 
example, CAM U.S.A., a subsidiary of a Paris-based company, brokered 
$500 million in USDA-subsidized farm products out of a Greenwich, CT, 
office that was so small that it did not even have a published 
telephone number. CAM has also received $250 million in so-called 
bonuses under USDA's EEP program.
  Other foreign-owned grain traders have benefited from huge EEP 
bonuses. These include Louis Dreyfuss Corp. of France, which has 
received $915 million since the inception of the program, Garnac Grain 
of Switzerland, which has received $175 million, and two subsidiaries 
owned by the Ferruzzi family of Italy, which have received almost $400 
million.
  Some say that grain traders are mere middlemen and that the programs 
are working so long as U.S. agricultural products are exported. They 
are wrong. In this post-cold-war era, every dollar spent by the 
Government on the promotion of exports should be received by an 
American citizen. There is no shortage of American-owned grain traders. 
Our American traders and American farmers should receive the benefit of 
brokering the sale of American agricultural commodities. Foreign grain 
traders should not be permitted to siphon off any portion of U.S. 
agricultural export subsidies.
  I understand that others in the agricultural community share my 
concerns. At a time of enormous trade deficits, we need to ask if EEP 
is benefiting American farmers or foreign corporations. I believe that 
when American farmers see that Mitsubishi International and other 
foreign companies have received billions in Government bonuses, while 
grain prices are still low, American farmers will be justified in being 
angry at the administration of this program.
  As all of you know, I have been a strong supporter of the American 
merchant marine. All too often the debate over our programs has been 
shaped as agriculture versus maritime. This is wrong. What we need is 
for American farmers and the American merchant marine to end the battle 
and do what's best for all Americans.
  We will not solve this problem today. The problems of foreign 
participation in USDA agriculture programs will be debated during the 
1995 farm bill. I also hope that Congress will consider why USDA allows 
substandard, foreign-flag-of-convenience ships to carry Government food 
aid abroad. These ships do not meet any of our labor, safety, 
environmental, and tax regulations.
  It behooves those of us who support American agriculture and American 
maritime to work together to preserve the programs that promote both 
industries. If we do not, neither industry will prosper.
  On this note, I will conclude my statement and withdraw the 
amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record an explanation of the 
amendment referred to.

                        Explanation of Amendment

       The amendment would require that participants in USDA's 
     export promotion programs be U.S. citizens. Participants 
     include exporters, exporters of record, assignees, and 
     sellers.
       The U.S. citizen requirement, however, would not apply to 
     foreign purchasers and users.
       Three principal USDA programs would be affected--
       (1) Export Enhancement Program (EEP)--under this program 
     authorized by section 301 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 
     1978, as amended (7 U.S.C. Sec. 5651), USDA pays bonuses to 
     grain traders so that the grain traders can export wheat and 
     other U.S. agricultural commodities at prices that are 
     competitive with heavily subsidized foreign, particularly 
     European Union, prices. Since the inception of EEP in 1985, 
     USDA has paid over $6.8 billion in cash and commodity 
     bonuses.
       (2) Direct Credit Sales (e.g., GSM-5)--under this program 
     authorized by section 201 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 
     1978, as amended (7 U.S.C. Sec. 5621), USDA provides below-
     market-rate loans to foreign grain purchasers that would have 
     difficulty finding financing from commercial banks. The USDA 
     has not used this program since 1985.
       (3) Credit Guarantees (GSM-102 and GSM-103)--under these 
     programs authorized by section 202 of the Agricultural Trade 
     Act of 1978, as amended (7 U.S.C. Sec. 5622), USDA guarantees 
     the financing of close-to-market-rate loans to foreign 
     purchasers that would be unable to obtain commercial 
     financing without the guarantees. The GSM-102 program 
     provides loan guarantees for terms of up to three years, and 
     the GSM-103 program provides loan guarantees for terms of 
     three to ten years. The GSM-102 program was used to provide 
     $5.75 billion in loan guarantees to the Soviet Union and 
     Russia. Russia defaulted on its GSM loans in 1992 and 1993, 
     forcing USDA to pay more than $1 billion to the lender banks.
                                  ____


                               Amendments

       Under clause 6 of rule XXIII, prosposed amendments were 
     submitted as follows:

                               H.R. 3171

       By Mrs. Bentley:
       At the appropriate point in the bill after Section 803 add 
     a new Section 804 as follows and renumber subsequent 
     sections;

     SEC. 804. TRADE AMERICAN GRAIN ACT OF 1994

       Section 401 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 
     5661) is amended by adding a new subsection at the end 
     thereof:
       ``(d) Citizenship Requirements.--Exporters, exporters of 
     record, assignees, sellers, processors and other participants 
     in the program, except for purchasers and users, must be a 
     United States citizen.
       ``(1) Definition of United States. Citizen.--For purposes 
     of this section, ``United States citizen'' shall mean either 
     a natural person who is a citizen of the United States or a 
     corporation, partnership, or association, whose controlling 
     interest therein is owned by citizens of the United States, 
     and in the case of a corporation, meets also the following 
     requirements:
       ``(A) president or other chief executive officer is a 
     United States citizen;
       ``(B) the chairman of its board of directors is a United 
     States citizen;
       ``(C) a majority of the members of the board of directors 
     are United States citizens; and
       ``(D) the corporation is organized under the laws of the 
     United States or of a State, Territory, District, or 
     possession thereof.
       ``(2) Definition of Controlling Interest.--For purposes of 
     this section, ``controlling interest'' shall not be deemed to 
     be owned by citizens of the United States (A) if the title to 
     a majority of the stock thereof is not vested in such 
     citizens free from any trust or fiduciary obligation in favor 
     of any person not a citizen of the United States; or (B) if 
     the majority of the voting power in such corporation is not 
     vested in citizens of the United States; or (C) if through 
     any contract or understanding it is so arranged that the 
     majority of the voting power may be exercised, directly or 
     indirectly, in behalf of any person who is not a citizen of 
     the United States; of (D) if by any other means whatsoever 
     control of the corporation is conferred upon or permitted to 
     be exercised by any person who is not a citizen of the United 
     States.''.
       At the end of the bill add the new section:

     SEC. . COVERAGE OF FOREIGN VESSELS UNDER FEDERAL LABOR LAWS.

       (a) National Labor Relations.--Section 2(2) of the National 
     Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(2)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after the paragraph designation; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(B)(i) The term `employer' also includes a foreign 
     documented vessel engaged in transporting government-financed 
     cargoes of agricultural commodities.
       ``(ii) For purposes of this section, such term shall not 
     include any foreign documented vessel that can demonstrate--
       ``(I) that at least 50 percent of its crew is composed of 
     citizens of the country of registry; and
       ``(II) that legal title to such vessel is held by citizens 
     of the country of registry, and beneficial ownership and 
     control, direct or indirect, are held by citizens of the 
     country of registry.
       ``(iii) As used in this subparagraph, the term `citizen' 
     shall include--
       ``(I) natural persons who are citizens of the country of 
     registry;
       ``(II) a corporation, if its entity is at least 51 percent 
     owned and controlled by citizens of the country of registry;
       ``(III) a partnership, if all the general partners are 
     citizens of the country of registry and at least 51 percent 
     of the partnership is owned and controlled by citizens of the 
     country of registry.''.
       (b) Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.--
       (1) Definition.--Section 3(d) of the Fair Labor Standards 
     Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(d)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(1)'' after the subsection designation; 
     and
       (B) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2)(A) The term `employer' also includes a foreign 
     documented vessel engaged in transporting government-financed 
     cargoes of agricultural commodities.
       ``(B) For purposes of this section, such term shall not 
     include foreign documented vessel that can demonstrate--
       ``(i) that at least 50 percent of its crew is composed of 
     citizens of the country of registry; and
       ``(ii) that legal title to such vessel is held by citizens 
     of the country of registry, and beneficial ownership and 
     control, direct or indirect, are held by citizens of the 
     country of registry.
       ``(C) As used in this paragraph, the term `citizen' shall 
     include--
       ``(ii) natural persons who are citizens of the country of 
     registry;
       ``(ii) a corporation, if its entity is at least 51 percent 
     owned and controlled by citizens of the country of registry;
       ``(iii) a partnership, if all the general partners are 
     citizens of the country of registry and at least 51 percent 
     of the partnership is owned and controlled by citizens of the 
     country of registry.''.
       (2) Minimum wage.--Section 6(a)(4) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(4)) is amended by 
     inserting ``or a foreign documented vessel described in 
     section 3(d)(2)(A)'' after ``an American Vessel''.
       ``(3) Exemption.--Section 13(a)(12) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(12)) is amended by 
     inserting ``or a foreign documented vessel described in 
     section 3(d)(2)(A)'' after ``an American Vessel''.
  Mr. Chairman, for the Record I include the following article from the 
New York Times on October 10, 1993:

    Abuses Plague Programs To Help Exports of Agricultural Products

                (By Dean Baquet with Diana B. Henriques)

       The Agriculture Department's $40 billion campaign to 
     bolster crop exports, begun a decade ago to help beleaguered 
     farmers, has instead enriched a small group of multinational 
     corporations while doing little to expand the American share 
     of the world's agricultural markets.
       From 1986 through 1989, for example, one large Agriculture 
     Department program to help the United States compete against 
     the Europeans awarded $1.38 billion--more than half its 
     payouts--to four multinational corporations, two of them 
     based in Europe: Louis Dreyfus of France and Artfer Inc., 
     which is owned by the Ferruzzi Group of Italy. The others 
     were Cargill Inc. of Minneapolis and Continental Grain of 
     Chicago.
       A review of Government documents, many of them classified, 
     also provides strong evidence that the department's export 
     programs have been plagued by abuses. Many of these 
     allegations, involving some of the country's biggest 
     companies, remain under investigation.


                       foreign crops in disguise

       Some companies, including leading tobacco processors, used 
     Federal subsidy programs to buy cheap foreign commodities and 
     ship them from the United States, thinly disguised as 
     American exports. One Government audit showed that of $208 
     million of tobacco shipped under an export program in the 
     late 1980's, at least $135 million of it, or 65 percent, was 
     grown in foreign countries.
       At the same time, the Government has accused other 
     companies, including Mitsui Inc., a Japanese trading house, 
     and Comet Rice, the largest American rice exporter, of using 
     the program to finance improper payments to officials and 
     executives in Iraq, Mexico and other countries.
       An examination by The New York Times of the subsidy 
     programs highlights the symbiotic relationship between one of 
     the biggest and least scrutinized Federal departments and 
     some of the politically influential companies it regulates. 
     It also sheds light on the revolving doors through which some 
     of their top officials pass, and shows that the programs have 
     done little to open new markets overseas.


                           Courtship of Iraq

       The study also illuminates an unexamined aspect of the 
     United States' doomed courtship of Iraq before the Persian 
     Gulf war: the questionable activities of some American 
     companies vying to share in some $4 billion of agricultural 
     support to Baghdad.
       Through the 1980's, as Washington sought to moderate Saddam 
     Hussein's behavior, it gave Iraq loan guarantees so the 
     country could borrow money to buy American crops.
       In interviews with Government agents, Christopher P. 
     Drogoul, a former manager of the Atlanta branch of Banca 
     Nazionale del Lavoro, a state-controlled Italian bank, has 
     described a culture of bribes and kickbacks among American 
     agricultural companies competing for Iraqi business.
       One American cotton exporter kept a ``bribe fund'' to help 
     it win Baghdad's business, said Mr. Drogoul, who has pleaded 
     guilty to making unauthorized loans to Iraq. Other American 
     executives traveled the world with suitcases filled with cash 
     to pay brokers with ties to the Iraqi Government, he said.
       To generate cash for kickbacks, Government documents 
     assert, some American exporters overcharged the Iraqis for 
     goods they shipped, with the complicity of Baghdad. While 
     business-related gifts and favors are common in many parts of 
     the world, they may run afoul of American laws, and 
     investigators are trying to determine if any company 
     officials violated the law.
       In a recent interview, Federal District Judge Marvin Shoob 
     of Atlanta, who presided over the Drogoul case, said he was 
     concerned that Government investigators and the public might 
     overlook the activities of big American companies that 
     benefited from the Banca Lavoro loans.
       ``I feel some investigation is in order in view of the 
     number of times some of these companies have come up in 
     documents the court has reviewed,'' Judge Shoob said.


           regulatory ties: a revolving door for agribusiness

       On Capitol Hill, two leading members of the Senate 
     Agriculture Committee--Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, and 
     Patrick J. Leahy, a Democrat who is the committee chairman--
     attributed the chronic abuses to the Agriculture Department's 
     close ties to large agricultural businesses. Mr. Leahy said 
     the department had a ``good-old-boy attitude'' toward the 
     companies, which created ``a cozy relationship all around.''
       Fostering this closeness is the interdependence of business 
     and regulators. In 1988, for example, Christopher Hicks, the 
     Agriculture Department's general counsel, argued against a 
     plan that would have expelled many companies caught abusing 
     department programs, arguing that it involved too many rules 
     and too much red tape. Today, Mr. Hicks is out of the 
     government, representing some big exporters.
       David Kunkle was a top official in the Agriculture 
     Department's main export program in 1990, when the Inspector 
     General issued a scathing report accusing Comet Rice, a 
     subsidiary of Early Industries of Los Angeles, of abusing the 
     program.
       Comet Rice, the Inspector General said, used Government-
     backed loans to finance payments and gifts to Middle East 
     executives when the company was seeking business in Iraq. 
     Export officials declined to disqualify Comet, which strongly 
     denied using the loans to make the payments. Upon leaving the 
     Government, Mr. Kunkle was hired for a year as a consultant 
     at one of Comet's sister subsidiaries.
       Clayton K. Yeutter, who served as Agriculture Secretary 
     from 1988 to 1991, vastly expanded export subsidies to 
     agricultural businesses that sold wheat and rice to Iraq. A 
     month after he left office Mr. Yeutter became a consultant 
     for the National Bank for Cooperatives, a Colorado bank that 
     was a prominent participant in the export program to Iraq. 
     Bank officials said they paid Mr. Yeutter $50,000 for four 
     meetings and some telephone consultations.
       There is no evidence that the three officials violated 
     Government rules, which generally forbade them to lobby the 
     Agriculture Department for a year after leaving office.
       Mr. Yeutter was traveling and unavailable for comment, his 
     spokeswoman said. But a department official said he had 
     received clearances before working for the bank.
       Mr. Hicks did not respond to several messages left at his 
     Washington office. And Mr. Kunkle, who now works for a 
     consulting firm, is traveling in a remote region of the 
     former Soviet Union and cannot be reached for comment, his 
     office said.
       The agriculture industry is one of the most politically 
     powerful in America. Its lobbying forces can invoke the image 
     of the American farm family struggling to hold onto its land, 
     while using campaign contributions from some of the country's 
     richest businesses.
       ``Agriculture is probably the most grassroots political 
     department in Washington,'' said Joseph Wright, the director 
     of the Office of Management and Budget in the Reagan 
     Administration, who tried unsuccessfully to convince the 
     department to be tougher on big agricultural businesses.
       ``It has offices around the country and tremendous 
     political support'' in Congress, he said. ``Its bureaucracy 
     is beyond the Secretary. It's beyond the President.''


         Powerful Defenders: Web of Programs; Few Beneficiaries

       In interviews, Government officials acknowledged the 
     abuses, and said Mr. Drogoul's allegations were under 
     investigation. But they said the improprieties were 
     relatively minor for a $5 billion-a-year Government program. 
     Moreover, they contended, the programs had been a big 
     success, opening new markets for American farmers.
       ``They helped introduce some countries to American 
     products, and it helped our country offset European 
     competition,'' said Senator John B. Breaux, a Louisiana 
     Democrat who is a champion of farm export programs.
       Last month, President Clinton announced a plan to lift 
     controls on technology exports, intensify efforts to promote 
     manufactured goods, and offer up to $600 million a year in 
     subsidized loans for foreign buyers of American factory 
     products. But so far he has sidestepped the politically 
     volatile question of whether 80 percent of the country's 
     export-financing dollars should continue to be spent on farm 
     products, which account for only a tenth of American exports.
       If the Administration decides to change that ratio, it must 
     unravel a web of programs supported by corporate 
     constituents. These companies' stake has grown as the focus 
     of Federal export assistance has shifted from farmers to big 
     corporations.
       The export assistance effort began in the early 1980's, 
     when it set out to promote international sales of American 
     wheat, rice, and other products through a generous mix of 
     loan guarantees and cash subsidies. The idea was to bootstrap 
     struggling American farmers into a world marketplace 
     increasingly dominated by foreign producers.
       Yet for all their subsidies. American rice farmers, for 
     example, have seen their share of the world market slip. They 
     now hold about 19 percent, a share that has not budged since 
     the subsidies began a decade ago and has actually dropped 
     since the 1970's. The pattern is similar for other crops.
       But if there is little proof that farmers benefited from 
     the buildup in export assistance, there is evidence that big 
     companies profited. Four corporations received nearly $1.4 
     billion, or more than 60 percent, of the $2.3 billion in 
     subsidies dispensed through the Export Enhancement program, 
     the most generous program, in its first four years.
       An analysis of the other main program, the General Sales 
     Manager program of the Commodity Credit Corporation, showed 
     that federally guaranteed loans aimed at raising exports of 
     more than two dozen crops, from barley to wheat flour, were 
     dominated by six companies: Cargill Inc., of Minneapolis; 
     continental Grain of Chicago; Louis Dreyfus; Archer-Daniels-
     Midland of Decatur, Ill.; CAM U.S.A., of Greenwich, Conn., 
     and Pillsbury of Minneapolis, which is owned by a British 
     company, Grand Metropolitan P.L.C. And some big participants 
     are not American companies at all.
       The programs require that beneficiaries be incorporated in 
     the United States and maintain a presence in this country. 
     But Government records show that some are little more than 
     mail drops.
       CAM U.S.A., the subsidiary of a company based in Paris, 
     operates out of a small office in Greenwich, Conn., a wealthy 
     suburb of New York City. It has a unlisted telephone number. 
     Yet from this unlikely outpost, the company has brokered $500 
     million in farm products with federally backed loans.
       CAM was not the only company to take advantage of the 
     program with a minimal presence in the United States. A 
     report in 1990 by the Agriculture Department's Inspector 
     General concluded that some leading participants in 
     subsidized tobacco exports were foreign companies with post 
     office boxes or one-person offices in the United States.
       Agriculture Department officials said none of these 
     comapnies was violating the rules, as long as they sold 
     American farm products.


        little supervision: foreign tobacco is sold in disguise

       The first hints that blatant abuses marred the loan 
     guarantee program came one summer morning in 1989, when a 
     Customs Service agent and two Congressional investigators 
     turned up at a busy pier in Norfolk, Va. Acting on a tip, 
     they pried open 40-foot shipping containers supposedly loaded 
     with boxes of high-grade North Carolina tobacco.
       But inside were bundles of foreign-grown leaf clearly 
     marked ``Product of Zimbabwe,'' ``Product of France'' and 
     ``Product of Brazil.'' The shipment was bound for Iraq, which 
     bought the goods with loans guaranteed under the General 
     Sales Manager program.
       The investigators realized the Government was being duped 
     into financing shipments of cheap foreign tobacco. Indeed, 
     the exporters had made little effort to hide it.
       Frank Weeks, an Agriculture Department investigator, 
     recalled that the exporters said they were surprised they had 
     not been caught sooner, because the tobacco being shipped was 
     priced too low to be American-grown. And, he added, ``When 
     one company started doing it, and got it past the U.S.D.A., 
     the others had to do it to stay competitive--or so they 
     said.''
       In September 1990, eight tobacco dealers pleaded guilty to 
     defrauding the Federal Government by substituting cheap 
     foreign tobacco for higher-quality American. They were fined 
     a total of $300,000, and six of them agreed to make 
     restitution to the Government totaling $1.1 million.
       The six also admitted to using Government-backed loans to 
     make $1.5 million in improper payments to unidentified 
     officials and agents in Iraq and Egypt.
       Tobacco was ultimately excluded from the program. But over 
     the strong objection of the department's Inspector General, 
     some of the companies that admitted guilt are still paid by 
     the Government to store tobacco bought for distribution in 
     other programs.
       Department officials portray the tobacco cases as an 
     isolated problem. But Government records show that the agency 
     made only one thorough examination of any major part of the 
     export program. Its scrutiny of the $4 billion trade with 
     Iraq was prompted by the Persian Gulf war. And when 
     investigators looked closely, they found widespread abuses 
     that went beyond tobacco companies.


       questionable payments: did bribes result from guarantees?

       The reports assert that at least two other leading 
     participants in the loan-guarantee program--Comet Rice and 
     Mitsui Grain--overcharged the Iraqis on subsidized sales to 
     generate enough cash to make payments to Iraqi officials.
       In a little-noticed case, Mitsui has pleaded guilty in 
     Federal District Court in Atlanta to using federally backed 
     loans to make $250,000 in illegal payments to Iraqis. The 
     company has been fined and temporarily barred from the 
     program.
       As for Comet Rice, Government documents contend that Comet 
     gave $95,000 in cash and equipment to Middle Eastern 
     businessmen and officials. At least $50,000 of that went to a 
     Jordanian lawyer with close ties to Jordan's royal family. 
     The payments were funneled through a Cayman Islands bank 
     account that was inaccessible to investigators, leading the 
     Government to question whether other questionable payments 
     were made through the account.
       Gerald Murphy, the chairman of Erly Industries, Comet's 
     parent, said the payments were not covered by the loan 
     guarantees, but came from Comet's own accounts. He described 
     them as normal service to big customers and said the Iraqis 
     used the money to buy equipment that helped the rice trade. 
     The company has not been charged with a crime, but the 
     investigation is continuing.
       Federal officials, speaking on the condition that they not 
     be identified, said it would be hard to make criminal cases 
     against most American companies. The Agriculture Department's 
     export program rules are so lax that until recently, it was 
     not clearly illegal to use money generated by loan guarantees 
     to provide gifts or cash to importers. Even if the rules were 
     more precise, officials said, it would be hard to tell 
     whether payments came from Government-backed loans.
       While examining the Iraqi trade, investigators also found 
     signs of trouble elsewhere. Former executives of Progresso 
     Grain Inc., a large grain dealer in Progresso, Tex., 
     confirmed that the company made $100,000 in cash payments to 
     Mexican importers to obtain their business. William Haney, 
     who became the president of Progresso in 1990, said the 
     payments were authorized by a top executive who preceded him. 
     Mr. Haney, in an interview, said he saw checks written to the 
     Mexican executives.
       Progresso has since gone out of business.
                                  ____


             Studies Find Benefits of Subsidies are Meager

                          (By Diana Henriques)

       Supporters of the Agriculture Department's export subsidies 
     say the programs opened new markets for American farm 
     products and helped preserve old markets in the face of large 
     European subsidies.
       But trade statistics and Government reports, including the 
     Agriculture Department's own studies, provide little evidence 
     that the programs have helped American exports substantially.
       ``Generally, all the people who have studied these things 
     reach a similar conclusion: It just doesn't work,'' said 
     Cletus C. Coughlin, senior economist at the Federal Reserve 
     Bank of St. Louis, who has studied subsidized wheat sales.
       Since 1986, more than 80 percent of the money in one 
     program has been spent to subsidize wheat sales. But while 
     wheat exports increased in 1987 and 1988, the department's 
     researchers credited the subsidies with only 20 percent of 
     that growth; the rest was attributed to other factors. After 
     1988, wheat exports declined, falling below the levels that 
     prevailed before the program started, trade records show.
       The same trend is evident in market share. America sold 30 
     percent of all world wheat exports in the 1986 crop year. 
     That grew to 41 percent by May 1988, then slumped to 30 
     percent last month.
       The European Community's share of world wheat exports now 
     stands just shy of 20 percent--about four percentage points 
     higher than in 1980. Similar patterns can be seen in feed 
     grains, corn, rice and soybean products.
       Export subsidies have been part of Federal farm aid since 
     the Depression, but most Depression-era programs were 
     scrapped in the early 1970's, when American farmers benefited 
     from a turbulent boom in global trade, fed by escalating oil 
     prices. By the late 70's, high interest rates and a strong 
     dollar were undermining those gains, and farm groups began to 
     demand Federal help.
       In response, the Agriculture Department created an 
     elaborate system of loan guarantees, cash payments and tax-
     financed promotional campaigns for farm exports.
       There are two principal programs. In one, the General Sales 
     Manager program, the Government guarantees the repayment of 
     $40 billion in commercial bank loans for countries that could 
     not otherwise get credit to buy American farm products. Most 
     of those guarantees cover loans to Iraq, Mexico and the 
     former Soviet Union. About $4.6 billion of those loans are in 
     default, with American taxpayers picking up the payments.
       The second program reimburses exporters--with cash or 
     surplus crops stockpiled by the Government--to offset price 
     reductions they must offer to compete in foreign markets. 
     Under this program, known as the Export Enhancement Program, 
     the Government has spent about $5.4 billion to subsidize 
     about $18 billion worth of exports. A third, smaller effort 
     provides up to $1.25 billion in direct grants to finance 
     promotional campaigns.
       By and large, these programs are an inefficient way to help 
     American farmers, said Robert Paarlberg, a political science 
     professor at Wellesley College and an associate of the 
     Harvard Center for International Affairs. ``In the case of 
     wheat, for example, the Government could provide a greater 
     benefit to wheat farmers at lower cost to the taxpayers if it 
     simply purchased the surplus wheat and burned it,'' he said.
       And the General Sales Manager program ``is a way of trying 
     to buy, or at least rent, foreign customers at considerable 
     risk to taxpayers,'' he said. ``Sure, it doesn't cost you a 
     penny until there's a default--but then it costs you 
     billions.''
                                  ____


        A Rice Exporter's Cozy Link to U.S. Agency Reaps Profit

                (By Diana B. Henriques with Dean Baquet)

       On Nov. 7, 1988, a cable stamped confidential landed on the 
     desks of officials of the Iraqi Grain Board, one of the 
     largest buyers of imported rice. It was from Peter Vegas, an 
     executive of Comet Rice, a unit of the chronically 
     unprofitable Erly Industries in Los Angeles.
       Although the grain board had requested bids, this was not a 
     bid, but an audacious promise--``We are offering to beat the 
     lowest offer that you receive.''
       The cable explained that Comet Rice had a new plant in the 
     port of Aqaba, Jordan, where rice could be unloaded in bulk, 
     polished, bagged and loaded on trucks bound for Iraq--for at 
     least $30 a ton less than other bidders. By August 1990, when 
     the Persian Gulf war halted trade with Iraq, the new plant 
     had achieved its purpose: Erly Industries had a near-monopoly 
     in one of the most coveted rice markets.


                       Low-Cost U.S.-Backed Loan

       What the cable did not explain was that the Aqaba plant had 
     been built with a low-cost $4 million federally backed loan 
     from the United States Agency for International Development, 
     which has also given Erly more than $134 million in 
     consulting work.
       In a broad examination of the cozy relationship between 
     Corporate Agriculture and the Federal Government, the case of 
     Erly Industries discloses how easily a politically connected 
     agricultural corporation can reap rewards by skillfully 
     exploiting loosely managed Federal programs.
       Erly's dealings with A.I.D., the chief conduit for American 
     assistance to needy nations, enabled the corporation to build 
     a plant that lifted its Iraqi rice sales by almost $100 
     million, more than a fourfold increase.


                          Accused of No Crime

       Comet has not been accused of a crime, but officials of the 
     aid agency now say they believe the company may have acted 
     unethically by not fully explaining just how much it would 
     benefit from the Government-financed plant.
       Dozens of interviews, court and corporate documents and 
     hundreds of Federal documents obtained through the Freedom of 
     Information Act provide the following details about how Erly 
     used an obscure Government program to corner a valuable 
     market:
       The company did not disclose to A.I.D. the true aim of the 
     Aqaba project, which was to use a little-known Government 
     loan program to give Comet Rice an advantage over other 
     American rice companies.
       It did not disclose its leadership role in the project, 
     letting the agency conclude that a Jordanian company was in 
     charge and that all United States rice exporters would 
     benefit.
       It helped its Jordanian partner sidestep the agency's 
     competitive bidding rules in the buying of plant equipment, 
     thereby ensuring that its Comet subsidiary would receive a 
     portion of the loan funds as payment for the equipment.
       It reaped additional profits by investing the low-cost loan 
     proceeds in the United States at higher interest rates.
       It used international government connections, developed at 
     taxpayer expense through a subsidiary's consulting work for 
     A.I.D., to foster its own commercial interests.
       Richard L. McCall, who took over this year as chief of 
     staff at the agency, said he had referred the Aqaba loan to 
     the general counsel for review. ``It is an ethical 
     question,'' Mr. McCall said. ``For us to be used in any 
     shape, form or fashion for anything but to help develop needy 
     nations is wrong.'' But he conceded that ``we have got to 
     more effectively manage this place'' so that all project 
     applications are examined more carefully.
       Gerald D. Murphy, Erly's affable and strong-willed chief 
     executive and the company's largest shareholder, sees the 
     Aqaba story as an example of ``solving my customer's 
     problems'' through a grasp of ``how the political game is 
     played.''
       ``I don't have any problems with that,'' said Mr. Murphy, a 
     conservative Republican who claims friendship with former 
     President Ronald Reagan and other Republican stalwarts. 
     ``Those are the rules. I've never understood people who sit 
     back and play a game and don't understand the rules. How the 
     hell are you going to win if you do that?''


            getting the Loan: selling the deal to the agency

       Mr. Murphy, a 65-year-old Harvard Business School graduate 
     who has personally directed his company's investment and 
     business strategy over two decades, says the Aqaba plant was 
     his idea. He planned it. Comet Rice built it and a Comet 
     subsidiary managed it--all for Comet's exclusive use.
       But Louis Reade, the agency official who approved the 
     project in 1988, said he was shocked to learn that Erly 
     developed the project for the exclusive use of Comet. ``There 
     was no intent to set this up for an individual American 
     corporation,'' Mr. Reade said.
       Instead, he said, A.I.D. believed the loan applicant was a 
     Jordanian company that would create jobs and serve all 
     American rice exporters.
       But, according to Mr. Murphy, Jordanians were involved in 
     the Aqaba project only because Jordanian law required it--and 
     because his partner, Wafai Dajani, brother of a former 
     Jordanian Cabinet minister, had ``useful'' connections.


                         other exporters barred

       In return for serving as Comet's agent in Jordan, Mr. 
     Dajani and his relatives got consulting fees and a share of 
     the profits. He also invested in the project.
       Comet barred other American rice exporters from the Aqaba 
     plant. ``I saw no reason to be the front-end guy taking the 
     risk and pass it off to somebody who hadn't taken the risk,'' 
     he said.
       The risk seemed worthwhile: in 1983, when the United States 
     resumed relations with Iraq after a 16-year freeze, Baghdad, 
     with the help of Agriculture Department loan guarantees, 
     became one of the world's biggest buyers of long-grain rice. 
     The department backs commercial loans for countries too 
     strapped to get bank credit on their own.
       Seeking more Iraqi business, Mr. Murphy flew to Baghdad in 
     1987 and, he said, met with Zuhair Daoud, head of the Iraqi 
     Grain Board. Mr. Murphy asked the Iraqi official to list his 
     biggest rice problems. The answer: shipments from Turkey were 
     vulnerable to bandits, shipments into Aqaba were slow and all 
     shipments came in big unwieldy bags.
       Mr. Murphy had the perfect solution: an automated rice 
     processing plant in Aqaba. ``But we needed some financing,'' 
     Mr. Murphy said, ``and we said, `Hey, this sounds like an 
     A.I.D. project.'''


          AGENCY'S CONSULTANT: KNOWING THE ROPES, HIDING TIES

       It is understandable that A.I.D. came to mind. Chemonics 
     International, one of the few profitable subsidiaries of Erly 
     Industries, relies on agency contracts for more than 98 
     percent of its revenues. On the Aqaba project, Mr. Murphy 
     said, Chemonics knew the right person to see.
       When Mr. Murphy's brainchild was submitted to the agency 
     the actual application was made by Amman Resources, Mr. 
     Dajani's company.
       The application reflected a thorough knowledge of the 
     agency's policy manual--and it conspicuously avoided 
     disclosing the true relationship between Comet Rice and Amman 
     Resources.
       For example, the executive who signed numerous letters from 
     Amman Resources to A.I.D. and the Bank of Jordan is also 
     listed in Erly Industries records and correspondence as an 
     employee of Comet Rice. Nowhere in the agency correspondence 
     is Comet identified as anything but the supplier of equipment 
     for the plant.


                          NO COMPETITIVE BIDS

       The agency's rules normally would have required Amman 
     Resources to get bids from other suppliers of rice-processing 
     equipment. Amman Resources avoided this by telling the aid 
     agency that it had a ``sole distributorship'' contract with 
     Comet, signed on Oct. 21, 1987.
       This contract, the agency was told, prevented Amman 
     Resources from buying the equipment from other companies. 
     Without checking, the agency exempted the project from 
     competitive bidding rules.
       On Feb. 2, 1988, a $4 million loan to Amman Resources was 
     approved by the agency, based on the conclusion that it would 
     help Jordan.


            profiting on loan: an investment brings windfall

       With A.I.D.'s green light, Mr. Murphy's partnership 
     negotiated the loan terms with the Bank of Jordan--and 
     arranged to profit by investing the proceeds in a safer 
     currency and at higher interest rates than the original loan.
       In early 1988, the partners made a 10 percent down payment 
     on the $4 million project and borrowed $3.6 million, in 
     Jordanian dinars, for five years at 6.25 percent interest. 
     That is at least seven percentage points less than Erly would 
     have paid for credit in the United States, given the 
     company's shaky finances. Indeed, the agency-backed rate was 
     less than the Federal Government, considered the soundest 
     borrower around, was being charged on five-year Treasury 
     bonds. A seven-point cut in the interest rate on a $3.6 
     million loan saves the borrower $252,000 a year.
       Mr. Murphy is proud of the arbitrage windfall. First, his 
     partnership shifted the loan from dinars into dollars ahead 
     of a 40 percent deterioration in the dinar, which meant it 
     took fewer dollars to repay the borrowed dinars. ``We had 
     good information,'' Mr. Murphy said with a smile, when asked 
     if Mr. Dajani's connections had guided the currency switch.


                         deposited in new york

       Then, the borrowed dollars were left on deposit at the New 
     York bank ``because it earned more interest than it was 
     costing me on the A.I.D. loan on the other side,'' Mr. Murphy 
     explained. He did not say how much more, but many five-year 
     corporate bonds were paying at least 8.25 percent interest in 
     1988.
       What is less clear is how the partnership paid for the 
     rice-processing plant. Comet's independent audits show the 
     Aqaba partnership had also taken out an interest-free loan 
     from Comet during this period, but Mr. Murphy said he could 
     not recall if that covered the cost of equipment shipped to 
     Jordan or equipment for a subsequent expansion.
       Nor is it clear whether A.I.D. regulations address such 
     arbitrage activity. ``But,'' said Mr. McCall, the chief of 
     staff, ``I feel the taxpayers' dollars should not be used to 
     manipulate a set of circumstances and reap a profit at the 
     public's expense.''


           connections: finding business: a political process

       The A.I.D. loan is but one example Mr. Murphy cites of how 
     his company has benefited from official connections that 
     Erly's Chemonics subsidiary has developed through its aid 
     agency work.
       Mr. Murphy said he started Chemonics in 1976 because ``I've 
     always wanted a way to do two things: one, have my own 
     C.I.A., and two, be helpful to people.''
       His recipe for cooking up business, he said, was to send 
     the new unit's president to Washington to call on members of 
     Congress, announcing he was a consultant looking for 
     business.
       Chemonics, whose staff includes former A.I.D. and 
     Agriculture Department officials, has more than quadrupled 
     its revenues in the last decade. It has been hired by the aid 
     agency to work on issues close to Erly's heart, ranging from 
     trade policy in Jamaica, where Comet was trying to increase 
     its rice imports, to alternative crops in Honduras, where 
     Erly was considering a citrus project.


                              an open door

       Thanks to Chemonics contacts with top-level ministers of 
     foreign governments, Mr. Murphy said, Erly executives ``have 
     an open door to walk in and sit down and talk about whatever 
     seems sensible.'' And Chemonics ``has given me an 
     appreciation for the political process in Washington in a 
     different way,'' he added.
       ``It's obviously a political process,'' he continued, 
     ``A.I.D. contracts just don't happen.''
       Thurston Teele, the president of Chemonics, said he helped 
     on the Aqaba A.I.D. project. But he disputed Mr. Murphy's 
     account of the unit's role in other Erly ventures, saying 
     Chemonics had ``scrupulous policies'' in place ``to avoid 
     conflicts of interest.''
       Nevertheless, more than a dozen Chemonics proposals to the 
     agency boast of linkages among various Erly subsidiaries. In 
     one, Chemonics noted that Erly ``has strong and influential 
     links with U.S. Government agencies, from which our projects 
     can benefit.'' On another, Mr. Murphy himself was picked to 
     serve on a project advisory council. And in each instance, 
     Chemonics reassuringly depicts its parent corporation as 
     successful and financially robust.


              storm warnings: company record a bumpy road

       In fact, without the profits Erly earned by dominating the 
     Iraq trade and advising the aid agency, the publicly traded 
     corporation almost certainly would have sunk under the weight 
     of its own financial mismanagement.
       What Chemonics left out of the corporate track record was a 
     messy series of unwise loans, mushrooming debt, unsuccessful 
     acquisitions, aborted spinoffs, lax accounting and money-
     losing foreign ventures.
       In 1988, as the Aqaba project was being built, Erly told 
     investors that if faced ``a short-term cash liquidity 
     problem.'' A little more than a year later, Erly missed an 
     interest payment to bondholders and its independent auditors 
     were warning that there was ``substantial doubt about the 
     entity's ability to continue as a going concern.''
       In March 1990, Erly proposed a complicated merger between 
     its Comet Rice unit and another struggling company, American 
     Rice Inc. of Houston, which it controlled--but it could not 
     find lenders.
       Clearly, despite the glowing descriptions by Chemonics, 
     Erly would have had trouble competing in Iraq against strong 
     America rivals like the Continental Grain Company or Cargill 
     Inc., without its edge in Aqaba.
       As it was, Erly's sales to Iraq grew from less than $19 
     million in March 1987 to $114.5 million in March 1990. By 
     then, Comet's share of Iraq's rice trade through the Federal 
     export credit guarantee program exceeded 80 percent. And 
     sales to Iraq by Comet represented a remarkable 30 percent of 
     Erly's overall revenues.


              war scars: gulf clash a blow to erly's trade

       But by August 1989, the warning flags were flying. That was 
     when Federal agents raided the Atlanta branch office of Banca 
     Nazionale del Lavoro, the big state-controlled Italian bank, 
     investigating whether the bank had made $4 billion worth of 
     unauthorized loans to Iraq.
       Banca Lavoro had helped finance Iraq's purchases of 
     agricultural products, including rice from Comet. With the 
     raid, Iraq's eligibility for the export credit program was 
     threatened. Then, in August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait and 
     trade with Baghdad was embargoed.
       The impact on Erly was severe. By March 1991, only $21.5 
     million worth of rice had been sold to Iraq, all of that 
     before the invasion. In March 1992, Erly reported a $12.5 
     million loss, as the vanishing Iraq business halved Comet's 
     profits. That--and the Federal investigation of Comet's own 
     dealings with Iraq through Banca Lavoro--made bankers leery 
     of financing the merger with American Rice, Mr. Murphy said.
       Erly finally mustered enough credit to complete the merger 
     last May, but as part of the deal, Comet sold the Aqaba plant 
     and a Cayman Island management unit to Mr. Dajani, its 
     Jordanian partner, a deal that finally allowed other 
     companies to use the plant.
       Indeed, since the sales contract gives Comet a royalty on 
     non-Comet rice handled by the plant, Mr. Murphy is 
     encouraging his rivals' business. ``Hey,'' he said. ``I'm a 
     generous guy.''
                                  ____


    A Company Under Investigation, But Its Shareholders Aren't Told

       For nearly three years. Erly Industries of Los Angeles has 
     endured a Federal investigation of its rice sales to Iraq, 
     which were financed by the Atlanta branch of Banca Nazionale 
     del Lavoro, the state-controlled Italian bank that is the 
     focus of a continuing Federal inquiry. But Erly has not 
     formally told its shareholders of the investigation.
       Gerald D. Murphy, Erly's children, said the investigation 
     delayed a crucial merger between the Comet Rice unit of Erly 
     and American Rice Inc. of Houston, which Erly also controls. 
     That brought American Rice's principal rice-processing plant 
     in Freeport, Tex., to the brink of foreclosure by its banks, 
     and pushed Erly's slender net worth so low that last November 
     it lost its license as an approved warehouse for Federal crop 
     programs.
       But neither Erly nor American Rice--both publicly traded 
     companies--has mentioned the Federal inquiry and its side 
     effects to investors and regulators in filings with the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission.
       ``My God,'' Mr. Murphy said, ``What am I supposed to 
     disclose? That the press is pestering us, and because it's 
     pestering us, it's going to cost us a lot of money? That's a 
     silly kind of statement.''
       American Rice's shareholders narrowly voted approval of the 
     merger in March 1991, based on a merger plan dated Jan. 22, 
     1991. Despite all the subsequent developments, shareholders 
     were not given an updated proposal or a chance to reconsider 
     there vote before the merger was concluded last May.
       Texas law did not require a new vote, said John Howland, 
     chairman of the merged company's board and former chief 
     executive of American Rice. Instead, the board relied on 
     recent advice from Houlihan, Lokey Howard & Zukin, a Los 
     Angeles investment bank, that the deal was still fair.
       John G. Mavredakis, a managing director of Houlihan, LoKey, 
     said the firm stood behind its fairness opinion, but he would 
     not discuss its contents
       Long before the final merger was concluded, two of the 
     three independent directors of American Rice resigned, 
     leaving a board dominated by large Erly shareholders: Mr. 
     Murphy; Douglas Murphy, his son, and William Burgess, also an 
     Erly director. ``We didn't feel it would be productive to 
     appoint additional directors.'' Mr. Howland said. ``But 
     nothing has been done that disadvantaged the public 
     shareholders.''
                                  ____


    Agriculture Companies Still Get Federal Business Despite Abuses

                (By Dean Baquet with Diana B. Henriques)

       Defying a Presidential order and requests by its own 
     investigators, the Agriculture Department continues to give 
     billions of dollars of business to politically powerful 
     agricultural companies that have been caught rigging bids, 
     fixing prices and defrauding Government programs.
       Repeatedly in the last decade, the Agriculture Department's 
     Inspector General, the internal watchdog official responsible 
     for investigating corruption and abuse within the department, 
     has urged top department officials to bar these businesses 
     from participating in Government programs or, at the very 
     least, to impose stiff fines on them, according to interviews 
     and thousands of pages of internal documents obtained under 
     the Freedom of Information Act.
       The companies accused of abusing Government programs 
     include huge dairies like Borden and Pet, and one of the 
     nation's biggest rice exporters, Comet Rice, a subsidiary of 
     Erly Industries.
       But in virtually every instance, records show, top 
     department officials--including the Secretary of Agriculture 
     in the Bush Administration and his most senior aides--have 
     refused to comply or have prolonged the process for years, 
     with arguments that the department lacks the legal expertise 
     to bar companies, and that kicking major businesses out would 
     cause some programs to collapse.
       Mike Espy, the Secretary of Agriculture, referred questions 
     about the department's current policy to James Gilliland, the 
     new general counsel. Mr. Gilliland said the department had 
     declined to take sterner measures because it was satisfied 
     with its own regulations regarding expulsion and suspension 
     of companies. Harsher moves would be far too cumbersome and 
     involve unnecessary paperwork, said Mr. Gilliland, a Clinton 
     Administration appointee and a friend of Vice President Al 
     Gore.
       But documents and interviews show that every other 
     Government agency went along with a directive issued by 
     former President Ronald Reagan requiring that any company 
     found abusing a Government program be barred from all other 
     Government programs. And the Agriculture Department's own 
     Inspector General and other nondepartment officials had 
     repeatedly criticized the department's own rules as far too 
     lenient--a view that Mr. Gilliland said he did not share.
       Most other Federal agencies have refused to accept 
     arguments that the Presidential order was unworkable, 
     documents show. In October 1988, for example, officials in 
     the Office of Management and Budget wrote an unusually harsh 
     memo accusing top Agriculture Department officials of 
     ``entrusting Government funds to those who have been found 
     irresponsible and with whom every other Government agency 
     will not do business.''
       Given the department's reluctance to punish big companies, 
     some of the largest Federal food programs--ranging from 
     subsidized grain exports supervised by its Foreign 
     Agricultural Service to school lunches subsidized by the 
     Food and Nutrition Service--continue to be dominated by 
     the same companies that have abused the programs in the 
     past.
       The programs involved entail up to $50 billion in annual 
     assistance payments--including loans, grants, loan 
     guarantees, direct subsidies and cash reimbursements--and 
     make up the bulk of the Agriculture department's spending.
       Besides the Food and Nutrition Service's reimbursements to 
     hundreds of school districts that buy milk and bread for 
     school lunch programs, the assistance payments cover a broad 
     array of projects like the Foreign Agricultural Service's 
     programs that help foreign governments buy billions of 
     dollars of American farm commodities from conglomerates like 
     Cargill, Continental Grain and Comet Rice.
       In examining how the Agriculture Department polices its 
     huge subsidy and grant programs, the New York Times obtained 
     more than two dozen internal Government audits and nearly 
     1,600 pages of departmental correspondence and reports. They 
     highlight how sprawling bureaucracies like the Agriculture 
     Department, one of the Federal Government's biggest 
     departments, can become so powerful that they can defy 
     Federal policies and even ignore the direct orders of 
     Presidents.
       These were among the findings from the documents and from 
     interviews:
       From the late 1980's until last summer, 52 American dairies 
     were convicted of price-fixing and bid-rigging Federal 
     contracts to sell milk to school lunch programs and military 
     bases. Despite requests from other Federal officials, the 
     Agriculture Department has expelled only two relatively small 
     regional dairies, and those actions have come only in the 
     last two months. Based on the same instances of misbehavior, 
     the Defense Department already has suspended or expelled 
     nearly three dozen dairies, including several industry 
     giants.
       Three years after internal Agriculture Department 
     investigators issued a series of highly critical reports 
     accusing some major export companies of abusing the nation's 
     biggest farm export program, most of those companies continue 
     to do business with the department.
       Many of the Agriculture Department's major agencies, 
     including the Foreign Agriculture Service, award grants and 
     loans to companies without checking them against a list of 
     companies and individuals banned from Government programs. 
     One result: the department gave $60 million in export 
     subsidies to Richco Grain, partly owned by Marc Rich, a 
     fugitive American financier regarded by Federal prosecutors 
     as one of the biggest tax cheats in history. Had the 
     Agriculture Department checked, it would have found that Mr. 
     Rich had been barred by other Government agencies for years.
       The Agriculture Department is the only Government agency 
     that has refused for seven years to comply with President 
     Reagan's 1986 Executive Order No. 12549, an obscure but 
     sweeping anti-corruption measure aimed at insuring that the 
     Government did not continue to do business with companies 
     that had violated Federal regulations.


           Powerful Constituents: U.S. Resolve Is Questioned

       The failure of the department to take strong action against 
     companies that abuse its programs highlights its deep and 
     long-standing relationships with its powerful corporate 
     constituents. It also raises questions about the Government's 
     ability and resolve to root out and eliminate the corruption 
     that adds to the costs and erodes the effectiveness of its 
     biggest and most visible programs.
       In August, Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, 
     said he would push legislation forcing the department to 
     expel dairies that rig bids. The Senator, who is chairman of 
     the Senate Agriculture Committee, said his bill, if passed, 
     ``will end a history of Government inaction--to the point of 
     tolerance--for corporations that steal from taxpayers and 
     schoolchildren.''
       Ellen Haas, the new Under Secretary in charge of the 
     department's Food and Nutrition Service, said in a recent 
     interview that she planned to step up efforts to expel from 
     her program some of the big dairy companies convicted of 
     wrongdoing.
       In addition to the expulsion of two regional dairies--Coble 
     Dairy Products Cooperative Inc. of North Carolina and the 
     Dairy Fresh Corporation of Alabama--she said her agency was 
     examining a dozen other dairies convicted of various crimes, 
     and would likely take additional action. Unlike Mr. 
     Gilliland, the general counsel, she criticized the previous 
     Administration for its leniency.
       ``I think it was an irony for a previous Administration 
     that talked about fraud and abuse to be as permissive as they 
     were,'' she said.
       Even if the Clinton Administration were to get more 
     aggressive, present and former senior Government officials 
     said it would take a change in attitudes throughout the 
     massive agency for it to adopt a tougher stance against 
     companies that run afoul of its rules. They pointed out that 
     some members of the Reagan and Bush Administrations had made 
     similar efforts in the past, without success.
       And one document obtained by The Times raises questions 
     about the new Administration's appetite for confronting this 
     issue. It shows that as recently as last summer, the 
     department decided not to push to expel a shipping company 
     whose top management had been convicted in a criminal dumping 
     case, because to do so would resurrect the earlier debate 
     over whether the department was too lax.
       The case involved William P. Reilly and John Patrick Dowd, 
     the two top executives of Coastal Carriers, a Maryland 
     shipping company. Their freighter, the Khian Sea, left 
     Philadelphia in August 1986, bound for the Bahamas, loaded 
     with 15,000 tons of incinerator ash. For more than two years, 
     the potentially dangerous shipment was turned away at ports 
     in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, Costa Rica, the 
     Cape Verde Islands, Turkey and Chile. Finally, the ship 
     dumped the ash into the Indian Ocean. In July of this year, 
     the two senior executives were convicted of perjury for lying 
     to a grand jury when they denied illegal dumping.


               alarmed letter: a company is not expelled

       Still, neither the executives nor the company were expelled 
     from any of the Agriculture Department's programs that 
     subsidize the costs of shipping American farm products 
     abroad. This led to an alarmed letter on July 23 from a top 
     official of the Foreign Agricultural Service, Christopher E. 
     Goldthwait, to Thomas V. Conway, the department's associate 
     general counsel.
       ``We believe we should move to suspend Mr. Dowd, Mr. 
     Reilly, and Coastal Carriers based on making false statements 
     and a lack of business integrity.'' Mr. Goldthwait wrote. 
     ``We understand that both Mr. Dowd and Mr. Reilly are 
     probably still involved with firms which supply ocean 
     transportation under our food aid programs.''
       Mr. Goldthwait went on to complain that Mr. Conway's office 
     had so far resisted his plea that Coastal Carriers, Mr. 
     Reilly and Mr. Dowd be suspended because department lawyers 
     did not want to start proceedings that might ``draw attention 
     to this contentious issue'' of the Agriculture Department's 
     failure to comply with the Government-wide debarment rules in 
     the past.
       ``Given the nature of the offense,'' Mr. Goldthwait wrote, 
     ``I think it is important for us to move ahead with our 
     suspension action. We do not want carriers to take lightly 
     the certifications they must make in connection with 
     shipments under our food aid programs.''
       Last week, Mr. Reilly was sentenced to 37 months in prison 
     and fined $7,500. Mr. Dowd was fined $20,000 and sentenced to 
     five months in prison.
       Mr. Goldthwait said in an interview two weeks ago that the 
     department had just begun the process of expelling the two 
     men from Government programs. The process could take several 
     months, because the subject usually gets the opportunity to 
     respond to the department's proposed expulsion.
       When President Reagan first signed his executive order to 
     ban misbehaving companies from Federal programs, the 
     Agriculture Department immediately balked. And it made no 
     bones about the reason: the mission of the assistance 
     programs was to help big agriculture businesses, department 
     officials argued, there was no need to antagonize those 
     businesses.
       ``Assistance relationships are very close, and usually 
     cooperative, as opposed to `arm's-length' procurement-type 
     relationships,'' wrote Laweance Wilson, then acting director 
     of the department's Office of Financial Management, in a 
     letter to the Office of Management and Budget on April 22, 
     1986. He added that looking into the background of each 
     participant in the huge export programs--which can include 
     farmers, exporters, shippers and banks--would create a 
     paperwork nightmare.
       But over the next two years, every other Federal agency 
     followed the Presidential order and devised rules for 
     suspension and debarment. The list of companies that had 
     abused Federal programs grew massive, eventually becoming a 
     bound book that runs to 250 pages. The list was distributed 
     to all Government purchasing officers so they could check a 
     new program applicant to see if it had abused some other 
     agency's programs in the past.
       But as other departments complied, the Agriculture 
     Department resisted the Presidential order, repeating in one 
     memorandum after another the phrase that Clayton K. Yeutter, 
     then the Secretary of Agriculture, used in a letter to 
     Richard G. Darman, director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, on Feb. 16, 1989: ``We would prefer to maintain the 
     status quo.''
       Under pressure from O.M.B. which was charged with carrying 
     out President Reagan's order, the Agriculture Department did 
     agree in the spring of 1988 to carry out some aspects of the 
     anti-corruption program. But it insisted on exempting some of 
     its largest, most expensive agencies.
       Officials at O.M.B. were livid, they said in interviews. On 
     May 25, 1988, James B. MacRae Jr., O.M.B.'s chief compliance 
     official, wrote that the agriculture department's proposal to 
     exempt most of its operations from the executive order was 
     ``inconsistent with O.M.B.'s guidelines which are part of the 
     Administration's initiative to prevent fraud, waste and 
     abuse.''
       Over the next four years, the internal battle grew even 
     more heated, according to interviews with present and former 
     officials. Inspector General Leon Snead, charged with 
     policing abuses in department programs, strongly urged Mr. 
     Yeutter and other top officials to cooperate with the anti-
     corruption initiative, the officials said.
       Nonetheless, the Agriculture Department insisted on 
     exempting five of its key agencies. Soon, thereafter, for 
     reasons not explained in the internal documents, the Office 
     of Management and Budget apparently gave up the fight.
       Current officials at O.M.B. declined to be interviewed for 
     this article.
       As the Agriculture Department was resisting the anti-
     corruption measures, Federal and state prosecutors were 
     finding that one of the department's most visible domestic 
     projects, the school lunch subsidy program, was awash in 
     corruption. In state after state, investigators found that 
     dairy and bakery company executives had conspired to subvert 
     competitive bidding procedures and divide up the marketplace 
     by deciding in advance who would submit the winning bid in 
     each territory.
       The practice drove up the prices school districts paid by 
     eliminating competition. The Agriculture Department, and 
     American taxpayers, were the ultimate victims because the 
     department reimbursed the local school districts for the cost 
     of milk and bread.
                                  ____


                            Big Agriculture

                     Provides a Study in Raw Power

                        (By Diana B. Henriques)

       Why are giant agricultural corporations treated so gently 
     by their Federal regulators?
       Some critics blame the close ties between senior Federal 
     officials and the corporations they regulate, and the 
     ``evolving door'' by which former Government appointees take 
     up lucrative corporate positions.
       But in dozens of interviews, current and former Government 
     officials also cited another reason: the raw political power 
     wielded by big agricultural interests. And, many officials 
     said, there was no better example of the bruising effects of 
     that power than the ``rice wars,'' a bitter trade dispute 
     that the American rice industry waged with South Korea in the 
     early 1980's.
       The battle began when the South Korean rice harvest failed 
     in 1980. According ``to identify emergency rice supplies. 
     After agreeing to buy all available California rice, the 
     variety Koreans prefer, Seoul looked to Japan for more.


                       A Dilemma for Agriculture

       But under a bilateral agreement Tokyo had just signed with 
     the Agriculture Department, in which Japan promised not to 
     dump its heavily subsidized rice on world markets, the 
     Japanese-South Korean deal required Federal approval.
       This posed a dilemma for the department. Approval would 
     give Seoul leverage in negotiations with American suppliers 
     and infuriate the American rice lobby. But rejection could 
     destabilize South Korea, an important ally and trade partner.
       So the Agriculture Department offered a compromise: in 
     exchange for Federal approval. South Korea had to agree to 
     buy additional American rice.
       The compromise placated neither the powerful Rice Growers 
     Association nor the Farmers Rice Cooperative, the two co-ops 
     that controlled more than half the California rice crop. 
     Their exclusive trading agent was Grover Connell, a generous 
     contributor to Congressional campaigns. The lawyer for the 
     co-ops was Joseph L. Alioto, the colorful Democratic 
     politician and former San Francisco mayor. The prior year, 
     Mr. Connell had figured in the ``Koreagate'' Congressional 
     influence-pedding scandal that swirled around Tongsun Park, 
     who was Mr. Connell's agent in trade deals with Seoul.
       The co-ops argued vehemently against the Japanese sale and 
     then appealed to Congressional allies, who accused the South 
     Koreans of stalling on the additional rice purchases.
       Finally, Mr. Alioto took aim at the State Department--
     specifically, at Robert Richmond, the Korea desk chief, and 
     his superior Anthony Albrecht, the Deputy Assistant Secretary 
     for East Asian affairs. He accused both men of improperly 
     urging Seoul to delay its rice purchases. Both officials, who 
     were later cleared by a State Department investigation, now 
     say they believe the incident damaged their careers, Mr. 
     Alioto did not return calls seeking comment.
       In December 1981, then-Representative John Breaux of 
     Louisiana--now a Senator-and more than a hundred other 
     Congressmen sent a letter to the South Korean President 
     hinting that Seoul's rice purchasers were corrupt. The co-ops 
     filed lawsuits, accusing rival suppliers of bribing the 
     Koreans. Defying diplomatic immunity, Mr. Alioto subpoenaed 
     the South Korean ambassador, touching off a political crisis 
     in Seoul.
       It is not clear whether South Korean officials were 
     unwilling to buy the rice as the emergency eased--or whether 
     they were just unwilling to deal with Mr. Connell, who was 
     openly insulting them. It hardly mattered. Every deal Seoul 
     struck with a rival suppliers set off a Congressional uproar.
       Enter the strong-willed Gerald D. Murphy the chairman of 
     Erly Industries. In December 1981, over lunch at La Caravelle 
     restaurant in New York, Mr. Murphy--who boasted of strong 
     Republican connections--told Mr. Connell he intended to 
     compete for the Korean business. In May 1982, Mr. Murphy beat 
     out Mr. Connell in a bid to supply Seoul with 370,000 metric 
     tons of rice.


                          ``playing chicken''

       But he only had about 130,000 tons; he planned to buy the 
     rest from the California co-ops. They refused his initial 
     offers because, Mr. Connell later explained they believed Mr. 
     Murphy could be forced to pay more to avoid defaulting on his 
     contract. In fact, Mr. Murphy's contract called for a very 
     modest default penalty. While he stood pat and the White 
     House took a hands-off approach, the co-ops faced 
     skyrocketing bills for storing the unsold rice.
       This ruinous stalemate was broken in July 1983 by Ralph 
     Newman, the new chief executive for the Farmers Rice 
     Cooperative. ``The costs of playing chicken with the Koreans 
     were just astronomical,'' Mr. Newman said Breaking ranks with 
     Mr. Alioto and Mr. Connell, he offered his rice to the 
     Koreans--through any intermediary they wished.
       It was South Korea's last major rice purchase, from the 
     United States or anyone else. At the height of the conflict, 
     leaders in Seoul became so disgusted that they renewed the 
     nation's drive for self-sufficiency in rice.
       All major agricultural corporations share the power of the 
     rice belt, according to Representative Charles E. Schumer, 
     the Brooklyn Democrat, because legislators band together to 
     protect one another's pet crops. ``The exporters are very 
     powerful politically,'' he said.


                    Sidestepping an Executive Order

       The Agriculture Department is the only United States 
     department that has failed to comply with the Reagan 
     Administration's 1986 order to deny contracts to companies 
     that have been suspended or removed from other Government 
     assistance programs. A chronology of Agriculture's efforts to 
     avoid compliance follows.
       Feb. 18, 1986.--President Reagan signs Executive Order 
     12549 mandating that any company suspended or removed from 
     one Government assistance program is barred from 
     participating in all other Federal programs.
       April 22, 1986.--The Agriculture Department balks. Lawrence 
     Wilson, then acting director of Agriculture's Office of 
     Financial Management, tells the Office of Management and 
     Budget, that the department's relationships on assistance 
     contracts ``are, by their nature, very close, and usually 
     cooperative, as opposed to `arm's-length' procurement-type 
     relationships.''
       Feb. 24, 1988.--As other Government departments begin to 
     comply with the order, Mr. Wilson, in a letter to O.M.B., 
     says that, given a choice of creating a rule barring certain 
     companies from participating in any Federal program or 
     delaying it, ``U.S.D.A. would prefer to maintain the status 
     quo at this time.'' He argues that it would take time to 
     teach the staff how to implement the policy and that no one 
     could forecast the impact of barring companies. He reiterates 
     his views a month later.
       May 25, 1988.--The day before the deadline for compliance 
     with the executive order, James B. MacRae Jr., acting 
     administrator for O.M.B.'s office of information and 
     regulatory affairs, notifies Christopher Hicks, general 
     counsel at the Agriculture Department that its proposals for 
     compliance are ``inconsistent with O.M.B. guidelines, which 
     are part of the Administration's initiative to prevent fraud, 
     waste and abuse.'' The problem is that the department wants 
     to exclude ``large numbers of U.S.D.A. programs from the 
     order.''
       June 29, 1988.--Joseph R. Wright Jr., deputy director of 
     O.M.B., has a note hand-delivered to John J. Franke Jr., 
     assistant Agriculture Secretary saying, ``U.S.D.A. still is 
     the only agency who has not joined the common rule on 
     suspension and debarment.'' Noting that Agriculture had not 
     even submitted a revised proposal, Mr. Wright says ``It would 
     be very helpful for you to get your agency moving in this 
     direction. Thanks.''
       Feb. 16, 1989.--Clayton Yeutter, Agriculture Secretary, 
     writes Richard G. Darman, the O.M.B. director, and reiterates 
     the opposition.
       May 1990.--Mr. MacRae of O.M.B. writes to Alan Raul, the 
     Agriculture Department's general counsel, rejecting a 
     proposed rule for the Foreign Agricultural Service because it 
     does not automatically bar corporate participants that have 
     been barred by other Government departments.
       There is no record of further O.M.B. efforts to secure 
     compliance by the department.

  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do so only to thank our colleague, the gentlewoman 
from Maryland [Mrs. Bentley] for bringing us this information, working 
with us, and we look forward to her continued input and working with us 
as we address this issue in the next year.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself with the 
remarks of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], and make the 
observation that there has been no stronger supporter of the U.S. 
merchant marine than the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Bentley].
  Many times in the past, Mr. Chairman, we have disagreed with regard 
to policy issues, but her support for the U.S. merchant marine has 
never wavered; not that she has been unfriendly to the American farmer. 
I want to thank her for her service, for her dedicated leadership, and 
there has never been quite a fighter like the gentlewoman from Maryland 
on behalf of her constituency.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I also want to join in the strong 
commendation of my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. 
Bentley], and her work for the merchant marine and for this Nation. She 
has done a great job in supporting the merchant marine. She is going to 
be sorely missed in this Chamber next year for her strong advocacy for 
U.S. interests. I really wanted to take the time to thank her for her 
long service on behalf of the people of her district.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the statement of the 
gentlelady from Maryland.
  Last October, the New York Times ran a series that was highly 
critical of the Agriculture Department's export policies. The 
allegations in the Times expose raise a number of questions on the 
beneficiaries of American agriculture export assistance programs.
  It turns out a surprising number of USDA recipients are actually 
foreign-owned companies. There is something fundamentally wrong with 
Government policy when we can't support U.S. maritime companies that 
transport our troops and supplies to war and U.S. goods during 
peacetime, but can allow billions of dollars to subsidize foreign 
agricultural conglomerates.
  While we are not debating USDA export policy today, we should take a 
long and hard look at this issue when we consider next year's farm 
bill. I look forward to working with the distinguished chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee on that bill.

                   amendment offered by mr. kreidler

  Mr. KREIDLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kreidler: Page 34, line 8 after 
     ``safety'' insert
       ``, including responsibilities under the Federal Meat 
     Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. Until 
     such time as the Under Secretary establishes, based on the 
     best available scientific and technologic data, levels of 
     pathogens that constitute a threat to human health in meat 
     and poultry, and prohibits or restricts the sale of meat and 
     meat products and poultry and poultry products that exceed 
     these levels, no official inspection seal shall be applied to 
     such products that states that the product has been inspected 
     for wholesomeness or inspected and approved, nor shall the 
     Department of Agriculture print or distribute any educational 
     material that suggests that meat and poultry has been 
     inspected in a manner designed to protect human health by 
     limiting bacterial contamination''.

  Mr. KREIDLER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KREIDLER. Mr. Chairman, last year three children died in 
Washington State because a batch of Government-approved hamburger was 
contaminated with a deadly microscopic organism known as E. coli 
0157:H7.
  That was only one of 20 E. coli outbreaks reported in 1993, with 11 
more deaths. Another 25 outbreaks, and at least 4 deaths, have been 
reported so far this year, in Oregon, Minnesota, California, Nebraska, 
North Carolina, Vermont, North Dakota, Ohio, Massachusetts, New York, 
Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Florida, Pennsylvania, Montana, 
Wisconsin, and Alabama.
  E. coli may be the most dangerous pathogen in meat and poultry, but 
it is also rare. Much more common are pathogens like salmonella, 
listeria, and others we have all heard too much about. They are the 
greatest threat to the safety of meat and poultry.
  These microbes can be kept to a minimum with proper processing 
techniques, backed up by an inspection system based on science. Today's 
system can deal only with what inspectors can see and feel. For half a 
billion dollars a year, the American consumer deserves more.
  This amendment specifies that the Under Secretary for Food Safety is 
responsible for meat and poultry inspection, and it prohibits the use 
of the USDA inspection seal, which implies that inspected meat and 
poultry is wholesome and safe, until the Department has brought the 
inspection system into the modern era.
  That means setting limits on pathogen levels, based on the best 
available scientific information.
  The Pathogen Reduction Act, which the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm] has introduced at the request of the administration, requires 
USDA to set and enforce pathogen limits. This amendment does not 
incorporate that complex proposal, but this amendment prohibits the use 
of the USDA seal of approval until we have an inspection system that 
deals with this growing threat. I think that is the least we can do.
  I understand the need to consider the Pathogen Reduction Act fully, 
and I believe the chairman is committed to do so early in the next 
Congress. Meanwhile, I urge the adoption of this amendment so that 
consumers are no longer misled by the USDA seal when they buy meat and 
poultry.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of 
the gentleman today.
  Mr. Chairman, again it is not that I do not agree with the basic 
thrust of the amendment because the gentleman has correctly pointed out 
that we have introduced legislation last week that encompasses a good 
portion, in fact perhaps would be construed as being much stronger than 
the gentleman's amendment today.
  The difficulty we have with the gentleman's amendment today is as I 
mentioned, we got the bill from the administration last week. We are 
currently trying to see if we can reach some agreement and 
accommodation that can get something done this year in legislation.
  This piece of legislation today is not the time and the place for us 
to consider this amendment. What we need to do, and the gentleman was 
correct in his earlier statement. In fact, we not only have introduced 
legislation in our committee but we are actively working to see what 
can be done to move forward the pathogen problem and come up with a 
constructive solution that we can in turn interject into our meat and 
poultry system so that in fact we do begin testing for pathogens in our 
meat and poultry supply.
  The difficulty and why I say I must reluctantly rise in opposition, 
and I would ask the gentleman to consider perhaps withdrawing his 
amendment today, with the full assurances that not only are we 
sympathetic, we have introduced legislation last week and we will 
actively begin working for purposes of seeing how we might do it. This 
is not the time and the place. But I would hope that with this 
assurance, the gentleman may consider withdrawing his amendment today. 
If so, I would certainly look forward to working with him in solving a 
very real problem.
  Mr. KREIDLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. KREIDLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
thank him and very much appreciate the comments of the chairman of the 
subcommittee relative to his commitment to address this issue. This is 
an issue of deep and abiding concern particularly to my State that has 
grievously suffered at the expense of undercooked hamburger that has 
been contaminated by E. coli. We are very interested in my State as 
indeed I believe the whole country is that we make sure our poultry and 
meat supply is as safe as possible. It is not my desire as a member of 
this body to slow down the process or complicate the work of this 
committee or from the standpoint of making sure that the USDA moves 
forward as aggressively and forcefully as possible.
  With that understanding, I will take the request or the suggestion 
that has been offered to me by the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Murphy). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Briefly, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for withdrawing the amendment and look forward to working 
with him in a constructive solution to the very real problem that he 
has highlighted today in this discussion.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of 
the committee.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I also rise to thank the gentleman and 
commend him for his energetic and vigorous pursuing of this issue. We 
will work with him diligently and we will appreciate his input into the 
process as we work in this area and commend him for all the work that 
he has done. The people of his area and his district should be proud of 
the vigorous manner in which he has pursued this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
yield to my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I sought recognition to enter into a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], the chairman of 
the subcommittee, if I might.
  Mr. Chairman, last January I introduced into the House the Katie 
O'Connell Safe Food Act, comprehensive legislation designed to revamp 
and modernize our meat and poultry inspection system. A key provision 
of the bill is to move the meat and poultry inspection from the 
Department of Agriculture to an independent agency.
  The USDA as he knows is charged with the dual goals of promoting and 
policing agricultural products. I strongly believe that this is an 
inherent conflict of interest. Meat and poultry inspections should be 
viewed as a public health concern, not as a business concern. I have 
strong doubts that the USDA's top priority is public health if it is 
also promoting sales.
  Apparently Vice President Gore and his commission shared this view 
and recommended moving meat and poultry inspection to the Food and Drug 
Administration in his Reinventing Government report.
  Today I came to the floor with the intention of offering an amendment 
to move this function from the USDA to the FDA. However, I am persuaded 
that a move of this nature needs more extensive study. Because I have 
particular confidence in the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and 
the relevant committees involved, I am seeking his assurance the 
subcommittee will further study the ramifications of this move and hold 
hearings on the subject in the next Congress so we might consider my 
recommendations and legislation with some confidence.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much all of the 
gentleman's efforts on this issue and share many of his concerns. 
Recognizing the need to separate meat and poultry inspection and other 
food safety obligations from marketing and promotion type 
responsibilities within USDA, this bill today creates a new 
Undersecretary for Food Safety, elevating and keeping completely 
separate all food safety activities within the Department. This 
approach represents a fundamental shift in the way USDA does business, 
one which the Committee on Agriculture believes is the most immediate, 
appropriate and effective way to address this concern. In our effort to 
improve the current system, the Committee on Agriculture has had 
numerous hearings concerning USDA's meat and poultry inspection system 
and will continue to have an interest in ensuring the safety of our 
Nation's food supply with future hearings. I look forward to working 
with the gentleman.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm] for his cooperation in this matter. I also want to 
thank the families of all the E. coli victims who have worked to write 
the Katie O'Connell Act and I look forward in the next Congress to 
working with him in finding a comprehensive solution. I would also like 
to express my keen interest in the Pathogen Reduction Act which the 
gentleman introduced recently. I would appreciate it if he could 
briefly summarize the legislation that he has offered.
  Mr. STENHOLM. In general terms, the bill would provide broad 
authority for the Secretary to issue regulations requiring testing for 
the presence of pathogens, establish acceptable levels for pathogens, 
provide mandatory recall and trace-back authority, and impose civil 
penalties. I fully intend to review this legislation in my 
subcommittee--in fact, we have already begun the process--and work with 
the gentleman and all interested parties in moving a bill next Congress 
that most appropriately addresses our mutual concerns.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
explanations and his commitment. I look forward to working with him in 
the next Congress, and I have complete confidence that under his 
leadership, we will be able to move forward the issue of food safety. I 
also want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], the 
chairman of the committee, for yielding me this time and for his 
support and cooperation.


                 amendments offered by mr. de la garza

  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments, and I ask 
unanimous consent for them to be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. de la Garza:
       Page 2, after line 7, in the table of contents of the bill, 
     strike ``External affairs'' in the item relating to section 
     106'' and insert ``External Affairs''.
       Page 9, line 2, insert after the period the following new 
     sentence: ``Reductions in the number of full-time equivalent 
     positions within the Department achieved under section 5 of 
     the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 (Public Law 
     103-226; 108 Stat. 115; 5 U.S.C. 3101 note) shall be counted 
     toward the employee reductions required under this 
     section.''.
       Strike section 105 of the bill (page 9, line 20, through 
     page 10, line 2) relating to improvement of information 
     sharing and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 105. IMPROVEMENT OF INFORMATION SHARING.

       Whenever the Secretary procures or uses computer systems, 
     as may be provided for in advance in appropriations Acts, the 
     Secretary shall do so in a manner that enhances efficiency, 
     productivity, and client services and is consistent with the 
     goal of promoting computer information sharing among agencies 
     of the Department.
       Page 19, line 8, add at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``In the case of a county committee in existence on the date 
     of the enactment of the Department of Agriculture 
     Reorganization Act of 1994, the Secretary may not terminate 
     the county committee, alter the boundaries of the area 
     covered by the committee, or consolidate the committee with 
     other county committees, without the consent of a majority of 
     the producers in the area covered by the committee, as 
     determined in a referendum conducted by the Secretary.''.
       Page 20, line 21, insert after the period the following new 
     sentences: ``Pursuant to such regulations, each county and 
     area committee shall select an executive director for the 
     area or county. Such selection shall be made in the same 
     manner as provided for the selection of the county executive 
     director under section 7.21(b)(2) of title 7, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 1994.''.


       Page 47, after line 15, add the following new section (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 805. FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT OF SOCIALLY 
                   DISADVANTAGED PRODUCERS.

       (a) Fair Crop Acreage Bases and Farm Program Payment 
     Yields.--If the Secretary of Agriculture determines that crop 
     acreage bases or farm program payment yields established for 
     farms owned or operated by socially disadvantaged producers 
     are not established in accordance with title V of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.), the 
     Secretary shall adjust the bases and yields to conform to the 
     requirements of such title and make available any appropriate 
     commodity program benefits.
       (b) Fair Application of Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act.--If the Secretary of Agriculture determines 
     that application of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.) with respect to 
     socially disadvantaged producers is not consistent with the 
     requirements of such Act, the Secretary shall make such 
     changes in the administration of such Act as the Secretary 
     considers necessary to provide for the fair and equitable 
     treatment of socially disadvantaged producers under such Act.
       (c) Report on Treatment of Socially Disadvantaged 
     Producers.--
       (1) Report required.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall prepare a report to determine--
       (A) whether socially disadvantaged producers are 
     underrepresented on State, county, or local committees 
     established under section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and 
     Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)) or local review 
     committees established under section 363 of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1363) because of racial, 
     ethnic, or gender prejudice; and
       (B) if such underrepresentation exists, whether it inhibits 
     or interferes with the participation of socially 
     disadvantaged producers in programs of the Department of 
     Agriculture.
       (2) Submission of report.--Not later than February 1, 1995, 
     the Comptroller General shall submit the report required by 
     this subsection to the Committee on Agriculture of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate.
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``socially disadvantaged producer'' means a producer who is a 
     member of a group whose members have been subjected to 
     racial, ethnic, or gender prejudice because of their identity 
     as members of a group without regard to their individual 
     qualities.
       Page 3, line 9, strike ``section 102'' and insert ``section 
     802''.

       Strike section 102 of the bill (page 7, line 16, through 
     page 8, line 20) relating to the National Appeals Division 
     (and redesignate subsequent sections accordingly).
       Page 34, after line 19, add the following new title (and 
     redesignate the subsequent title accordingly):
                 TITLE VIII--NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

     SEC. 801. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title:
       (1) Adverse decision.--The term ``adverse decision'' means 
     an administrative decision made by an officer, employee, or 
     committee of an agency that is adverse to a participant. The 
     term includes a denial of equitable relief by an agency or 
     the failure of an agency to issue a decision or otherwise act 
     on the request or right of the participant. The term does not 
     include a decision over which the Board of Contract Appeals 
     has jurisdiction.
       (2) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means any agency of the 
     Department designated by the Secretary or a successor agency 
     of the Department, except that the term shall include the 
     following (and any successor to the following):
       (A) The Agricultural Service Agency.
       (B) The Commodity Credit Corporation, with respect to 
     domestic programs.
       (C) The Farmers Home Administration.
       (D) The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
       (E) The Rural Development Administration.
       (F) The Soil Conservation Service.
       (G) A State, county, or area committee established under 
     section 8(b)(5) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
     Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)(5)).
       (3) Appellant.--The term ``appellant'' means a participant 
     who appeals an adverse decision in accordance with this 
     title.
       (4) Case record.--The term ``case record'' means all the 
     materials maintained by the Secretary related to an adverse 
     decision.
       (5) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Division.
       (6) Division.--The term ``Division'' means the National 
     Appeals Division established by this title.
       (7) Hearing officer.--The term ``hearing officer'' means an 
     individual employed by the Division who hears and determines 
     appeals of adverse decisions by any agency.
       (8) Participant.--The term ``participant'' means any 
     individual, partnership, corporation, association, 
     cooperative, or other entity whose application for, or right 
     to participate in or receive, payments or loans in accordance 
     with any of the programs administered by an agency is 
     affected by an adverse decision of an agency.

     SEC. 802. NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION AND DIRECTOR.

       (a) Establishment of Division.--The Secretary shall 
     establish and maintain an independent National Appeals 
     Division within the Department to carry out this title.
       (b) Director.--
       (1) Appointment.--The Division shall be headed by a 
     Director, appointed by the Secretary from among persons who 
     have substantial experience in practicing administrative law. 
     In considering applicants for the position of Director, the 
     Secretary shall consider persons currently employed outside 
     Government as well as Government employees.
       (2) Term and removal.--The Director shall serve for a 6-
     year term of office, and shall be eligible for reappointment. 
     The Director shall not be subject to removal during the term 
     of office, except for cause established in accordance with 
     law.
       (3) Position classification.--The position of the Director 
     may not be a position in the excepted service or filled by a 
     noncareer appointee.
       (c) Direction, Control, and Support.--The Director shall be 
     free from the direction and control of any person other than 
     the Secretary. The Division shall not receive administrative 
     support (except on a reimbursable basis) from any agency 
     other than the Office of the Secretary. The Secretary may not 
     delegate to any other officer or employee of the Department, 
     other than the Director, the authority of the Secretary with 
     respect to the Division.
       (d) Determination of Appealability of Agency Decisions.--If 
     an officer, employee, or committee of an agency determines 
     that a decision is not appealable and a participant appeals 
     the decision to the Director, the Director shall determine 
     whether the decision is adverse to the individual participant 
     and thus appealable or is a matter of general applicability 
     and thus not subject to appeal. The determination of the 
     Director as to whether a decision is appealable shall be 
     administratively final.
       (e) Division Personnel.--The Director shall appoint such 
     hearing officers and other employees as are necessary for the 
     administration of the Division. A hearing officer or other 
     employee of the Division shall have no duties other than 
     those that are necessary to carry out this title.

     SEC. 803. TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.

       There are transferred to the Division all functions 
     exercised and all administrative appeals pending before the 
     effective date of this title (including all related functions 
     of any officer or employee) of or relating to--
       (1) the National Appeals Division established by section 
     426(c) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1433e(c)) 
     (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act);
       (2) the National Appeals Division established by 
     subsections (d) through (g) of section 333B of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1983b) 
     (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act);
       (3) appeals of decisions made by the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Corporation; and
       (4) appeals of decisions made by the Soil Conservation 
     Service.

     SEC. 804. NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING.

       Not later than 10 working days after an adverse decision is 
     made that affects the participant, the Secretary shall 
     provide the participant with the written notice of such 
     adverse decision and the rights available to the participant 
     under this title or other law for the review of such adverse 
     decision.

     SEC. 805. INFORMAL HEARINGS.

       If an officer, employee, or committee of an agency makes an 
     adverse decision, the agency shall hold, at the request of 
     the participant, an informal hearing on the decision. With 
     respect to programs carried out through the Agricultural 
     Service Agency, the Secretary shall maintain the informal 
     appeals process applicable to such programs, as in effect on 
     the date of the enactment of the title. If a mediation 
     program is available under title V of the Agricultural Credit 
     Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) as a part of the informal 
     hearing process, the participant shall be offered the right 
     to choose such mediation.

     SEC. 806. RIGHT OF PARTICIPANTS TO DIVISION HEARING.

       (a) Appeal to Division for Hearing.--Subject to subsection 
     (b), a participant shall have the right to appeal an adverse 
     decision to the Division for an evidentiary hearing by a 
     hearing officer consistent with section 807.
       (b) Time for Appeal.--To be entitled to a hearing under 
     section 807, a participant shall request the hearing not 
     later than 30 days after the date on which the participant 
     first received notice of the adverse decision.

     SEC. 807. DIVISION HEARINGS.

       (a) General Powers of Director and Hearing Officers.--
       (1) Access to case record.--The Director and hearing 
     officer shall have access to the case record of any adverse 
     decision appealed to the Division for a hearing.
       (2) Administrative procedures.--The Director and hearing 
     officer shall have the authority to require the attendance of 
     witnesses, and the production of evidence, by subpoena and to 
     administer oaths and affirmations. Except to the extent 
     required for the disposition of ex parte matters as 
     authorized by law--
       (A) an interested person outside the Division shall not 
     make or knowingly cause to be made to the Director or a 
     hearing officer who is or may reasonably be expected to be 
     involved in the evidentiary hearing or review of an adverse 
     decision, an ex parte communication (as defined in section 
     551(14) of title 5, United States Code) relevant to the 
     merits of the proceeding;
       (B) the Director and such hearing officer shall not make or 
     knowingly cause to be made to any interested person outside 
     the Division an ex parte communication relevant to the merits 
     of the proceeding.
       (b) Time for Hearing.--Upon a timely request for a hearing 
     under section 806(b), an appellant shall have the right to 
     have a hearing by the Division on the adverse decision within 
     45 days after the date of the receipt of the request for the 
     hearing.
       (c) Location and Elements of Hearing.--
       (1) Location.--A hearing on an adverse decision shall be 
     held in the State of residence of the appellant or at a 
     location that is otherwise convenient to the appellant and 
     the Division.
       (2) Evidentiary hearing.--The evidentiary hearing before a 
     hearing officer shall be in person, unless the appellant 
     agrees to a hearing by telephone or by a review of the case 
     record. The hearing officer shall not be bound by previous 
     findings of fact by the agency in making a determination.
       (3) Information at hearing.--The hearing officer shall 
     consider information presented at the hearing without regard 
     to whether the evidence was known to the agency officer, 
     employee, or committee making the adverse decision at the 
     time the adverse decision was made. The hearing officer shall 
     leave the record open after the hearing for a reasonable 
     period of time to allow the submission of information by the 
     appellant or the agency after the hearing to the extent 
     necessary to respond to new facts, information, arguments, or 
     evidence presented or raised by the agency or appellant.
       (4) Burden of proof.--The appellant shall bear the burden 
     of proving that the adverse decision of the agency was 
     erroneous.
       (d) Determination Notice.--The hearing officer shall issue 
     a notice of the determination on the appeal not later than 30 
     days after a hearing or after receipt of the request of the 
     appellant to waive a hearing, except that the Director may 
     establish an earlier or later deadline. If the determination 
     is not appealed to the Director for review under section 808, 
     the notice provided by the hearing officer shall be 
     considered to be a notice of final determination.
       (e) Effective Date.--The final determination shall be 
     effective as of the date of filing of an application, the 
     date of the transaction or event in question, or the date of 
     the original adverse decision, whichever is applicable.

     SEC. 808. DIRECTOR REVIEW OF DETERMINATIONS OF HEARING 
                   OFFICERS.

       (a) Requests for Director Review.--
       (1) Time for request by appellant.--Not later than 30 days 
     after the date on which an appellant receives the 
     determination of a hearing officer under section 807, the 
     appellant shall submit a written request to the Director for 
     review of the determination in order to be entitled to a 
     review by the Director of the determination.
       (2) Time for request by agency head.--Not later 15 business 
     days after the date on which an agency receives the 
     determination of a hearing officer under section 807, the 
     head of the agency may make a written request that the 
     Director review the determination.
       (b) Determination of director.--The Director shall conduct 
     a review of the determination of the hearing officer using 
     the case record, the record from the evidentiary hearing 
     under section 807, the request for review, and such other 
     arguments or information as may be accepted by the Director. 
     Based on such review, the Director shall issue a final 
     determination notice that upholds, reverses, or modifies the 
     determination of the hearing officer. However, if the 
     Director determines that the hearing record is inadequate, 
     the Director may remand all or a portion of the determination 
     for further proceedings to complete the hearing record or, at 
     the option of the Director, to hold a new hearing. The 
     Director shall complete the review and either issue a final 
     determination or remand the determination not later than--
       (1) 10 business days after receipt of the request for 
     review, in the case of a request by the head of an agency for 
     review; or
       (2) 30 business days after receipt of the request for 
     review, in the case of a request by an appellant for review.
       (c) Equitable Relief.--Subject to regulations issued by the 
     Secretary, the Director shall have the authority to grant 
     equitable relief under this section in the same manner and to 
     the same extent as such authority is provided to the 
     Secretary under section 326 of the Food and Agriculture Act 
     of 1962 (7 U.S.C. 1339a) and other laws. Notwithstanding the 
     administrative finality of a final determination of an appeal 
     by the Division, the Secretary shall have the authority to 
     grant equitable or other types of relief to the appellant 
     after a final determination is issued by the Division.
       (d) Effective Date.--A final determination issued by the 
     Director shall be effective as of the date of filing of an 
     application, the date of the transaction or event in 
     question, or the date of the original adverse decision, 
     whichever is applicable.

     SEC. 809. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       A final determination of the Division shall be reviewable 
     and enforceable by any United States district court of 
     competent jurisdiction in accordance with chapter 7 of title 
     5, United States Code.

     SEC. 810. IMPLEMENTATION OF FINAL DETERMINATIONS OF DIVISION.

       On the return of a case to an agency pursuant to the final 
     determination of the Division, the head of the agency shall 
     implement the final determination not later than 30 days 
     after the effective date of the notice of the final 
     determination.

     SEC. 811. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS RELATING TO NATIONAL APPEALS 
                   DIVISION.

       (a) Decisions of State, County, and Area Committees.--
       (1) Application of subsection.--This subsection shall apply 
     only with respect to functions of the Agricultural Service 
     Agency or the Commodity Credit Corporation that are under the 
     jurisdiction of a State, county, or area committee 
     established under section 8(b)(5) of the Soil Conservation 
     and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)(5)) or an 
     employee of such a committee.
       (2) Finality.--Each decision of a State, county, or area 
     committee (or an employee of such a committee) covered by 
     paragraph (1) that is made in good faith in the absence of 
     misrepresentation, false statement, fraud, or willful 
     misconduct shall be final not later than 90 days after the 
     date of filing of the application for benefits, unless the 
     decision is--
       (A) appealed under this title; or
       (B) modified by the Administrator of the Agricultural 
     Service Agency or the Executive Vice President of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation.
       (3) Recovery of Amounts.--If the decision of the State, 
     county, or area committee has become final under paragraph 
     (2), no action may be taken by the Agricultural Service 
     Agency, the Commodity Credit Corporation, or a State, county, 
     or area committee to recover amounts found to have been 
     disbursed as a result of a decision in error unless the 
     participant had reason to believe that the decision was 
     erroneous.
       (b) Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.--
     Section 426 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1433e) 
     is repealed.
       (c) Farmers Home Administration.--Section 333B of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1983b) 
     is repealed.
       (d) Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.--The last sentence 
     of section 508(f) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(f)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end 
     the following: ``or within 1 year after the claimant receives 
     a final determination notice from an administrative appeal 
     made in accordance with title VIII of the Department of 
     Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, whichever is later''.

     SEC. 812. EXPANSION OF ISSUES COVERED BY STATE MEDIATION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Expansion of Mediation Programs.--Section 501 of the 
     Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``an agricultural loan 
     mediation program'' and inserting ``a mediation program'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``agricultural loan''; 
     and
       (3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(c) Requirements of State Mediation Programs.--
       ``(1) Issues covered.--To be certified as a qualifying 
     State, the mediation program of the State must provide 
     mediation services for the persons described in paragraph (2) 
     who are involved in agricultural loans or agricultural loans 
     and one or more of the following issues under the 
     jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture:
       ``(A) Wetlands determinations.
       ``(B) Compliance with farm programs, including conservation 
     programs.
       ``(C) Agricultural credit.
       ``(D) Rural water loan programs.
       ``(E) Grazing on National Forest System lands.
       ``(F) Pesticides.
       ``(G) Such other issues as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(2) Persons eligible for mediation.--The persons referred 
     to in paragraph (1) are producers, their creditors (if 
     applicable), and other persons directly affected by actions 
     of the Department of Agriculture.
       ``(3) Certification conditions.--The Secretary shall 
     certify a State as a qualifying State with respect to the 
     issues proposed to be covered by the mediation program of the 
     State if the mediation program--
       ``(A) provides for mediation services that, if decisions 
     are reached, result in mediated, mutually agreeable decisions 
     between the parties to the mediation;
       ``(B) is authorized or administered by an agency of the 
     State government or by the Governor of the State;
       ``(C) provides for the training of mediators;
       ``(D) provides that the mediation sessions shall be 
     confidential;
       ``(E) ensures, in the case of agricultural loans, that all 
     lenders and borrowers of agricultural loans receive adequate 
     notification of the mediation program; and
       ``(F) ensures, in the case of other issues covered by the 
     mediation program, that persons directly affected by actions 
     of the Department of Agriculture receive adequate 
     notification of the mediation program.''.
       (b) Participation of Department.--Section 503 of such Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 5103) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``agricultural loan'' each place it 
     appears;
       (2) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of subsection 
     (a)(1)--
       (A) by inserting ``or agency'' after ``program''; and
       (B) by striking ``that makes, guarantees, or insures 
     agricultural loans'';
       (3) in subsection (a)(1)(A)--
       (A) by inserting ``or agency'' after ``such program''; and
       (B) by inserting ``certified under section 501'' after 
     ``mediation program'';
       (4) in subsection (a)(1)(B)--
       (A) by striking ``, effective beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``certified under section 501'' after 
     ``mediation programs''; and
       (5) in subsection (a)(1)(C)--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``described in'' and 
     inserting ``certified under''; and
       (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``if applicable,'' before 
     ``present''.
       (c) Regulations.--Section 504 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 5104) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Within 150 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the'' and inserting ``The''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary shall require 
     qualifying States to adequately train mediators to address 
     all of the issues covered by the mediation program of the 
     State.''.
       (d) Report.--Section 505 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 5105) is 
     amended by striking ``1990'' and inserting ``1998''.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 506 of such 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 5106) is amended by striking ``1995'' and 
     inserting ``2000''.
       (f) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) References to agricultural loans.--Subtitle A of title 
     V of such Act is amended--
       (A) in sections 502 and 505(1) (7 U.S.C. 5102, 5105(1)), by 
     striking ``agricultural loan'' each place it appears; and
       (B) in section 505(3) (7 U.S.C. 5105(3)), by striking ``an 
     agricultural loan mediation'' and inserting ``a mediation''.
       (2) Waiver of farm credit system mediation rights by 
     borrowers.--Section 4.14E of the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 
     U.S.C. 2202e) is amended by striking ``agricultural loan''.
       (3) Waiver of fmha mediation rights by borrowers.--Section 
     358 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2006) is amended by striking ``agricultural loan''.
       Add at the end of title VIII, after line 3 on page 52, the 
     following new section:

     SEC.  PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that, to the greatest extent practicable, all equipment and 
     products purchased using funds made available pursuant to 
     this Act should be American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available pursuant to this Act, the Secretary, to 
     the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to such entity 
     a notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by 
     the Congress.
       Page 9, line 12 after ``Department'' strike ``to'' and 
     insert ``, where practicable and to the extent consistent 
     with efficiency, effectiveness, and service to farmers, to''.
       Insert after line 3 on page 52:

     SEC.  CONDITIONS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATION IN LEVEL OF 
                   SELENIUM ALLOWED IN ANIMAL DIETS.

       (a) Conditions.--The Food and Drug Administration shall not 
     implement or enforce the final rule described in subsection 
     (b) to alter the level of selenium allowed to be used as a 
     supplement in animal diets unless the Commissioner of the 
     Food and Drug Administration makes a determination that--
       (1) selenium additives are not essential, at levels 
     authorized in the absence of such final rule, to maintain 
     animal nutrition and protect animal health;
       (2) selenium a such levels is not safe to the animals 
     consuming the additive;
       (3) selenium at such levels is not safe to individuals 
     consuming edible portions of animals that receive the 
     additive;
       (4) selenium at such levels does not achieve its intended 
     effect of promoting normal growth and reproduction of 
     livestock and poultry; and
       (5) the manufacture and use of selenium at such levels 
     cannot reasonably be controlled by adherence to current good 
     manufacturing practice requirements.
       (b) Final Rule Described.--The final rule referred to in 
     subsection (a) is the final rule issued by the Food and Drug 
     Administration and published in the Federal Register on 
     September 13, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 47962), in which the 
     Administration stayed 1987 amendments to the selenium food 
     additive regulations, and any modification of such rule 
     issued after the date of the enactment of this Act.
  Mr. de la GARZA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, we do have back in my community, in my 
district, quite a presence of farmers. They have continuously expressed 
support for the bills of the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the 
committee. I appreciate the fact that he has included my amendment and 
is looking at the plight of farmers in the trade issues facing our 
Nation. I thank the chairman for including my amendment in the en bloc 
amendments.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, the en bloc amendments include 
clarifying the process for computer purchases at USDA, the local farmer 
committees keep the authority to hire an executive director, that 
committees could not merge unless farmers vote, socially disadvantaged 
farmers, the National Appeals Division which modernizes it, technical 
conforming amendments, and the amendment mentioned by the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] to buy American equipment.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the chairman's en bloc amendment 
and wish Members to understand that I know of no other amendments to be 
offered. So with the completion of the chairman's en bloc amendment I 
also wish to inform Members that it is not the intention of the 
minority to call for a recorded vote on final passage. I will yield to 
the chairman so that he may indicate if that would be his desire as 
well. Is that what the chairman feels would be the wisest course of 
action in here?
  Mr. de la GARZA. If the gentleman will yield, that is always the 
wisest course to take.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
  I want to say one other thing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
chairman for his help, and I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Stenholm] and all of the Members of the majority side and the 
minority and the House Committee on Agriculture. We have some strong 
differences of opinion on this bill, and I hope all of the things the 
chairman and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] have said will 
certainly turn out to be accurate, and all of the concerns that we have 
raised perhaps we can work on.

  I do have one other final concern. About 2 months ago when we were 
considering the reorganization bill, an unfortunate situation happened 
at the Department of Agriculture, and I am going to make a brief 
mention of this because I do not want it to happen again. We have many 
research grants at the Department of Agriculture with the Cooperative 
State Research Service, the CSRS. These are our land grant schools. 
These are very valuable research grants that go to graduate students 
and fund a great deal of agricultural research.
  To influence votes on the reorganization bill there was a political 
hold placed on these research grants, some 350 of them, and an 
additional warning that 800, 800 of these grants would be under a 
political hold. It was to influence votes, or at least to try to stir 
action or to be a catalyst for action on the USDA reorganization bill.
  It influenced this Member all right. I really think that this action 
was unprecedented. It dealt with last year's appropriations, not this 
year's, and it was not necessary. Quite frankly, it was bush league.
  I could go on into considerably more detail, but after consideration 
by myself, the Department of Agriculture and the gentleman from Oregon 
[Mr. Smith], the political hold was lifted. I would hope that in any 
future debate, whether it be crop insurance reform, or USDA 
reorganization, or a farm bill, or GATT, or anything, that this kind of 
action would not be necessary. The P.S. that I put on the letter to 
Secretary Espy was at any time he could come by my office and discuss 
any kind of a bill, regardless of our differences, and this kind of 
action simply was not needed, and it put a lot of people in a very 
difficult position, and again, it was not necessary.
  I think we see today with only one recorded vote on the USDA 
reorganization that even though we have strong differences of opinion, 
the Committee on Agriculture will work together, we will always work 
together.
  Again, I appreciate the chairman's leadership in this regard and I 
support his en bloc amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Murphy). The question is on the 
amendments offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
McDermott) having assumed the chair, Mr. Murphy, Chairman pro tempore 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
3171) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to reorganize the 
Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 544, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from 
the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1970) to authorize the 
Secretary of Agriculture to reorganize the Department of Agriculture, 
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the 
House.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the Senate bill is as follows:

                                S. 1970

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Department 
     of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purpose.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

             TITLE I--GENERAL AUTHORITIES OF THE SECRETARY

Sec. 101. Delegation of functions to the Secretary.
Sec. 102. Reorganization.
Sec. 103. Personnel reductions.
Sec. 104. Consolidation of headquarters offices.
Sec. 105. Reports by the Secretary.

                  TITLE II--NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. National Appeals Division and Director.
Sec. 203. Transfer of functions.
Sec. 204. Personnel of the Division.
Sec. 205. Notice and opportunity for hearing.
Sec. 206. Informal hearings.
Sec. 207. Rights of participants.
Sec. 208. Division hearings and Director review.
Sec. 209. Judicial review.
Sec. 210. Implementation of final determinations of Division.
Sec. 211. Decisions of State and county committees.
Sec. 212. Prohibition on adverse action while appeal is pending.
Sec. 213. Relationship to other laws.
Sec. 214. Evaluation of agency decisionmakers and other employees.
Sec. 215. Conforming amendments.

            TITLE III--FARM AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE SERVICES

Sec. 301. Under Secretary for Farm and International Trade Services.
Sec. 302. Farm Service Agency.
Sec. 303. State and county committees.
Sec. 304. International Trade Service.

           TITLE IV--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Sec. 401. Under Secretary for Rural Economic and Community Development.
Sec. 402. Rural Utilities Service.
Sec. 403. Rural Housing and Community Development Service.
Sec. 404. Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service.

            TITLE V--FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

Sec. 501. Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food, Nutrition, and 
              Consumer Services.
Sec. 502. Food and Consumer Service.
Sec. 503. Nutrition Research and Education Service.

              TITLE VI--NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

Sec. 601. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Sec. 602. Reorganization of Forest Service.

              TITLE VII--MARKETING AND INSPECTION SERVICES

Sec. 701. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.

             TITLE VIII--RESEARCH, ECONOMICS, AND EDUCATION

Sec. 801. Federal Research and Information Service.
Sec. 802. Cooperative State Research and Education Service.
Sec. 803. Agricultural Economics and Statistics Service.
Sec. 804. Program Policy and Coordination Staff.

                         TITLE IX--FOOD SAFETY

Sec. 901. Food Safety Service.

                         TITLE X--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 1001. Assistant Secretaries of Agriculture.
Sec. 1002. Removal of obsolete provisions.
Sec. 1003. Additional conforming amendments.
Sec. 1004. Termination of authority.
Sec. 1005. Elimination of duplicative inspection requirements.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to provide the Secretary of 
     Agriculture with the necessary authority to streamline and 
     reorganize the Department of Agriculture to achieve greater 
     efficiency, effectiveness, and economies in the organization 
     and management of the programs and activities carried out at 
     the Department.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act (unless the context clearly requires 
     otherwise):
       (1) Administrative unit.--The term ``administrative unit'' 
     includes--
       (A) any office, administration, agency, institute, unit, or 
     organizational entity, or component thereof, except that the 
     term does not include a corporation; and
       (B) any county, State, or area committee, as established by 
     the Secretary.
       (2) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the United 
     States Department of Agriculture.
       (3) Function.--The term ``function'' means an 
     administrative, financial, or regulatory duty of an 
     administrative unit or employee of the Department, including 
     a transfer of funds made available to carry out a function of 
     an administrative unit.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
             TITLE I--GENERAL AUTHORITIES OF THE SECRETARY

     SEC. 101. DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS TO THE SECRETARY.

       (a) Delegation of Functions.--Except as otherwise provided 
     in this Act and notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     all functions and all activities, officers, employees, and 
     administrative units of the Department, not vested in the 
     Secretary on the date of enactment of this Act, are delegated 
     to the Secretary.
       (b) Exceptions to the Delegation.--This section shall not 
     apply to the following functions and administrative units of 
     the Department:
       (1) The functions vested in administrative law judges by 
     subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) The functions vested in the Inspector General by the 
     Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 3).
       (3) The functions vested in the Chief Financial Officer by 
     chapter 9 of subtitle I of title 31, United States Code.
       (4) Corporations and the boards of directors and officers 
     of the corporations.
       (5) The functions vested in the Alternative Agricultural 
     Research and Commercialization Board by the Alternative 
     Agricultural Research and Commercialization Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 5901 et seq.).

     SEC. 102. REORGANIZATION.

       (a) General Authority of the Secretary.--The Secretary may 
     transfer any function or administrative unit of the 
     Department, including any function or administrative unit 
     delegated to the Secretary by this Act, and any officer or 
     employee of the Department, as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate. The authority established in the preceding 
     sentence includes the authority to establish, consolidate, 
     alter, or discontinue any administrative unit of the 
     Department.
       (b) Authority To Transfer Records, Property, and Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to section 1531 of title 31, 
     United States Code, the Secretary may transfer any of the 
     records, property, and unexpended balances (available or to 
     be made available for use in connection with any affected 
     function or administrative unit) of appropriations, 
     allocations, and other funds of the Department, as the 
     Secretary considers necessary to carry out this Act, except 
     as otherwise provided in this section.
       (2) Use.--Absent prior approval by law, any unexpended 
     balances transferred pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be used 
     only for the purposes for which the funds were originally 
     made available.
       (3) Additional authority.--The Secretary may make such 
     additional incidental dispositions of personnel, assets, 
     liabilities, grants, contracts, property, records, and 
     unexpended balances of appropriations, authorizations, 
     allocations, and other funds held, used, arising from, 
     available to, or to be made available in connection with the 
     functions or administrative units, as the Secretary considers 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
       (c) Purpose of the Authority.--The Secretary shall carry 
     out subsections (a) and (b) with the goals of simplifying and 
     maximizing the efficiency of the national, State, regional, 
     and local levels of the Department, and of improving the 
     accessibility of farm and other programs at all levels. To 
     the extent practicable, the Secretary shall adapt the 
     administration of the programs to State, regional, and local 
     conditions.
       (d) Exhaustion of Administrative Appeals.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, a person shall exhaust all 
     administrative appeal procedures established by the Secretary 
     before the person may bring an action in a court of competent 
     jurisdiction against--
       (1) the Secretary;
       (2) the Department;
       (3) an administrative unit of the Department; or
       (4) an employee or agent of an administrative unit of the 
     Department.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--Section 9 of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714g) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``(a)''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b).

     SEC. 103. PERSONNEL REDUCTIONS.

       (a) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       (1) Field structure.--The term ``field structure'' means 
     the offices, functions, and employee positions of all 
     administrative units of the Department, other than the 
     headquarters offices. The term includes the physical and 
     geographic locations of the units. The term shall not include 
     State, county, or area committees established under section 
     8(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 
     U.S.C. 590h(b)).
       (2) Headquarters offices.--The term ``headquarters 
     offices'' means the offices, functions, and employee 
     positions of all administrative units of the Department 
     located or performed in Washington, District of Columbia, or 
     elsewhere, as determined by the Secretary.
       (b) Employee Reductions.--Subject to subsection (c), the 
     Secretary shall achieve employee reductions of at least 7,500 
     staff years within the Department by September 30, 1999.
       (c) Distribution.--The percentage of employee reductions in 
     the headquarters offices under subsection (b) shall be 
     substantially higher than the percentage of employee 
     reductions in the field structure, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (d) Schedule.--The personnel reductions under subsections 
     (b) and (c) should be accomplished concurrently in a manner 
     determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 104. CONSOLIDATION OF HEADQUARTERS OFFICES.

       The Secretary shall develop and carry out a plan to 
     consolidate offices of administrative units of the Department 
     located in Washington, District of Columbia, subject to the 
     availability of appropriations.

     SEC. 105. REPORTS BY THE SECRETARY.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the Secretary may, but shall not 
     be required to, prepare and submit any report to Congress or 
     any committee of Congress.
       (b) Limitation.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary may 
     not prepare and submit more than 30 reports referred to in 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Selection of Reports.--In consultation with the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate, the Secretary shall determine which reports shall be 
     prepared and submitted in accordance with subsection (b).
                  TITLE II--NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

     SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this title:
       (1) Adverse decision.--The term ``adverse decision'' means 
     an administrative decision made by a decisionmaker that is 
     adverse to a participant, including a denial of equitable 
     relief, except that the term shall not include a decision 
     over which the Board of Contract Appeals has jurisdiction. 
     The term shall include the failure of a decisionmaker to 
     issue a decision or otherwise act on the request or right of 
     the participant to participate in, or receive payments, 
     loans, or other benefits under, any of the programs 
     administered by an agency. Notwithstanding section 701(a)(2) 
     of title 5, United States Code, a discretionary decision of 
     the Secretary or the Division shall be reviewable under 
     section 706(2)(A) of such title unless the decision is 
     generally applicable to all program participants and, as a 
     matter of general applicability, is committed to agency 
     discretion by law within the meaning of section 701(a)(2) of 
     such title.
       (2) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means any agency of the 
     Department designated by the Secretary or a successor agency 
     of the Department, except that the term shall include--
       (A) ASCS;
       (B) CCC, with respect to domestic programs;
       (C) FmHA (including rural housing programs);
       (D) FCIC;
       (E) RDA (including rural housing programs);
       (F) SCS; or
       (G) a State or county committee established under section 
     8(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 
     U.S.C. 590h(b)) or the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.).
       (3) Appellant.--The term ``appellant'' means a participant 
     who appeals an adverse decision in accordance with this 
     title.
       (4) ASCS.--The term ``ASCS'' means the Agricultural 
     Stabilization and Conservation Service or a successor agency.
       (5) Case record.--The term ``case record'' means all the 
     materials maintained by the Secretary that concern the 
     participant, including any materials related to the adverse 
     decision.
       (6) CCC.--The term ``CCC'' means the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation or a successor agency.
       (7) Decisionmaker.--The term ``decisionmaker'' means an 
     officer, employee, or committee of an agency who makes an 
     adverse decision that is appealed by an appellant.
       (8) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Division.
       (9) Division.--The term ``Division'' means the National 
     Appeals Division established by this title.
       (10) Employee.--The term ``employee'' means an individual 
     employed by an agency, including an individual who enters 
     into a contract with an agency to perform services for the 
     agency.
       (11) Final determination.--The term ``final determination'' 
     means a determination of an appeal by the Division that is 
     administratively final, conclusive, and binding.
       (12) FCIC.--The term ``FCIC'' means the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Corporation or a successor agency.
       (13) FmHA.--The term ``FmHA'' means the Farmers Home 
     Administration or a successor agency.
       (14) Hearing officer.--The term ``hearing officer'' means 
     an individual employed by the Division who hears and 
     determines appeals of adverse decisions by any agency.
       (15) Hearing record.--The term ``hearing record'' means the 
     transcript of a hearing, any audio tape or similar recording 
     of a hearing, any information from the case record that a 
     hearing officer considers relevant or that is raised by the 
     appellant or agency, and all documents and other evidence 
     presented to a hearing officer.
       (16) Implement; implementation.--The terms ``implement'' 
     and ``implementation'' refer to those actions necessary to 
     effectuate fully and promptly a determination of the Division 
     not later than 30 calendar days after the effective date of 
     the determination.
       (17) Participant.--The term ``participant'' means any 
     individual, group of individuals, partnership, corporation, 
     association, cooperative, or other entity whose application 
     for, or right to participate in or receive, payments, loans, 
     or other benefits in accordance with any of the programs 
     administered by an agency, is affected by an adverse decision 
     made by a decisionmaker.
       (18) RDA.--The term ``RDA'' means the Rural Development 
     Administration or a successor agency.
       (19) SCS.--The term ``SCS'' means the Soil Conservation 
     Service or a successor agency.
       (20) State director.--The term ``State director'' means the 
     individual who is primarily responsible for carrying out the 
     program of an agency within a State.

     SEC. 202. NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION AND DIRECTOR.

       (a) Establishment of Division.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     maintain a National Appeals Division within the Office of the 
     Secretary to carry out this title.
       (2) APA application.--The provisions of title 5, United 
     States Code, shall apply to all appeals of the Division, 
     including chapters 5 and 7 of such title.
       (3) Procedural regulations and policies.--The Secretary 
     shall promulgate procedural regulations and policies to 
     govern the conduct of the business of the Division. The 
     Secretary shall ensure and enhance the independence, 
     integrity, and efficiency of the Division, the Director, 
     hearing officers, and other employees of the Division.
       (b) Director.--
       (1) Appointment.--The Division shall be headed by a 
     Director.
       (2) Position classification.--The position of the Director 
     shall be a Senior Executive Service position that shall be 
     filled by a career appointee (as defined in section 
     3132(a)(4) of title 5, United States Code), who shall not be 
     subject to removal except for cause in accordance with law.
       (3) Qualifications.--The Director shall be a person who has 
     substantial experience in practicing administrative law. In 
     considering applicants for the position of Director, the 
     Secretary shall consider persons employed outside the 
     Government as well as Government employees.
       (4) Conforming amendment.--Section 5316 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``Director, National Appeals Division, Department of 
     Agriculture.''.
       (c) Direction, Control, and Support.--The Director shall be 
     free from the direction and control of any person other than 
     the Secretary. The Division shall not receive administrative 
     support (except on a reimbursable basis) from any agency 
     other than the Office of the Secretary. The Secretary may not 
     delegate to any other officer or employee of the Department, 
     other than the Director, the authority of the Secretary with 
     respect to the Division.
       (d) Communication With Secretary and Agencies.--The 
     Director shall inform the Secretary and the appropriate 
     agency of problems regarding the functions of the agency that 
     are identified as a result of the activities of the Division 
     under this title. The information provided by the Director 
     may include proposals to resolve the problems identified or 
     otherwise to improve the programs of the agency.
       (e) Appealable Decisions.--Subject to section 204(b)(2), if 
     a decisionmaker determines that a decision is not appealable 
     and a participant appeals the decision to the Director, the 
     Director shall determine whether the decision is adverse or 
     of general applicability, and thus appealable. Except for a 
     legal interpretation that may be reversed or modified by the 
     Secretary, the determination of the Director as to whether a 
     decision is appealable shall be administratively final, 
     conclusive, and binding.
       (f) Other Powers of the Director.--The Director may enter 
     into contracts and make other arrangements for reporting and 
     other services and make such payments as may be necessary to 
     carry out this title.

     SEC. 203. TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.

       There are transferred to the Division all functions 
     exercised and all administrative appeals pending before the 
     date of enactment of this Act (including all related 
     functions of any officer or employee) of or relating to--
       (1) the National Appeals Division established by section 
     426(c) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1433e(c)) 
     (as in effect before the amendment made by section 
     215(a)(2));
       (2) the National Appeals Division established by 
     subsections (d) through (g) of section 333B of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1983b) 
     (as in effect before the amendment made by section 215(b));
       (3) appeals of decisions made by FCIC; and
       (4) appeals of decisions made by SCS.

     SEC. 204. PERSONNEL OF THE DIVISION.

       (a) Appointment, Direction, and Control.--The Director 
     shall appoint such hearing officers and other employees as 
     are necessary for the administration of the Division. A 
     hearing officer or other employee of the Division shall have 
     no duties other than those that are necessary to carry out 
     this title. Hearing officers shall be supervised by the 
     Director. All other employees of the Division shall report to 
     the Director.
       (b) Legal Counsel.--
       (1) In general.--The Director shall employ legal counsel to 
     advise the Director with respect to legal questions affecting 
     the Division. The legal counsel shall not serve as a counsel 
     to any other agency of the Department. This subsection is not 
     intended to affect the role of the Office of General Counsel 
     in representing the Department in civil or criminal actions 
     or as a liaison between the Department and any other Federal 
     agency.
       (2) Review by the secretary.--If a hearing officer or the 
     Director disagrees with the General Counsel on a matter of 
     legal interpretation with respect to a program or authority 
     of the Department, the Secretary shall have the authority to 
     make a final determination on the interpretation at the 
     request of the General Counsel. The authority of the 
     Secretary under this paragraph may not be delegated.
       (c) Performance Evaluations.--The Director shall establish 
     policies to provide for the evaluation of the Director, 
     hearing officers, and other employees of the Division who are 
     involved in the appeal process under section 208 or the 
     supervision of other employees. The evaluation process shall 
     be designed to ensure and enhance the independence, 
     integrity, and efficiency of the Director and employees of 
     the Division. The actual evaluations shall include 
     evaluations by individuals outside of the Department and may 
     include peer review.

     SEC. 205. NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING.

       (a) Notice Required.--Not later than 10 working days after 
     an adverse decision is made that is adverse to the 
     participant, the Secretary shall provide the participant with 
     the written notice described in subsection (b).
       (b) Content of Notice.--The notice required under 
     subsection (a) shall contain a description of the following:
       (1) The decision, including all of the reasons, facts, and 
     conclusions underlying the decision.
       (2) The appeal and implementation process available to the 
     participant, including the rights and responsibilities of the 
     participant provided by this title.
       (3) An opportunity to request a determination by the 
     Director pursuant to section 202(e) concerning whether a 
     decision is appealable, if the decisionmaker determines that 
     the decision is not appealable.
       (c) Maintenance of Records.--The Secretary and the Director 
     shall maintain the entire case record and hearing record, 
     respectively, and any additional information from any further 
     appeal proceeding, of the participant at least until the 
     expiration of the period during which the participant may 
     seek administrative or judicial review of the determination.
       (d) Joinder.--
       (1) Guaranteed loans.--With regard to a guaranteed loan 
     under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1921 et seq.), a borrower or applicant who is directly 
     and adversely affected by a decision of the Secretary may 
     appeal the decision pursuant to this title without the lender 
     joining in the appeal.
       (2) Rental housing.--A tenant in rental housing of an 
     agency who is individually, directly, and adversely affected 
     by a decision of the Secretary may appeal the decision 
     pursuant to this title without the landlord joining in the 
     appeal.
       (3) Third parties.--If the Director determines that the 
     receipt of a payment, loan, or other direct benefit by a 
     participant may be directly, substantially, and adversely 
     affected by a determination of the Division, a hearing 
     officer may invite the participant to participate in a 
     hearing if the final determination resulting from the hearing 
     would, as a practical matter, foreclose the participant from 
     receiving the payment, loan, or other direct benefit of the 
     participant. If the participant elects to participate in the 
     hearing, the participant shall have the same procedural 
     rights as the appellant with regard to the hearing and other 
     procedures described in this title.
       (e) Effect of Reversal or Modification of Adverse 
     Decision.--If an adverse decision is reversed or modified by 
     the Division, a decisionmaker may not base any subsequent 
     adverse decision with regard to that appellant on the 
     information that was available to the previous decisionmaker 
     (or could have been available with reasonable diligence on 
     the part of the previous decisionmaker).

     SEC. 206. INFORMAL HEARINGS.

       If a decisionmaker of an agency makes an adverse decision, 
     the decisionmaker shall hold, at the request of the 
     participant, an informal hearing on the decision.

     SEC. 207. RIGHTS OF PARTICIPANTS.

       Among other rights, a participant shall have the right, in 
     accordance with this title, to--
       (1) appeal any adverse decision;
       (2) representation by an attorney or nonattorney throughout 
     the informal hearing and appeals process under this title;
       (3) access to, and a reasonable opportunity to inspect and 
     reproduce, the case record at an office of the agency located 
     in the area of the participant; and
       (4) an evidentiary hearing.

     SEC. 208. DIVISION HEARINGS AND DIRECTOR REVIEW.

       (a) Powers of Director and Hearing Officers.--To carry out 
     their responsibilities under this section, the Director and 
     hearing officers--
       (1) shall have access to all records, reports, audits, 
     reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, or other 
     material available that relate to programs and operations 
     with respect to which an appeal has been taken;
       (2) shall have the authorities that are provided under 
     section 202(a)(2);
       (3) may request such information or assistance as may be 
     necessary for carrying out the duties and responsibilities 
     established under this title from any Federal, State, or 
     local governmental agency or unit of the agency;
       (4) may, or shall at the request of an appellant with good 
     cause shown, require the attendance of witnesses and the 
     production of all information, documents, reports, answers, 
     records, accounts, papers, and other data and documentary 
     evidence necessary to the proper resolution of appeals;
       (5) may require the attendance of witnesses, and the 
     production of evidence, by subpoena; and
       (6) may administer oaths or affirmations.
       (b) Time for Hearing.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an 
     appellant shall have the right to--
       (A) request a hearing, not later than 30 days after the 
     date an adverse decision is made; and
       (B) have a hearing by the Division on the adverse decision, 
     not later than 45 days after receipt of the request for the 
     hearing.
       (2) Reduction or extension.--The Director may establish an 
     earlier deadline for a hearing (or request for a hearing) on 
     an appeal relating to a time sensitive decision, or delay a 
     hearing (or request for a hearing), at the request of an 
     appellant for good cause shown.
       (c) Location and Elements of Hearing.--
       (1) Location.--A hearing on an adverse decision shall be 
     held in the State of residence of the appellant or at a 
     location that is otherwise convenient to the appellant and 
     the Division.
       (2) Evidentiary hearing.--The evidentiary hearing before a 
     hearing officer shall be in person, unless the appellant 
     agrees to a hearing by telephone or by a review of the case 
     record and hearing record. The hearing officer shall conduct 
     and resolve the hearing (regardless of the hearing format) in 
     a fair and impartial manner and free of undue influence. The 
     hearing officer shall not be bound by previous findings of 
     fact by the agency in making a determination.
       (3) Information at hearing.--The hearing officer shall 
     consider information, including new information, presented at 
     the hearing without regard to whether the evidence was known 
     to the decisionmaker at the time the adverse decision was 
     made. The hearing officer shall leave the record open after 
     the hearing for a reasonable period of time to allow the 
     submission of information by the appellant or the 
     decisionmaker after the hearing to the extent necessary to 
     prevent the appellant or the decisionmaker from being 
     prejudiced by new facts, information, arguments, or evidence 
     presented or raised by the decisionmaker or appellant. At the 
     hearing, the agency may not rely on or assert new grounds for 
     the adverse decision, if the grounds were not described in 
     the agency decision notice.
       (4) Burden of proof.--The appellant shall bear the burden 
     of proving that the adverse decision of the agency was 
     erroneous.
       (5) Production of record.--An official verbatim record 
     shall be provided by the Division for each hearing before a 
     hearing officer. The appellant or agency representative may 
     record an unofficial record of the hearing.
       (6) Standard of review.--In any case pending before a 
     hearing officer, the hearing officer may determine that the 
     adverse decision was in error only if substantial evidence 
     demonstrates that the adverse decision was not correct. For 
     purposes of this paragraph, the evidentiary threshold for 
     substantial evidence is lower than the evidentiary threshold 
     for preponderance of the evidence.
       (7) Determination notice.--The hearing officer shall issue 
     a notice of the determination on the appeal not later than 30 
     days after a hearing or after receipt of the request of the 
     appellant to waive a hearing, except that the Director may 
     establish an earlier or later deadline pursuant to subsection 
     (b)(2). The hearing officer may include recommendations in 
     the determination notice. If the determination is not 
     appealed to the Director under subsection (d), the notice 
     provided by the hearing officer shall be considered to be a 
     notice of final determination.
       (d) Review by Director.--
       (1) Referral.--At the request of the appellant or the head 
     of the agency affected by a determination of a hearing 
     officer, the determination of the hearing officer shall be 
     referred to the Director for review.
       (2) Appeal by head of agency to director.--
       (A) Review of determination of hearing officer at the 
     request of an agency head.--In exceptional circumstances, if 
     the head of an agency believes that the determination of a 
     hearing officer is contrary to a statute or regulation, or a 
     finding of fact of a hearing officer is clearly erroneous, 
     only the head of the agency may make a written request, not 
     later than 10 business days after receipt of the 
     determination, that the Director review the determination.
       (B) Requests for review.--A request for review shall--
       (i) include a full description of--

       (I) the exceptional circumstances justifying the request 
     for review; and
       (II) the reasons that the head of the relevant agency 
     believes that the determination is contrary to statute or 
     regulation, or the finding of fact of the hearing officer is 
     clearly erroneous; and

       (ii) be provided to the appellant and the hearing officer 
     at the same time the request is provided to the Director.
       (C) Determination of director.--Not later than 10 business 
     days after receipt of the request for review, the Director 
     shall--
       (i) conduct a review of the determination based on the case 
     record and hearing record, the request for review under 
     subsection (b), and any additional arguments or information 
     submitted by the appellant or the hearing officer; and
       (ii)(I) issue a final determination notice that upholds, 
     reverses, or modifies the determination of the hearing 
     officer; or
       (II) if the Director determines that the hearing record is 
     inadequate, remand the determination for further proceedings 
     to complete the hearing record, or, at the option of the 
     Director, to hold a new hearing, and notify the appellant, 
     agency, and hearing officer of the remand.
       (D) New hearing.--If the Director remands a determination 
     for a new hearing on the adverse decision under subparagraph 
     (C), the hearing officer shall make a new determination with 
     respect to the adverse decision based on the case record and 
     the hearing record.
       (E) Finality.--The head of the relevant agency may not 
     request a second review as to the determination of the 
     hearing officer or the Director on the same issue.
       (3) Appeal by head of agency or appellant to director.--
       (A) Use of record.--If the determination of a hearing 
     officer is appealed under paragraph (1), the hearing officer 
     shall certify the hearing record and provide the record to 
     the Director.
       (B) New information.--The Director may consider, under 
     extraordinary circumstances, new information in reviewing a 
     determination under this section. The appellant, 
     decisionmaker, and hearing officer shall receive and have the 
     opportunity to comment on the new information.
       (C) Actions.--Not later than 30 days after the referral to 
     the Director, the Director shall--
       (i) review the hearing record and the determination;
       (ii) uphold the determination, issue a new determination, 
     require that a new hearing be held on 1 or more of the issues 
     considered at the original hearing, or take any combination 
     of the actions described in this clause; and
       (iii) issue a notice of--

       (I) a new evidentiary hearing;
       (II) a final determination; or
       (III) a remand on certain issues and a final determination 
     on remaining issues.

       (D) Recommendations.--The Director may include 
     recommendations in a final determination notice.
       (E) Relief.--The Director shall have the same authority as 
     the Secretary to grant equitable relief. Notwithstanding the 
     administrative finality of a final determination, the 
     Secretary shall have the authority to grant equitable or 
     other types of relief to the appellant after a final 
     determination is issued by the Division.
       (e) Basis for Determination.--The determination of the 
     hearing officer and the Director shall be based on 
     information from the hearing record, laws applicable to the 
     matter at issue, and applicable regulations published in the 
     Federal Register and in effect on the date of the adverse 
     decision or the date on which the acts that gave rise to the 
     adverse decision occurred, whichever date is appropriate. The 
     Director shall not reverse the determination of a hearing 
     officer with regard to a finding of fact that is based on 
     oral testimony or inspection of evidence unless the finding 
     of fact is clearly erroneous or the Director is considering 
     new information under subsection (d)(3) with respect to the 
     finding of fact.
       (f) Effective Date.--The final determination shall be 
     effective as of the date of filing of an application, the 
     date of the transaction or event in question, or the date of 
     the original adverse decision, whichever is applicable.

     SEC. 209. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       A final determination of the Division under section 208 
     shall be reviewable and enforceable by any United States 
     district court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with 
     chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code. Notwithstanding 
     section 701(a)(2) of such title, a discretionary decision of 
     the Secretary or the Division shall be reviewable under 
     section 706(2)(A) of such title unless the decision is 
     generally applicable to all program participants and, as a 
     matter of general applicability, is committed to agency 
     discretion by law within the meaning of section 701(a)(2) of 
     such title.

     SEC. 210. IMPLEMENTATION OF FINAL DETERMINATIONS OF DIVISION.

       (a) In General.--On the return of a case to an agency 
     pursuant to the final determination of a hearing officer or 
     the Director under section 208, the agency shall implement 
     the final determination of the Division not later than 30 
     days after the effective date of the notice of the final 
     determination.
       (b) Additional and Updated Information.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), after 
     notice of a final determination is received by the agency--
       (A) the agency may not require that additional and updated 
     information be provided by the appellant or considered by the 
     decisionmaker in implementing the final determination of the 
     hearing officer or the Director; and
       (B) additional and updated information from any other 
     source may not be used in implementing the final 
     determination.
       (2) Exceptions.--
       (A) Introduction by appellant.--If additional information 
     is introduced by the appellant during the appeal process and 
     accepted by the hearing officer or the Director, the agency 
     shall consider the additional information in implementing the 
     final determination.
       (B) Determination letter.--If the final determination 
     notice specifically states that additional and updated 
     information will be considered in implementing the final 
     determination, the agency shall consider any additional and 
     updated information in implementing the final determination.
       (C) Subsequent adverse decision.--Additional and updated 
     information considered under this paragraph may not be used 
     as a ground for a subsequent adverse decision.
       (c) Implementation Responsibilities.--
       (1) State director.--Each State director shall be--
       (A) required to implement final determinations of a hearing 
     officer or the Director that affect appellants in the State; 
     and
       (B) responsible for monitoring and ensuring the 
     implementation of final determinations that reverse and 
     modify adverse decisions.
       (2) Agency heads.--Relevant agency heads shall be 
     responsible for--
       (A) the performance of State directors under paragraph (1); 
     and
       (B) the implementation of all final determinations of the 
     Division that reverse or modify adverse decisions of the 
     agency.
       (d) Protection of Appellants' Rights.--
       (1) In general.--No officer or employee of the Federal 
     Government shall make or engage in threats or intimidation, 
     or solicit action, to prevent any potential appellant from 
     exercising a right of the appellant under this title or make, 
     solicit, or engage in retaliation or retribution for the 
     exercise of a right of an appellant under this title.
       (2) Corrective action.--If an officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government violates paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall take corrective action (including the imposition of 
     sanctions, when necessary) in conformance with civil service 
     laws.
       (e) Implementation Problems.--
       (1) Actions by relevant agency head.--The relevant agency 
     head shall promptly correct any problems that may arise in 
     the implementation of a final determination.
       (2) Oversight.--The Secretary shall assign employees within 
     the Office of the Inspector General whom appellants may 
     contact concerning problems with the implementation of final 
     determinations of the Division. The employees shall 
     investigate and, to the extent practicable, resolve the 
     implementation problems.
       (3) Identity and activities of oversight agency.--The 
     Secretary shall notify the Director of the business address 
     and telephone number of employees assigned under paragraph 
     (2). The Director shall include this information in the final 
     determination notice of the Division to an appellant.

     SEC. 211. DECISIONS OF STATE AND COUNTY COMMITTEES.

       (a) Finality.--Each decision of a State or county committee 
     (or an employee of the committee) that administers functions 
     of CCC, or functions assigned to ASCS on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, made in good faith in the absence of 
     misrepresentation, false statement, fraud, or willful 
     misconduct shall be final not later than 90 days after the 
     date of filing of the application for benefits, unless the 
     decision is--
       (1) appealed under this title; or
       (2) modified by the Administrator of ASCS or the Executive 
     Vice President of CCC.
       (b) Recovery of Amounts.--No action shall be taken by the 
     CCC, ASCS, or a State or county committee to recover amounts 
     found to have been disbursed as a result of a decision in 
     error if the decision of the State or county committee has 
     become final under subsection (a), unless the participant had 
     reason to believe that the decision was erroneous.

     SEC. 212. PROHIBITION ON ADVERSE ACTION WHILE APPEAL IS 
                   PENDING.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may not take any adverse 
     action against an appellant relating to an appeal while any 
     proceeding authorized or required under this title is 
     pending, including any action that would prevent the 
     implementation of a decision that is favorable to the 
     appellant.
       (b) Withholding.--This section shall not preclude the 
     Secretary from withholding a payment if the eligibility for, 
     or amount of, the payment is an issue on appeal, except that 
     ongoing assistance to then current borrowers and grantees 
     shall not be discontinued pending the outcome of an appeal.

     SEC. 213. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.

       (a) Other Rights.--This title is not intended to supersede 
     or deprive a recipient of assistance from an agency of any 
     rights that the recipient may have under any other law, 
     including section 510(g) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 
     U.S.C. 1480(g)).
       (b) Equitable Relief.--This title is not intended to affect 
     the authority of an agency head to grant equitable relief.
       (c) Employee Rights.--This title shall neither supersede 
     nor interfere with rights granted to employees or their 
     exclusive representatives by applicable civil service laws.

     SEC. 214. EVALUATION OF AGENCY DECISIONMAKERS AND OTHER 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Evaluation in Annual Review.--The Secretary shall 
     promulgate regulations to require the evaluation described in 
     subsection (b) as part of the annual review of the 
     performance of decisionmakers, State directors, and agency 
     heads.
       (b) Performance.--In the review, a decisionmaker, a State 
     director, or an agency head shall be considered to have 
     performed poorly if the decisionmaker, State director, or 
     agency head--
       (1) takes action that leads to numerous appeals that result 
     in adverse decisions that are reversed or modified;
       (2) fails to properly implement final determinations of the 
     Division;
       (3) fails to satisfactorily perform the reviewing and 
     monitoring responsibilities required under subsection (c) or 
     (e)(1) of section 210, whichever applies; or
       (4) threatens or intimidates, or engages in retaliation or 
     retribution against, an appellant in violation of section 
     210(d).
       (c) Sanctions.--If a decisionmaker, State director, or 
     relevant agency head has performed poorly (as determined 
     under subsection (b)), the Secretary shall issue sanctions 
     against the decisionmaker, State director, or relevant agency 
     head, as the case may be, which may include a formal 
     reprimand or dismissal consistent with civil service laws.

     SEC. 215. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) ASCS.--
       (1) Finality of farmers payments and loans.--Section 385 of 
     the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1385) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking the first sentence and inserting the 
     following new sentence: ``As used in this section, the term 
     `payment' means any payment under the Soil Conservation and 
     Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590a et seq.), any payment 
     under the wheat, feed grain, upland cotton, extra long staple 
     cotton, and rice programs authorized by the Agricultural Act 
     of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.) and this Act, or any loan or 
     price support operation, or the amount of the payment, loan, 
     or price support.''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``any such 
     payment'' and inserting ``a payment''.
       (2) Determinations by secretary; appeals.--Sections 412 and 
     426 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1429 and 1433e) 
     are repealed.
       (b) FmHA.--Section 333B of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1983b) is repealed.
       (c) FCIC.--The last sentence of section 508(f) of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(f)) is amended by 
     inserting before the period at the end the following: ``or 
     within 1 year after the claimant receives a final 
     determination notice from an administrative appeal made in 
     accordance with title II of the Department of Agriculture 
     Reorganization Act of 1994, whichever is later''.
            TITLE III--FARM AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE SERVICES

     SEC. 301. UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and 
     International Trade Services (referred to in this section as 
     the ``Under Secretary''), to be appointed by the President, 
     by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
       (b) Duties.--The Under Secretary shall exercise such 
     functions and perform such duties related to farm and 
     international trade services, and shall perform such other 
     duties, as may be required by law or prescribed by the 
     Secretary.
       (c) Continuity of the Position.--Any official serving as 
     Under Secretary for International Affairs and Commodity 
     Programs on the date of enactment of this Act, who has been 
     appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, shall 
     be considered on and after the date of enactment of this Act 
     to be serving in the successor position established by 
     subsection (a), and shall not be required to be reconfirmed 
     by reason of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``Under Secretary of Agriculture for 
     International Affairs and Commodity Programs.'' and inserting 
     ``Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and International 
     Trade Services.''.
       (2) Section 501 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 
     U.S.C. 5691) is repealed.

     SEC. 302. FARM SERVICE AGENCY.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     establish and maintain a Farm Service Agency (referred to in 
     this section as the ``Agency'') and assign to the Agency such 
     functions as the Secretary may consider appropriate.
       (b) Head.--
       (1) Agency.--If the Secretary establishes the Agency, the 
     Agency or any successor administrative unit shall be headed 
     by an Administrator who shall be appointed by the President, 
     by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
       (2) FCIC.--The Secretary may appoint the Administrator of 
     the Agency, or any other person, to serve as head of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
       (c) Functions.--Except as provided in subsection (d), the 
     Secretary is authorized to carry out through the Agency--
       (1) price and income support, production adjustment, and 
     other related functions;
       (2) functions of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation;
       (3) notwithstanding section 331 of the Consolidated Farm 
     and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981), agricultural 
     credit functions assigned prior to the date of enactment of 
     this Act to the Farmers Home Administration, including farm 
     ownership, operating, emergency, and disaster loan functions, 
     and other lending programs for producers of agricultural 
     commodities; and
       (4) any other function or administrative unit that the 
     Secretary considers appropriate.
       (d) Functions Not Assignable to the Agency.--Except as 
     otherwise determined by the Secretary, functions relating to 
     conservation programs authorized to be assigned to the 
     Natural Resources Conservation Service established under 
     section 601 may not be assigned to the Agency.
       (e) Use of Employees.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, in carrying out in any county or area any functions 
     assigned to the Agency or any successor administrative area, 
     the Secretary is authorized to--
       (1) use interchangeably, in the implementation of 
     functions, Federal employees, and employees of county and 
     State committees established under section 8(b) of the Soil 
     Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)); 
     and
       (2) provide interchangeably for supervision by the 
     employees of the performance of functions assigned to the 
     Agency.
       (f) Collocation.--The Secretary, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, shall collocate county offices of the Agency 
     with county offices of the Natural Resources Conservation 
     Service in order to--
       (1) maximize savings from shared equipment, office space, 
     and administrative support;
       (2) simplify paperwork and regulatory requirements;
       (3) provide improved services to producers and landowners 
     affected by programs administered by the Agency and the 
     Service; and
       (4) achieve computer compatibility between the Agency and 
     the Service to maximize efficiency and savings.
       (g) Continuity of the Position.--Any official serving on 
     the date of enactment of this Act, who has been appointed by 
     the President and confirmed by the Senate, shall not be 
     required to be reconfirmed by reason of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (h) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The second sentence of section 505(a) of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1505(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``the Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary of Agriculture 
     responsible for the farm credit programs of the Department of 
     Agriculture,'' and inserting ``one additional Under or 
     Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, as designated by the 
     Secretary,''.
       (2) Section 507(d) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1507(d)) is amended by striking ``section 516 of this 
     Act,'' and all that follows through the period at the end of 
     the subsection and inserting ``section 516.''.
       (3) Section 331(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``assets to the Farmers Home Administration'' and all that 
     follows through the period at the end of the subsection and 
     inserting ``assets to such officers or administrative units 
     of the Department of Agriculture as the Secretary may 
     consider appropriate.''.

     SEC. 303. STATE AND COUNTY COMMITTEES.

       Section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
     Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)) is amended--
       (1) by designating the first through eighth undesignated 
     paragraphs as paragraphs (1) through (8), respectively; and
       (2) in paragraph (5) (as so designated) by adding at the 
     end the following new sentence: ``The Secretary is 
     authorized, after consultation with the State committee of 
     the State in which the affected counties are located, to 
     terminate, combine, and consolidate two or more county 
     committees established under this subsection.''.

     SEC. 304. INTERNATIONAL TRADE SERVICE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     establish and maintain an International Trade Service 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Service'') and to 
     assign to the Service such functions or administrative units 
     as the Secretary may consider appropriate and consistent with 
     this Act.
       (b) Head.--If the Secretary establishes the Service, the 
     Service or any successor administrative unit shall be headed 
     by an Administrator who shall be appointed by the President, 
     by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
       (c) Functions.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out, 
     through the Service or through such other officers or 
     administrative units as the Secretary may consider 
     appropriate, programs and activities involving--
       (1) the acquisition of information pertaining to 
     agricultural trade;
       (2) market promotion and development;
       (3) promotion of exports of United States agricultural 
     commodities;
       (4) administration of international food assistance; and
       (5) international development, technical assistance, and 
     training.
       (d) Continuity of the Position.--Any official serving on 
     the date of enactment of this Act, who has been appointed by 
     the President and confirmed by the Senate, shall not be 
     required to be reconfirmed by reason of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--Sections 502 and 503 of the 
     Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5692 and 5693) are 
     repealed.
           TITLE IV--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

     SEC. 401. UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY 
                   DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Establishment.--Subsection (a) of section 3 of the 
     Rural Development Policy Act of 1980 (7 U.S.C. 2211b) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a)(1) There is established in the Department of 
     Agriculture the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture 
     for Rural Economic and Community Development to be appointed 
     by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate.
       ``(2) The Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Economic 
     and Community Development shall exercise such functions and 
     perform such duties related to rural economic and community 
     development, and shall perform such other duties, as may be 
     required by law or prescribed by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.''.
       (b) Continuity of Position.--Any official serving as Under 
     Secretary of Agriculture for Small Community and Rural 
     Development on the date of enactment of this Act, after 
     appointment by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate, shall be considered after the date of 
     enactment of this Act to be serving in the successor position 
     established by the amendment made by subsection (a), and 
     shall not be required to be reconfirmed by reason of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Small Community and Rural Development.'' and 
     inserting ``Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Economic 
     and Community Development.''.

     SEC. 402. RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE.

       (a) Establishment.--Notwithstanding section 364 of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2006f) 
     and any other provision of law, the Secretary is authorized 
     to establish and maintain within the Department the Rural 
     Utilities Service (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Service'') and to assign to the Service such functions and 
     administrative units as the Secretary may consider 
     appropriate.
       (b) Head.--If the Secretary establishes the Service, the 
     Service or any successor administrative unit shall be headed 
     by an Administrator who shall be appointed by the President, 
     by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
       (c) Functions.--The Secretary may carry out through the 
     Service, or through any other officer or administrative unit 
     as the Secretary may consider appropriate--
       (1) electric and telephone loan programs and water and 
     waste facility activities authorized by law, including--
       (A) the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et 
     seq.); and
       (B) section 2322 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
     and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 1926-1); and
       (2) water and waste facility programs and activities 
     authorized by law, including--
       (A) sections 306, 306A, 306B, and 306C, the provisions of 
     sections 309 and 309A relating to assets, terms, and 
     conditions of water and sewer programs, section 310B(b)(2), 
     and the amendment made by section 342 of the Consolidated 
     Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926, 1926a, 1926b, 
     1926c, 1929, 1929a, 1932(b)(2), and 1013a); and
       (B) section 2324 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
     and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 1926 note).
       (d) Continuity of the Position.--Any official serving on 
     the date of enactment of this Act, who has been appointed by 
     the President and confirmed by the Senate, shall not be 
     required to be reconfirmed by reason of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (e) Conforming Amendments to the Rural Electrification 
     Act.--
       (1) The first section of the Rural Electrification Act of 
     1936 (7 U.S.C. 901) is amended by striking ``there is'' and 
     all that follows through ``This Act'' and inserting ``this 
     Act''.
       (2) Section 2 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 902) is amended by 
     striking ``Administrator'' and inserting ``Secretary of 
     Agriculture''.
       (3) Section 3(a) of such Act (7 U.S.C 903(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Administrator, upon the request and 
     approval of the Secretary of Agriculture,'' and inserting 
     ``Secretary,''; and
       (B) by striking ``Administrator appointed pursuant to the 
     provisions of this Act or from the Administrator of the Rural 
     Electrification Administration established by Executive Order 
     Numbered 7037'' and inserting ``Secretary''.
       (4) Section 8 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 908) is amended--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``Administrator 
     authorized to be appointed by this Act'' and inserting 
     ``Secretary''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``Rural 
     Electrification Administration created by this Act'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary''.
       (5) Section 11A of such Act (7 U.S.C. 911a) is repealed.
       (6) Section 13 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 913) is amended by 
     inserting before the period the following: ``; and the term 
     `Secretary' means the Secretary of Agriculture''.
       (7) Sections 206(b)(2), 306A(b), 311, and 405(b)(1)(A) of 
     such Act (7 U.S.C. 927(b)(2), 936a(b), 940a, and 
     945(b)(1)(A)) are amended by striking ``Rural Electrification 
     Administration'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Secretary''.
       (8) Section 403(b) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 943(b)) is amended 
     by striking ``Rural Electrification Administration or of any 
     other agency of the Department of Agriculture,'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary''.
       (9) Section 404 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 944) is amended by 
     striking ``the Administrator of the Rural Electrification 
     Administration'' and inserting ``the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall designate an official of the Department of Agriculture 
     who''.
       (10) Sections 406(c) and 410(a)(1) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 
     946(c) and 950) are amended by striking ``Administrator of 
     the Rural Electrification Administration'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``Secretary''.
       (11) Such Act (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) is amended by striking 
     ``Administrator'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Secretary''.
       (f) Miscellaneous Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 236(a) of the Disaster Relief Act of 1970 (7 
     U.S.C. 912a) is amended by striking ``Rural Electrification 
     Administration'' and inserting ``Secretary pursuant to the 
     Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.)''.
       (2) The second undesignated paragraph of section 401 of the 
     Rural Electrification Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 818; 7 U.S.C. 903 
     note) is amended by striking ``Administrator of the Rural 
     Electrification Administration'' and inserting ``Secretary of 
     Agriculture''.
       (3) Section 15 of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act 
     of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 915) is amended by striking ``Rural 
     Electrification Administration'' and inserting ``Secretary''.
       (4)(A) Section 2333 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
     and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa-2) is amended--
       (i) by striking paragraph (1); and
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (11) as 
     paragraphs (1) through (10), respectively.
       (B) Chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XXIII of such Act (7 
     U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.) is amended by striking 
     ``Administrator'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Secretary''.

     SEC. 403. RURAL HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICE.

       (a) Establishment.--Notwithstanding section 364 of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2006f) 
     and any other provision of law, the Secretary is authorized 
     to establish and maintain within the Department the Rural 
     Housing and Community Development Service (referred to in 
     this section as the ``Service'') and to assign to the Service 
     such functions as the Secretary may consider appropriate.
       (b) Functions.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out 
     through the Service, or through any other officer or 
     administrative unit as the Secretary may consider 
     appropriate--
       (1) programs and activities under title V of the Housing 
     Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.);
       (2) programs and activities authorized under section 
     310B(i) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1932(i)) and related provisions of law; and
       (3) programs and activities that relate to rural community 
     lending programs, including programs authorized by sections 
     365 through 369 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008 through 2008d).

     SEC. 404. RURAL BUSINESS AND COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE.

       (a) Establishment.--Notwithstanding section 364 of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2006f) 
     and any other provision of law, the Secretary is authorized 
     to establish and maintain within the Department the Rural 
     Business and Cooperative Development Service (referred to in 
     this section as the ``Service''), and to assign to the 
     Service such functions as the Secretary may consider 
     appropriate.
       (b) Functions.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out 
     through the Service, or through any other officer or 
     administrative unit as the Secretary may consider 
     appropriate, programs and activities, including--
       (1) section 313 and title V of the Rural Electrification 
     Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 940c and 950aa et seq.);
       (2) subtitle G of title XVI of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5901 et seq.);
       (3) sections 306(a)(1) and 310B of the Consolidated Farm 
     and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(1) and 1932);
       (4) section 1323 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (Public 
     Law 99-198; 7 U.S.C. 1932 note); and
       (5) the Act of July 2, 1926 (44 Stat. 802, chapter 725; 7 
     U.S.C. 451 et seq.).
            TITLE V--FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

     SEC. 501. UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR FOOD, NUTRITION, 
                   AND CONSUMER SERVICES.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food, 
     Nutrition, and Consumer Services to be appointed by the 
     President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
       (b) Duties.--The Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food, 
     Nutrition, and Consumer Services shall exercise such 
     functions and perform such duties related to food, nutrition, 
     and consumer services, and shall perform such other duties, 
     as may be required by law or prescribed by the Secretary.
       (c) Continuity of the Position.--Any official serving as 
     Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Food and Consumer 
     Services on the date of enactment of this Act, after 
     appointment by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate, shall be considered to be serving in 
     the successor position established by subsection (a), and 
     shall not be required to be reconfirmed by reason of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food, Nutrition, and 
     Consumer Services.''.

     SEC. 502. FOOD AND CONSUMER SERVICE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     establish and maintain within the Department the Food and 
     Consumer Service (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Service'') and to assign to the Service such functions as 
     the Secretary may consider appropriate.
       (b) Functions.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out 
     through the Service, or through any other officer or 
     administrative unit as the Secretary may consider 
     appropriate, programs and activities, including--
       (1) the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.);
       (2) the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.); 
     and
       (3) the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et 
     seq).

     SEC. 503. NUTRITION RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SERVICE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     establish and maintain within the Department the Nutrition 
     Research and Education Service (referred to in this section 
     as the ``Service'') and to assign to the Service such 
     functions as the Secretary may consider appropriate.
       (b) Functions.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out 
     through the Service, or through any other officer or 
     administrative unit as the Secretary may consider 
     appropriate, programs and activities relating to human 
     nutrition research and education.
              TITLE VI--NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

     SEC. 601. NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     establish and maintain within the Department the Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service (referred to in this section 
     as the ``Service'') and to assign to the Service such 
     functions as the Secretary may consider appropriate.
       (b) Functions.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out 
     through the Service, or through any other officer or 
     administrative unit of the Department as the Secretary may 
     consider appropriate, programs and activities, including--
       (1) title X of the Agricultural Act of 1970 (16 U.S.C. 1501 
     et seq.);
       (2) the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 
     U.S.C. 590a et seq.);
       (3) the Water Bank Act (16 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.);
       (4) section 4 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103);
       (5) title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3801 et seq.);
       (6) title IV of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 
     U.S.C. 2201 et seq.);
       (7) section 202(c) of the Colorado River Basin Salinity 
     Control Act (43 U.S.C. 1592(c)); and
       (8) the Farms for the Future Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 4201 
     note).
       (c) Use of Employees.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, in carrying out in any county or area any functions 
     assigned to the Service or any successor administrative unit, 
     the Secretary is authorized to--
       (1) use interchangeably, in the implementation of 
     functions, Federal employees, and employees of county and 
     area committees established under section 8(b) of the Soil 
     Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)); 
     and
       (2) provide interchangeably for supervision by the 
     employees of the performance of functions assigned to the 
     Service.
       (d) Agricultural Conservation Program.--In carrying out the 
     Agricultural Conservation Program, the Secretary shall--
       (1) acting on the recommendations of the Service, with the 
     concurrence of the Farm Service Agency, issue regulations to 
     carry out the program; and
       (2) use a county committee established under section 8(b) 
     of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 
     U.S.C. 590h(b)) to make the final decision on which 
     applicants are eligible to receive cost share assistance 
     under the program based on priorities and guidelines 
     established at the national and State levels by the Service.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 5 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
     Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590e) is repealed.
       (2)(A) Section 2(2) of the Soil and Water Resources 
     Conservation Act of 1977 (16 U.S.C. 2001(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``the Soil Conservation Service of''.
       (B) Section 3(2) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 2002(2)) is amended 
     by striking ``through the Soil Conservation Service''.
       (C) The first sentence of section 6(a) of such Act (16 
     U.S.C. 2005(a)) is amended by striking ``Soil Conservation 
     Service'' and inserting ``Secretary''.

     SEC. 602. REORGANIZATION OF FOREST SERVICE.

       (a) In General.--Reorganization proposals that are 
     developed by the Secretary to carry out the designation by 
     the President of the Forest Service as a Reinvention Lab 
     pursuant to the National Performance Review (September 1993) 
     shall include proposals for--
       (1) reorganizing the Service in a manner that is consistent 
     with the principles of interdisciplinary planning;
       (2) redefining and consolidating the mission and roles of, 
     and research conducted by, employees of the Service in 
     connection with the National Forest System and State and 
     private forestry to facilitate interdisciplinary planning and 
     to eliminate functionalism;
       (3) reforming the budget structure of the Service to 
     support interdisciplinary planning, including reducing the 
     number of budget line items;
       (4) defining new measures of accountability so that 
     Congress may meet the constitutional obligation of Congress 
     to oversee the Service;
       (5) achieving structural and organizational consolidations;
       (6) to the extent practicable, sharing office space, 
     equipment, vehicles, and electronic systems with other 
     administrative units of the Department and other Federal 
     field offices, including proposals for using an on-line 
     system by all administrative units of the Department to 
     maximize administrative efficiency; and
       (7) reorganizing the Service in a manner that will result 
     in a larger percentage of employees of the Service being 
     retained at organizational levels below regional offices, 
     research stations, and the area office of the Service.
       (b) Report.--Not later than March 31, 1995, the Secretary 
     shall submit a report to the Committee on Agriculture of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate that describes actions 
     taken to carry out subsection (a) and identifies any 
     disparities in regional funding patterns and the rationale 
     behind the disparities.
              TITLE VII--MARKETING AND INSPECTION SERVICES

     SEC. 701. GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     establish and maintain within the Department the Grain 
     Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (referred 
     to in this section as the ``Administration'') and to assign 
     to the Administration such functions as the Secretary may 
     consider appropriate.
       (b) Functions.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out 
     through the Administration, or through any other officer or 
     administrative unit as the Secretary may consider 
     appropriate, programs and activities authorized under--
       (1) the United States Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et 
     seq.); and
       (2) the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 181 et 
     seq.).
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1)(A) Section 3 of the United States Grain Standards Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 75) is amended--
       (i) by striking subsections (z) and (aa); and
       (ii) by redesignating subsection (bb) as subsection (z).
       (B) Section 3A of such Act (7 U.S.C. 75a) is repealed.
       (C) Section 5(b) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 77(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``Service employees'' and inserting ``employees of 
     the Secretary''.
       (D) The first sentences of each of sections 7(j)(2) and 
     7A(l)(2) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 79(j)(2) and 79a(l)(2), 
     respectively) are amended by striking ``supervision by 
     Service personnel of its field office personnel'' and 
     inserting ``supervision by the Secretary of the field office 
     personnel of the Secretary''.
       (E) Section 12 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 87a) is amended--
       (i) in the first sentence of subsection (c), by striking 
     ``or Administrator''; and
       (ii) in subsection (d), by striking ``or the 
     Administrator''.
       (F) Such Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq.) is amended by striking 
     ``Administrator'' and ``Service'' each place either term 
     appears and inserting ``Secretary''.
       (2) Section 407 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 
     U.S.C. 228) is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (b);
       (B) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as 
     subsections (b) through (e), respectively; and
       (C) in subsection (e) (as so designated), by striking 
     ``subsection (e)'' and inserting ``subsection (d)''.
             TITLE VIII--RESEARCH, ECONOMICS, AND EDUCATION

     SEC. 801. FEDERAL RESEARCH AND INFORMATION SERVICE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     establish and maintain within the Department the Federal 
     Research and Information Service (referred to in this section 
     as the ``Service'') and to assign to the Service such 
     functions as the Secretary may consider appropriate.
       (b) Functions.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out 
     through the Service, or through any other officer or 
     administrative unit as the Secretary may consider 
     appropriate, programs and activities, including--
       (1) agricultural research; and
       (2) agricultural information and library services.

     SEC. 802. COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SERVICE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     establish and maintain within the Department the Cooperative 
     State Research and Education Service (referred to in this 
     section as the ``Service'') and to assign to the Service such 
     functions as the Secretary may consider appropriate.
       (b) Functions.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out 
     through the Service programs and activities, including--
       (1) cooperative research programs; and
       (2) agricultural extension and education programs.

     SEC. 803. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS SERVICE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary may establish and 
     maintain within the Department the Agricultural Economics and 
     Statistics Service (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Service'') and to assign to the Service such functions as 
     the Secretary may consider appropriate.
       (b) Functions.--The Secretary may carry out through the 
     Service, or through any other officer or administrative unit 
     as the Secretary may consider appropriate, programs and 
     activities, including--
       (1) economic analysis and research;
       (2) energy-related programs;
       (3) crop and livestock estimates; and
       (4) agricultural statistics.
       (c) State and Local Statistical Offices and Personnel.--The 
     authority provided by subsections (a) and (b) shall not 
     authorize a substantial change in the functions or structures 
     of State and local statistical offices and employees of the 
     offices.

     SEC. 804. PROGRAM POLICY AND COORDINATION STAFF.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     establish and maintain within the Department the Program 
     Policy and Coordination Staff (referred to in this section as 
     the ``Staff'') and to assign to the Staff such functions as 
     the Secretary may consider appropriate.
       (b) Functions.--If the Staff is established and maintained, 
     the Staff shall provide common program policy development for 
     the Federal Research and Information Service, the Cooperative 
     State Research and Education Service, and the Agricultural 
     Economics and Statistics Service.
       (c) Composition.--Not less than 50 percent of the employees 
     of the Staff shall be former employees of the Cooperative 
     State Research Service and the Extension Service, as in 
     existence on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Relationship to Functions Currently Performed by 
     NASS.--The Staff may not--
       (1) interfere with statistic collection and reporting; or
       (2) compromise the independence or integrity of statistic 
     collection and reporting functions of the National 
     Agricultural Statistics Service as in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                         TITLE IX--FOOD SAFETY

     SEC. 901. FOOD SAFETY SERVICE.

       (a) Meat Inspection.--The Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 
     U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new title:
                     ``TITLE V--FOOD SAFETY SERVICE

     ``SEC. 501. FOOD SAFETY SERVICE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     maintain within the United States Department of Agriculture 
     the Food Safety Service (referred to in this section as the 
     `Service') and to assign to the Service such functions as the 
     Secretary may consider appropriate.
       ``(b) Assistant Secretary for Food Safety.--
       ``(1) Appointment.--There shall be in the Service the 
     position of Assistant Secretary for Food Safety (referred to 
     in this section as the `Assistant Secretary'), who shall be 
     appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       ``(2) Continuity of the position.--Any official serving on 
     the date of enactment of this section, who has been appointed 
     by the President and confirmed by the Senate, shall not be 
     required to be reconfirmed by reason of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       ``(3) Relationship to the secretary.--The Assistant 
     Secretary shall report directly to the Secretary.
       ``(4) General powers.--The Secretary is authorized to carry 
     out, through the Service or through such other officers or 
     administrative units as the Secretary may consider 
     appropriate, programs and activities involving food safety 
     under this Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 
     U.S.C. 451 et seq.), including--
       ``(A) providing overall direction to the Service and 
     establishing and implementing general policies concerning the 
     management and operation of programs and inspection 
     activities of the Service;
       ``(B) coordinating and overseeing the operation of all 
     administrative entities within the Service;
       ``(C) research and inspection relating to meat, meat food 
     products, poultry, and poultry products in carrying out this 
     Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act;
       ``(D) conducting educational and public information 
     programs relating to the responsibilities of the Service; and
       ``(E) performing such other functions related to food 
     safety as the Secretary may prescribe, except that only 
     programs and activities related to food safety, as determined 
     by the Secretary, shall be administered through the Service.
       ``(c) Technical and Scientific Review Groups.--The 
     Secretary, acting through the Assistant Secretary, may, 
     without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States 
     Code, governing appointment in the competitive service, and 
     without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter 
     III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, relating to 
     classification and General Schedule pay rates--
       ``(1) establish such technical and scientific review groups 
     as are needed to carry out the functions of the Service, 
     including functions under this Act and under the Poultry 
     Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.); and
       ``(2) appoint and pay the members of the groups, except 
     that officers and employees of the United States shall not 
     receive additional compensation for service as a member of a 
     group.''.
       (b) Poultry Products Inspection.--The Poultry Products 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 29 as section 30; and
       (2) by inserting after section 28 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 29. ADMINISTRATION.

       ``The Secretary shall administer this Act through the 
     Assistant Secretary for Food Safety of the Food Safety 
     Service established under section 501 of the Federal Meat 
     Inspection Act.''.
                         TITLE X--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 1001. ASSISTANT SECRETARIES OF AGRICULTURE.

       (a) Establishment.--There are established in the Department 
     six positions of Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, each to 
     be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       (b) Functions.--Each Assistant Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall exercise such functions and perform such duties as may 
     be required by law or prescribed by the Secretary, and shall 
     receive compensation at the rate prescribed by law for an 
     Assistant Secretary of Agriculture. The compensation of any 
     person serving as an Administrator shall not be raised by 
     this Act.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 2 of the Act of February 9, 1889 (25 Stat. 659, 
     chapter 122; 7 U.S.C. 2212), is repealed.
       (2) Section 604 of the Rural Development Act of 1972 (7 
     U.S.C. 2212a) is amended by striking subsection (a).
       (3) Section 2 of Public Law No. 94-561 (7 U.S.C. 2212b) is 
     repealed.
       (4) Section 1413 of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3128) is 
     amended by striking subsection (d).
       (5) Section 8 of the International Carriage of Perishable 
     Foodstuffs Act (7 U.S.C 2212c) is amended by striking 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Continuity of Positions.--Notwithstanding subsections 
     (a) and (b) and the amendments made by subsection (c), any 
     official serving in any of the positions referred to in this 
     section on the date of enactment of this Act, after 
     appointment by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate, shall be considered after the date of 
     enactment of this Act to be serving in the successor 
     positions established by subsection (a) and shall not be 
     required to be reappointed by reason of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (e) Additional Conforming Amendments.--Section 5315 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Assistant Secretaries of Agriculture 
     (7)'' and inserting ``Assistant Secretaries of Agriculture 
     (six)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``Administrator, Farm Service Agency, Department of 
     Agriculture.
       ``Administrator, International Trade Service, Department of 
     Agriculture.
       ``Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, Department of 
     Agriculture.''.

     SEC. 1002. REMOVAL OF OBSOLETE PROVISIONS.

       Section 5316 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 
     Service, Department of Agriculture.'';
       (2) by striking ``Administrator, Agricultural Research 
     Service, Department of Agriculture.'';
       (3) by striking ``Administrator, Agricultural Stabilization 
     and Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture.'';
       (4) by striking ``Administrator, Farmers Home 
     Administration.'';
       (5) by striking ``Administrator, Foreign Agricultural 
     Service, Department of Agriculture.'';
       (6) by striking ``Administrator, Rural Electrification 
     Administration, Department of Agriculture.'';
       (7) by striking ``Administrator, Soil Conservation Service, 
     Department of Agriculture.'';
       (8) by striking ``Chief Forester of the Forest Service, 
     Department of Agriculture.'';
       (9) by striking ``Director of Science and Education, 
     Department of Agriculture.'';
       (10) by striking ``Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 
     Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture.''; and
       (11) by striking ``Administrator, Federal Grain Inspection 
     Service, Department of Agriculture.''.

     SEC. 1003. ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress 
     recommended legislation containing additional technical and 
     conforming amendments to Federal law that are necessary as a 
     result of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 1004. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the authority 
     delegated to the Secretary by this Act to reorganize the 
     Department shall terminate on the date that is 2 years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Functions.--Subsection (a) shall not affect--
       (1) the authority of the Secretary to continue to carry out 
     a function that the Secretary performs on the date that is 2 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (2) the authority delegated to the Secretary under 
     Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 (5 U.S.C. App. 1).

     SEC. 1005. ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATIVE INSPECTION 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall--
       (1) eliminate inspections of pilots and aircraft by the 
     Department of Agriculture;
       (2) develop with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration inspection specifications and procedures by 
     which aircraft and pilots contracted by the United States 
     Department of Agriculture will be inspected. The 
     Administrator will ensure that the inspection specifications 
     and procedures are met; and
       (3) permit the utilization by the Department of Agriculture 
     of inspections and certifications of pilots and aircraft 
     conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration.
       (b) Applicability.--An inspection requirement shall be 
     eliminated pursuant to subsection (a)(1) only if the pilots 
     and aircraft are inspected by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration for compliance with the safety regulations of 
     the Federal Aviation Regulations.


                   motion offered by mr. de la garza

  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. de la Garza moves to strike out all after the enacting 
     clause of S. 1970 and insert in lieu thereof the provisions 
     of H.R. 3171 as passed by the House, as follows:
       Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1970) entitled 
     ``An Act to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     reorganize the Department of Agriculture, and for other 
     purposes'', do pass with the following
       AMENDMENT:
  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Department 
     of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.

              TITLE I--GENERAL REORGANIZATION AUTHORITIES

Sec. 101. Transfer of Department functions to Secretary of Agriculture.
Sec. 102. Reductions in number of Department personnel.
Sec. 103. Combination of field offices.
Sec. 104. Improvement of information sharing.
Sec. 105. Director of External Affairs.
Sec. 106. Director for Administration.

            TITLE II--FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

Sec. 201. Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign 
              Agricultural Services.
Sec. 202. Agricultural Service Agency.
Sec. 203. State, county, and area committees.

          TITLE III--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Sec. 301. Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Economic and 
              Community Development.

            TITLE IV--FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

Sec. 401. Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food, Nutrition, and 
              Consumer Services.

               TITLE V--NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

Sec. 501. Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and 
              Environment.

              TITLE VI--RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

Sec. 601. Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and 
              Economics.

                         TITLE VII--FOOD SAFETY

Sec. 701. Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety.

                 TITLE VIII--NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

Sec. 801. Definitions.
Sec. 802. National Appeals Division and Director.
Sec. 803. Transfer of functions.
Sec. 804. Notice and opportunity for hearing.
Sec. 805. Informal hearings.
Sec. 806. Right of participants to division hearing.
Sec. 807. Division hearings.
Sec. 808. Director review of determinations of hearing officers.
Sec. 809. Judicial review.
Sec. 810. Implementation of final determinations of division.
Sec. 811. Conforming amendments relating to National Appeals Division.
Sec. 812. Expansion of issues covered by State mediation programs.

                   TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 901. Successorship provisions relating to bargaining units and 
              exclusive representatives.
Sec. 902. Office of environmental risk assessment.
Sec. 903. Fair and equitable treatment of socially disadvantaged 
              producers.
Sec. 904. Repeal of superseded provisions.
Sec. 905. Conforming amendments.
Sec. 906. Proposed conforming amendments.
Sec. 907. Purchase of American-made equipment and products.
Sec. 908. Conditions on implementation of alteration in level of 
              selenium allowed in animal diets.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       Except where the context requires otherwise, for purposes 
     of this Act:
       (1) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of Agriculture.
       (2) National appeals division.--The term ``National Appeals 
     Division'' means the National Appeals Division of the 
     Department established under section 802.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
              TITLE I--GENERAL REORGANIZATION AUTHORITIES

     SEC. 101. TRANSFER OF DEPARTMENT FUNCTIONS TO SECRETARY OF 
                   AGRICULTURE.

       (a) Transfer of Functions.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b), there are hereby transferred to the Secretary 
     of Agriculture all functions of all agencies, offices, 
     officers, and employees of the Department that are not 
     already vested in the Secretary as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     following functions:
       (1) Functions vested by subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 
     5, United States Code, in administrative law judges employed 
     by the Department.
       (2) Functions vested by the Inspector General Act of 1978 
     (5 U.S.C. App.) in the Inspector General of the Department.
       (3) Functions vested by chapter 9 of title 31, United 
     States Code, in the Chief Financial Officer of the 
     Department.
       (4) Functions vested in the corporations of the Department 
     or the boards of directors and officers of such corporations.
       (5) Functions vested in the Alternative Agricultural 
     Research and Commercialization Board by the Alternative 
     Agricultural Research and Commercialization Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 5901 et seq.).
       (6) Functions vested in the advisory board of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation established by section 9(b) of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714g(b)).
       (c) Delegation of Authority.--
       (1) Delegation authorized.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary may delegate to any agency, office, officer, or 
     employee of the Department the authority to perform any 
     function transferred to the Secretary under subsection (a) or 
     any other function vested in the Secretary as of the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Exception.--The delegation authority provided by 
     paragraph (1) shall be subject to--
       (A) sections 105(b)(1), 106(b)(1), 201(b)(1), 202(b)(1), 
     301(b)(1), 401(b)(1), 501(b)(1), 601(b)(1), 601(c)(2), 
     701(b)(1), 803, and 904 of this Act;
       (B) sections 502 and 503 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 
     1978 (7 U.S.C. 5692 and 5693); and
       (C) section 8(b)(5) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
     Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)(5)), as amended by section 
     203(a) of this Act.
       (d) Cost-Benefit Analysis Required for Name Change.--
       (1) Analysis required.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (2), the Secretary shall conduct a cost-benefit analysis 
     before changing the name of any agency, office, division, or 
     other unit of the Department to ensure that the benefits to 
     be derived from changing the name of the agency, office, 
     division, or other unit outweigh the expense of executing the 
     name change.
       (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect 
     to any name change specifically provided for in this Act.
       (e) Public Comment on Proposed Reorganization.--To the 
     extent that the implementation of the authority provided to 
     the Secretary by this Act to reorganize the Department 
     involves the creation of new agencies or offices within the 
     Department or the delegation of major functions or major 
     groups of functions to any agency or office of the Department 
     (or the officers thereof), the Secretary shall, to the extent 
     considered practicable by the Secretary--
       (1) give appropriate advance public notice of the proposed 
     reorganization action or delegation; and
       (2) afford appropriate opportunity for interested parties 
     to comment on the proposed reorganization action or 
     delegation.
       (f) Interagency Transfer of Records, Property, Personnel, 
     and Funds.--
       (1) Related transfers.--Subject to paragraph (2), as part 
     of the transfer or delegation of a function of the Department 
     made or authorized by this Act, the Secretary may transfer 
     within the Department--
       (A) any of the records, property, or personnel affected by 
     the transfer or delegation of the function; and
       (B) unexpended balances (available or to be made available 
     for use in connection with the transferred or delegated 
     function) of appropriations, allocations, or other funds of 
     the Department.
       (2) Applicable law relating to funds transfer.--Section 
     1531 of title 31, United States Code, shall apply to any 
     transfer of funds under paragraph (1).

     SEC. 102. REDUCTIONS IN NUMBER OF DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL.

       (a) Number of Reductions Required.--The Secretary shall 
     achieve Federal employee reductions of at least 7,500 staff 
     years within the Department by the end of fiscal year 1999. 
     Reductions in the number of full-time equivalent positions 
     within the Department achieved under section 5 of the Federal 
     Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-226; 108 
     Stat. 115; 5 U.S.C. 3101 note) shall be counted toward the 
     employee reductions required under this section.
       (b) Top-Down Reductions Required.--In achieving the 
     employee reductions required in subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall ensure that the percentage by which total employee 
     staff years in headquarters offices is reduced is at least 
     twice as great as the percentage by which total employee 
     staff years in field offices is reduced.

     SEC. 103. COMBINATION OF FIELD OFFICES.

       (a) Combination of Offices Required.--The Secretary shall 
     combine field offices of agencies within the Department, 
     where practicable and to the extent consistent with 
     efficiency, effectiveness, and service to farmers, improve 
     service to clients and reduce personnel and duplicative 
     overhead expenses.
       (b) Joint Use of Resources and Offices Required.--When two 
     or more agencies share a common field office, the Secretary 
     shall require the agencies to jointly use office space, 
     equipment, office supplies, administrative personnel, and 
     clerical personnel associated with that field office.

     SEC. 104. IMPROVEMENT OF INFORMATION SHARING.

       Whenever the Secretary procures or uses computer systems, 
     as may be provided for in advance in appropriations Acts, the 
     Secretary shall do so in a manner that enhances efficiency, 
     productivity, and client services and is consistent with the 
     goal of promoting computer information sharing among agencies 
     of the Department.

     SEC. 105. DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     the position of Director of External Affairs of the 
     Department of Agriculture. The Director of External Affairs 
     shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice 
     and consent of the Senate.
       (b) Functions of Director.--
       (1) Principal functions.--The Secretary shall delegate to 
     the Director of External Affairs those functions and duties 
     that were under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Secretary 
     of Agriculture for Congressional Relations and the Director 
     of Public Affairs of the Department as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Additional functions.--The Director of External Affairs 
     shall perform such other duties as may be required by law or 
     prescribed by the Secretary.
       (c) Succession.--Any official who is serving as Assistant 
     Secretary of Agriculture for Congressional Relations on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and who was appointed by 
     the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate--
       (1) shall be considered to be serving in the successor 
     position established by subsection (a); and
       (2) shall not be required to be reappointed to that 
     position by reason of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``Director of External Affairs of the Department of 
     Agriculture.''.

     SEC. 106. DIRECTOR FOR ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     the position of Director for Administration of the Department 
     of Agriculture. The Director for Administration shall be 
     appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       (b) Functions of Director.--
       (1) Principal functions.--The Secretary shall delegate to 
     the Director for Administration those functions and duties 
     that were under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Secretary 
     for Administration of the Department as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Additional functions.--The Director for Administration 
     shall perform such other duties as may be required by law or 
     prescribed by the Secretary.
       (c) Succession.--Any official who is serving as Assistant 
     Secretary of Agriculture for Administration on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and who was appointed by the 
     President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate--
       (1) shall be considered to be serving in the successor 
     position established by subsection (a); and
       (2) shall not be required to be reappointed to that 
     position by reason of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``Director for Administration of the Department of 
     Agriculture.''.
            TITLE II--FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

     SEC. 201. UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR FARM AND FOREIGN 
                   AGRICULTURAL SERVICES.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and 
     Foreign Agricultural Services. The Under Secretary shall be 
     appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       (b) Functions of Under Secretary.--
       (1) Principal functions.--The Secretary shall delegate to 
     the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign 
     Agricultural Services those functions and duties under the 
     jurisdiction of the Department that are related to farm and 
     foreign agricultural services.
       (2) Additional functions.--The Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services shall 
     perform such other functions and duties as may be required by 
     law or prescribed by the Secretary.
       (c) Succession.--Any official who is serving as Under 
     Secretary of Agriculture for International Affairs and 
     Commodity Programs on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and who was appointed by the President, by and with the 
     advice and consent of the Senate--
       (1) shall be considered to be serving in the successor 
     position established by subsection (a); and
       (2) shall not be required to be reappointed to that 
     position by reason of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Existing position.--Section 501 of the Agricultural 
     Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5691), relating to the Under 
     Secretary of Agriculture for International Affairs and 
     Commodity Programs, is repealed.
       (2) Executive schedule.--Section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for International Affairs and Commodity 
     Programs.'' and inserting ``Under Secretary of Agriculture 
     for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.''.

     SEC. 202. AGRICULTURAL SERVICE AGENCY.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     maintain an Agricultural Service Agency within the 
     Department.
       (b) Functions of Agricultural Service Agency.--
       (1) Principal functions.--The Secretary shall carry out 
     through the Agricultural Service Agency the following 
     activities that are under the jurisdiction of the Department:
       (A) Agricultural price and income support programs and 
     related programs.
       (B) General supervision of the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Corporation.
       (C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     agricultural credit programs formerly assigned by law to the 
     Farmers Home Administration (including farm ownership and 
     operating, emergency, and disaster loan programs) and other 
     lending programs for farmers and others engaged in the 
     production of agricultural commodities.
       (D) Agricultural conservation cost-share and demonstration 
     programs carried out by the Agricultural Stabilization and 
     Conservation Service or the Farmers Home Administration as of 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Additional functions.--The Secretary may assign to the 
     Agricultural Service Agency such additional functions as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate in connection with the 
     administration and implementation of authorities assigned to 
     the Secretary by law.
       (c) Jurisdiction Over Conservation Program Appeals.--
       (1) In general.--Until such time as an adverse decision 
     described in this paragraph is referred to the National 
     Appeals Division for consideration, the Agricultural Service 
     Agency shall have initial jurisdiction over any 
     administrative appeal resulting from an adverse decision made 
     under title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3801 et seq.), including an adverse decision involving 
     technical determinations made by the Soil Conservation 
     Service.
       (2) Treatment of technical determination.--With respect to 
     administrative appeals involving a technical determination 
     made by the Soil Conservation Service, the Agricultural 
     Service Agency, by rule with the concurrence of the Soil 
     Conservation Service, shall establish procedures for 
     obtaining review by the Soil Conservation Service of the 
     technical determinations involved. Such rules shall ensure 
     that technical criteria established by the Soil Conservation 
     Service shall be used by the Agricultural Service Agency as 
     the basis for any decisions regarding technical 
     determinations.
       (3) Reinstatement of program benefits.--Rules issued to 
     carry out this subsection shall provide for the prompt 
     reinstatement of benefits to a producer who is determined in 
     an administrative appeal to meet the requirements of title 
     XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 applicable to the 
     producer.
       (4) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``Soil Conservation Service'' includes any successor agency 
     to the Soil Conservation Service.
       (d) Use of Federal and Non-Federal Employees.--
       (1) Use authorized.--In the implementation of programs and 
     activities assigned to the Agricultural Service Agency, the 
     Secretary may use interchangeably in local offices of the 
     agency both Federal employees of the Department and non-
     Federal employees of county and area committees established 
     under section 8(b)(5) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
     Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)(5)).
       (2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), no personnel 
     action (as defined in section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, 
     United States Code) may be taken with respect to a Federal 
     employee unless such action is taken by another Federal 
     employee.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Crop insurance.--The Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C.1501 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in section 505(a) (7 U.S.C. 1505(a)), by striking ``the 
     Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary of Agriculture 
     responsible for the farm credit programs of the Department of 
     Agriculture,'' and inserting ``one additional Under Secretary 
     of Agriculture as designated by the Secretary,''; and
       (B) in section 507(d) (7 U.S.C. 1507(d)), by striking ``, 
     except'' and all that follows through ``agency''.
       (2) Farm and rural development.--Section 331(a) of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1981(a)) is amended by striking ``assets to the Farmers Home 
     Administration'' and all that follows through the period and 
     inserting ``assets to such officers or agencies of the 
     Department of Agriculture as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.''.

     SEC. 203. STATE, COUNTY, AND AREA COMMITTEES.

       (a) Amendment to the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
     Allotment Act.--Section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and 
     Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)'';
       (2) by designating the second through eighth undesignated 
     paragraphs as paragraphs (2) through (8), respectively; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (5) (as so designated) and 
     inserting the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) State, county, and area committees.--
       ``(A) Appointment of state committees.--The Secretary shall 
     appoint in each State a State committee composed of not fewer 
     than 3 nor more than 5 members who are fairly representative 
     of the farmers in the State. The members of a State committee 
     shall serve at the pleasure of the Secretary for such term as 
     the Secretary may establish.
       ``(B) Establishment of county or area committees.--(i) In 
     each county or area in which activities are carried out under 
     this section, the Secretary shall establish a county or area 
     committee. In the case of a county committee in existence on 
     the date of the enactment of the Department of Agriculture 
     Reorganization Act of 1994, the Secretary may not terminate 
     the country committee, alter the boundaries of the area 
     covered by the committee, or consolidate the committee with 
     other county committees, without the consent of a majority of 
     the producers in the area covered by the committee, as 
     determined in a referendum conducted by the Secretary.
       ``(ii) Any such committee shall consist of not fewer than 3 
     nor more than 5 members who are fairly representative of the 
     farmers in the county or area and who shall be elected by the 
     farmers in such county or area under such procedures as the 
     Secretary may prescribe.
       ``(iii) Only farmers within a local administrative area who 
     are producers who participate or cooperate in programs 
     administered within their area shall be eligible for 
     nomination and election to the local committee for that area.
       ``(iv) The Secretary shall solicit and accept nominations 
     from organizations representing the interests of socially 
     disadvantaged groups (as defined in section 355(e)(1) of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     2003(e)(1)).
       ``(v) Members of each county or area committee shall serve 
     for terms not to exceed 3 years.
       ``(C) Use of committees.--The Secretary shall use the 
     services of such committees in carrying out programs under 
     this section and the agricultural credit programs under the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et 
     seq.) and in considering administrative appeals under the 
     jurisdiction of the Agricultural Service Agency, as provided 
     by section 202(c) of the Department of Agriculture 
     Reorganization Act of 1994. In addition, to the extent the 
     Secretary determines appropriate, the Secretary may use the 
     services of such committees in carrying out programs under 
     other authorities administered by the Secretary .
       ``(D) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue such 
     regulations as the Secretary considers necessary relating to 
     the selection and exercise of the functions of the respective 
     committees, and to the administration through such committees 
     of the programs described in subparagraph (C). Pursuant to 
     such regulations, each county and area committee shall select 
     an executive director for the area or county. Such selection 
     shall be made in the same manner as provided for the 
     selection of the county executive director under section 
     7.21(b)(2) of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, as in 
     effect on January 1, 1994. Regulations governing payments or 
     grants under this subsection shall be as simple and direct as 
     possible, and, whenever practicable, they shall be classified 
     on the following two bases:
       ``(i) Soil-depleting practices.
       ``(ii) Soil-building practices.
       ``(E) Mandatory duties of secretary.--In carrying out this 
     section, the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) insofar as practicable, protect the interests of 
     tenants and sharecroppers;
       ``(ii) accord such encouragement to producer-owned and 
     producer-controlled cooperative associations as will be in 
     harmony with the policy toward cooperative associations set 
     forth in Federal laws and as will tend to promote efficient 
     methods of marketing and distribution;
       ``(iii) in every practicable manner, protect the interests 
     of small producers; and
       ``(iv) in every practical way, encourage and provide for 
     soil-conserving and soil-rebuilding practices.
       ``(F) Discretionary authorities of secretary.--In carrying 
     out this section, the Secretary may use other approved 
     agencies.
       ``(G) Limitations.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall not have the authority to acquire any land or 
     any right or interest in land.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--The Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by striking section 332 (7 U.S.C. 1982); and
       (2) in section 333 (7 U.S.C. 1983)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (B) redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as 
     paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), respectively.
          TITLE III--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

     SEC. 301. UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR RURAL ECONOMIC 
                   AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural 
     Economic and Community Development. The Under Secretary shall 
     be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       (b) Functions of Under Secretary.--
       (1) Principal functions.--The Secretary shall delegate to 
     the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Economic and 
     Community Development those functions and duties under the 
     jurisdiction of the Department that are related to rural 
     economic and community development.
       (2) Additional functions.--The Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Rural Economic and Community Development 
     shall perform such other functions and duties as may be 
     required by law or prescribed by the Secretary.
       (c) Succession.--Any official who is serving as Under 
     Secretary of Agriculture for Small Community and Rural 
     Development on the date of the enactment of this Act and who 
     was appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate--
       (1) shall be considered to be serving in the successor 
     position established by subsection (a); and
       (2) shall not be required to be reappointed to that 
     position by reason of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Loan Approval Authority.--Approval authority for loans 
     and loan guarantees in the electric and telephone loan and 
     loan guarantee programs authorized by the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) shall not 
     be transferred to, or conditioned upon review of, a State 
     director or other employee whose primary duty is not the 
     review and approval of such loans or the provision of 
     assistance to such borrowers.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Existing position.--Section 3 of the Rural Development 
     Policy Act of 1980 (7 U.S.C. 2211b) is amended by striking 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Executive schedule.--Section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Small Community and Rural Development.'' and 
     inserting ``Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Economic 
     and Community Development.''.
       (f) Amendments to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936.--
     The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) 
     is amended--
       (1) in section 1 (7 U.S.C. 901), by striking the first 
     sentence;
       (2) in section 2(a) (7 U.S.C. 902(a)), by striking 
     ``Administrator'' and inserting ``Secretary of Agriculture'';
       (3) in section 3(a) (7 U.S.C. 903(a))--
       (A) by striking ``Administrator, upon the request and 
     approval of the Secretary of Agriculture,'' and inserting 
     ``Secretary''; and
       (B) by striking ``Administrator appointed pursuant to the 
     provisions of this Act or from the Administrator of the Rural 
     Electrification Administration established by Executive Order 
     Numbered 7037'' and inserting ``Secretary'';
       (4) in section 8 (7 U.S.C. 908)--
       (A) by striking ``Administrator authorized to be appointed 
     by this Act'' and inserting ``Secretary''; and
       (B) by striking ``Rural Electrification Administration 
     created by this Act'' and inserting ``Secretary'';
       (5) by striking section 11A (7 U.S.C. 911a);
       (6) in section 13 (7 U.S.C. 913), by inserting before the 
     period the following: ``; the term `Secretary' shall be 
     deemed to mean the Secretary of Agriculture'';
       (7) in sections 206(b)(2), 306A(b), 311, and 405(b)(1)(A) 
     (7 U.S.C. 927(b)(2), 936a(b), 940a, and 945(b)(1)(A)), by 
     striking ``Rural Electrification Administration'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``Secretary'';
       (8) in sections 305(c)(2)(C)(ii)(II) and 306E(d) (7 U.S.C. 
     935(c)(2)(C)(ii)(II) and 936e(d)), by striking 
     ``Administrator'' both places it appears and inserting 
     ``Secretary'';
       (9) in section 403(b) (7 U.S.C. 943(b)), by striking 
     ``Rural Electrification Administration or of any other agency 
     of the Department of Agriculture,'' and inserting 
     ``Secretary,'';
       (10) in section 404 (7 U.S.C. 944), by striking ``the 
     Administrator of the Rural Electrification Administration'' 
     and inserting ``the Secretary shall designate an official of 
     the Department of Agriculture who'';
       (11) in sections 406(c) and 410 (7 U.S.C. 946(c) and 950), 
     by striking ``Administrator of the Rural Electrification 
     Administration'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Secretary'';
       (12) in the heading of section 501 (7 U.S.C. 950aa), by 
     striking ``of rea administrator''; and
       (13) except as otherwise provided in this subsection, by 
     striking ``Administrator'' each place it appears in such Act 
     and inserting ``Secretary''.
       (g) Miscellaneous Amendments Related to Rural 
     Electrification Administration.--(1) Section 236(a) of the 
     Disaster Relief Act of 1970 (7 U.S.C. 912a) is amended by 
     striking ``Rural Electrification Administration'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary under the Rural Electrification Act of 
     1936''.
       (2) Section 505 of the Department of Agriculture Organic 
     Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 915) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Rural Electrification Administration'' 
     and inserting ``Secretary of Agriculture''; and
       (B) by striking ``its'' and inserting ``the Secretary's''.
       (3) Section 401 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1938 (7 
     U.S.C. 903 note, 52 Stat. 818) is amended in the second 
     paragraph by striking ``Administrator of the Rural 
     Electrification Administration'' and inserting ``Secretary of 
     Agriculture''.
       (4) Chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XXIII of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
     950aaa et seq.), relating to Distance Learning and Medical 
     Link Programs, is amended--
       (A) in section 2333--
       (i) by striking paragraph (1); and
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (11) as 
     paragraphs (1) through (10), respectively;
       (B) in section 2334(h)(2), by striking ``section 
     2333(3)(F)'' and inserting ``section 2333(2)(F)''; and
       (C) by striking ``Administrator'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Secretary''.
            TITLE IV--FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES

     SEC. 401. UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR FOOD, NUTRITION, 
                   AND CONSUMER SERVICES.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food, 
     Nutrition, and Consumer Services. The Under Secretary shall 
     be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       (b) Functions of Under Secretary.--
       (1) Principal functions.--The Secretary shall delegate to 
     the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food, Nutrition, and 
     Consumer Services those functions and duties under the 
     jurisdiction of the Department that are related to food, 
     nutrition, and consumer services (except as provided in 
     section 701(b)(1)).
       (2) Additional functions.--The Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services shall 
     perform such other functions and duties as may be required by 
     law or prescribed by the Secretary.
       (c) Succession.--Any official who is serving as Assistant 
     Secretary of Agriculture for Food and Consumer Services on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act and who was appointed 
     by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate--
       (1) shall be considered to be serving in the successor 
     position established by subsection (a); and
       (2) shall not be required to be reappointed to that 
     position by reason of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Executive Schedule.--Section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign 
     Agricultural Services (as added by section 201(d)(2)) the 
     following:
       ``Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food, Nutrition, and 
     Consumer Services.''.
               TITLE V--NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

     SEC. 501. UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR NATURAL 
                   RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural 
     Resources and Environment. The Under Secretary shall be 
     appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       (b) Functions of Under Secretary.--
       (1) Principal functions.--The Secretary shall delegate to 
     the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and 
     Environment those functions and duties under the jurisdiction 
     of the Department that are related to natural resources and 
     the environment (except to the extent those functions and 
     duties are delegated to the Agricultural Service Agency under 
     section 202).
       (2) Additional functions.--The Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment shall 
     perform such other functions and duties as may be required by 
     law or prescribed by the Secretary.
       (c) Succession.--Any official who is serving as Assistant 
     Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and 
     Environment on the date of the enactment of this Act and who 
     was appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate--
       (1) shall be considered to be serving in the successor 
     position established by subsection (a); and
       (2) shall not be required to be reappointed to that 
     position by reason of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Executive Schedule.--Section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food, Nutrition, 
     and Consumer Services (as added by section 401(d)) the 
     following:
       ``Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and 
     Environment.''.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Soil conservation service.--Section 5 of the Soil 
     Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590e) is 
     repealed.
       (2) Soil and water resources conservation.--The Soil and 
     Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (16 U.S.C. 2001) is 
     amended--
       (A) in section 2(2) (16 U.S.C. 2001(2))--
       (i) by striking ``created the Soil Conservation Service''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``Department of Agriculture which'' and 
     inserting ``, has ensured that the Department of 
     Agriculture'';
       (B) in section 3(2) (16 U.S.C. 2002(2)), by striking 
     ``through the Soil Conservation Service''; and
       (C) in section 6(a) (16 U.S.C. 2005(a)), by striking ``Soil 
     Conservation Service'' and inserting ``Secretary''.
              TITLE VI--RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

     SEC. 601. UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR RESEARCH, 
                   EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, 
     Education, and Economics. The Under Secretary shall be 
     appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       (b) Functions of Under Secretary.--
       (1) Principal functions.--The Secretary shall delegate to 
     the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, 
     and Economics those functions and duties under the 
     jurisdiction of the Department that are related to research, 
     education, and economics.
       (2) Additional functions.--The Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics shall 
     perform such other functions and duties as may be required by 
     law or prescribed by the Secretary.
       (c) Cooperative State Research and Education Service.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     maintain within the Department a Cooperative State Research 
     and Education Service.
       (2) Duties.--The Secretary shall delegate to the 
     Cooperative State Research and Education Service functions 
     related to cooperative State research programs and 
     cooperative extension and education programs that are under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department.
       (3) Officer-in-charge.--The officer in charge of the 
     Cooperative State Research and Education Service shall report 
     directly to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, 
     Education, and Economics.
       (d) Executive Schedule.--Section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources 
     and Environment (as added by section 501(d)) the following:
       ``Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, 
     and Economics.''.
                         TITLE VII--FOOD SAFETY

     SEC. 701. UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR FOOD SAFETY.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     of Agriculture the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture 
     for Food Safety. The Under Secretary shall be appointed by 
     the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate, from among individuals with specialized training or 
     significant experience in food safety or public health 
     programs.
       (b) Functions of Under Secretary.--
       (1) Principal functions.--The Secretary shall delegate to 
     the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety those 
     functions and duties under the jurisdiction of the Department 
     that are related to food safety.
       (2) Additional functions.--The Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Food Safety shall perform such other 
     functions and duties as may be required by law or prescribed 
     by the Secretary.
       (c) Executive Schedule.--Section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, 
     Education, and Economics (as added by section 601(d)) the 
     following:
       ``Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety.''.
                 TITLE VIII--NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

     SEC. 801. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title:
       (1) Adverse decision.--The term ``adverse decision'' means 
     an administrative decision made by an officer, employee, or 
     committee of an agency that is adverse to a participant. The 
     term includes a denial of equitable relief by an agency or 
     the failure of an agency to issue a decision or otherwise act 
     on the request or right of the participant. The term does not 
     include a decision over which the Board of Contract Appeals 
     has jurisdiction.
       (2) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means any agency of the 
     Department designated by the Secretary or a successor agency 
     of the Department, except that the term shall include the 
     following (and any successor to the following):
       (A) The Agricultural Service Agency.
       (B) The Commodity Credit Corporation, with respect to 
     domestic programs.
       (C) The Farmers Home Administration.
       (D) The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
       (E) The Rural Development Administration.
       (F) The Soil Conservation Service.
       (G) A State, county, or area committee established under 
     section 8(b)(5) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
     Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)(5)).
       (3) Appellant.--The term ``appellant'' means a participant 
     who appeals an adverse decision in accordance with this 
     title.
       (4) Case record.--The term ``case record'' means all the 
     materials maintained by the Secretary related to an adverse 
     decision.
       (5) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Division.
       (6) Division.--The term ``Division'' means the National 
     Appeals Division established by this title.
       (7) Hearing officer.--The term ``hearing officer'' means an 
     individual employed by the Division who hears and determines 
     appeals of adverse decisions by any agency.
       (8) Participant.--The term ``participant'' means any 
     individual, partnership, corporation, association, 
     cooperative, or other entity whose application for, or right 
     to participate in or receive, payments or loans in accordance 
     with any of the programs administered by an agency is 
     affected by an adverse decision of an agency.

     SEC. 802. NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION AND DIRECTOR.

       (a) Establishment of Division.--The Secretary shall 
     establish and maintain an independent National Appeals 
     Division within the Department to carry out this title.
       (b) Director.--
       (1) Appointment.--The Division shall be headed by a 
     Director, appointed by the Secretary from among persons who 
     have substantial experience in practicing administrative law. 
     In considering applicants for the position of Director, the 
     Secretary shall consider persons currently employed outside 
     Government as well as Government employees.
       (2) Term and removal.--The Director shall serve for a 6-
     year term of office, and shall be eligible for reappointment. 
     The Director shall not be subject to removal during the term 
     of office, except for cause established in accordance with 
     law.
       (3) Position classification.--The position of the Director 
     may not be a position in the excepted service or filled by a 
     noncareer appointee.
       (c) Direction, Control, and Support.--The Director shall be 
     free from the direction and control of any person other than 
     the Secretary. The Division shall not receive administrative 
     support (except on a reimbursable basis) from any agency 
     other than the Office of the Secretary. The Secretary may not 
     delegate to any other officer or employee of the Department, 
     other than the Director, the authority of the Secretary with 
     respect to the Division.
       (d) Determination of Appealability of Agency Decisions.--If 
     an officer, employee, or committee of an agency determines 
     that a decision is not appealable and a participant appeals 
     the decision to the Director, the Director shall determine 
     whether the decision is adverse to the individual participant 
     and thus appealable or is a matter of general applicability 
     and thus not subject to appeal. The determination of the 
     Director as to whether a decision is appealable shall be 
     administratively final.
       (e) Division Personnel.--The Director shall appoint such 
     hearing officers and other employees as are necessary for the 
     administration of the Division. A hearing officer or other 
     employee of the Division shall have no duties other than 
     those that are necessary to carry out this title.

     SEC. 803. TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.

       There are transferred to the Division all functions 
     exercised and all administrative appeals pending before the 
     effective date of this title (including all related functions 
     of any officer or employee) of or relating to--
       (1) the National Appeals Division established by section 
     426(c) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1433e(c)) 
     (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act);
       (2) the National Appeals Division established by 
     subsections (d) through (g) of section 333B of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1983b) 
     (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act);
       (3) appeals of decisions made by the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Corporation; and
       (4) appeals of decisions made by the Soil Conservation 
     Service.

     SEC. 804. NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING.

       Not later than 10 working days after an adverse decision is 
     made that affects the participant, the Secretary shall 
     provide the participant with the written notice of such 
     adverse decision and the rights available to the participant 
     under this title or other law for the review of such adverse 
     decision.

     SEC. 805. INFORMAL HEARINGS.

       If an officer, employee, or committee of an agency makes an 
     adverse decision, the agency shall hold, at the request of 
     the participant, an informal hearing on the decision. With 
     respect to programs carried out through the Agricultural 
     Service Agency, the Secretary shall maintain the informal 
     appeals process applicable to such programs, as in effect on 
     the date of the enactment of the title. If a mediation 
     program is available under title V of the Agricultural Credit 
     Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) as a part of the informal 
     hearing process, the participant shall be offered the right 
     to choose such mediation.

     SEC. 806. RIGHT OF PARTICIPANTS TO DIVISION HEARING.

       (a) Appeal to Division for Hearing.--Subject to subsection 
     (b), a participant shall have the right to appeal an adverse 
     decision to the Division for an evidentiary hearing by a 
     hearing officer consistent with section 807.
       (b) Time for Appeal.--To be entitled to a hearing under 
     section 807, a participant shall request the hearing not 
     later than 30 days after the date on which the participant 
     first received notice of the adverse decision.

     SEC. 807. DIVISION HEARINGS.

       (a) General Powers of Director and Hearing Officers.--
       (1) Access to case record.--The Director and hearing 
     officer shall have access to the case record of any adverse 
     decision appealed to the Division for a hearing.
       (2) Administrative procedures.--The Director and hearing 
     officer shall have the authority to require the attendance of 
     witnesses, and the production of evidence, by subpoena and to 
     administer oaths and affirmations. Except to the extent 
     required for the disposition of ex parte matters as 
     authorized by law--
       (A) an interested person outside the Division shall not 
     make or knowingly cause to be made to the Director or a 
     hearing officer who is or may reasonably be expected to be 
     involved in the evidentiary hearing or review of an adverse 
     decision, an ex parte communication (as defined in section 
     551(14) of title 5, United States Code) relevant to the 
     merits of the proceeding;
       (B) the Director and such hearing officer shall not make or 
     knowingly cause to be made to any interested person outside 
     the Division an ex parte communication relevant to the merits 
     of the proceeding.
       (b) Time for Hearing.--Upon a timely request for a hearing 
     under section 806(b), an appellant shall have the right to 
     have a hearing by the Division on the adverse decision within 
     45 days after the date of the receipt of the request for the 
     hearing.
       (c) Location and Elements of Hearing.--
       (1) Location.--A hearing on an adverse decision shall be 
     held in the State of residence of the appellant or at a 
     location that is otherwise convenient to the appellant and 
     the Division.
       (2) Evidentiary hearing.--The evidentiary hearing before a 
     hearing officer shall be in person, unless the appellant 
     agrees to a hearing by telephone or by a review of the case 
     record. The hearing officer shall not be bound by previous 
     findings of fact by the agency in making a determination.
       (3) Information at hearing.--The hearing officer shall 
     consider information presented at the hearing without regard 
     to whether the evidence was known to the agency officer, 
     employee, or committee making the adverse decision at the 
     time the adverse decision was made. The hearing officer shall 
     leave the record open after the hearing for a reasonable 
     period of time to allow the submission of information by the 
     appellant or the agency after the hearing to the extent 
     necessary to respond to new facts, information, arguments, or 
     evidence presented or raised by the agency or appellant.
       (4) Burden of proof.--The appellant shall bear the burden 
     of proving that the adverse decision of the agency was 
     erroneous.
       (d) Determination Notice.--The hearing officer shall issue 
     a notice of the determination on the appeal not later than 30 
     days after a hearing or after receipt of the request of the 
     appellant to waive a hearing, except that the Director may 
     establish an earlier or later deadline. If the determination 
     is not appealed to the Director for review under section 808, 
     the notice provided by the hearing officer shall be 
     considered to be a notice of final determination.
       (e) Effective Date.--The final determination shall be 
     effective as of the date of filing of an application, the 
     date of the transaction or event in question, or the date of 
     the original adverse decision, whichever is applicable.

     SEC. 808. DIRECTOR REVIEW OF DETERMINATIONS OF HEARING 
                   OFFICERS.

       (a) Requests for Director Review.--
       (1) Time for request by appellant.--Not later than 30 days 
     after the date on which an appellant receives the 
     determination of a hearing officer under section 807, the 
     appellant shall submit a written request to the Director for 
     review of the determination in order to be entitled to a 
     review by the Director of the determination.
       (2) Time for request by agency head.--Not later 15 business 
     days after the date on which an agency receives the 
     determination of a hearing officer under section 807, the 
     head of the agency may make a written request that the 
     Director review the determination.
       (b) Determination of director.--The Director shall conduct 
     a review of the determination of the hearing officer using 
     the case record, the record from the evidentiary hearing 
     under section 807, the request for review, and such other 
     arguments or information as may be accepted by the Director. 
     Based on such review, the Director shall issue a final 
     determination notice that upholds, reverses, or modifies the 
     determination of the hearing officer. However, if the 
     Director determines that the hearing record is inadequate, 
     the Director may remand all or a portion of the determination 
     for further proceedings to complete the hearing record or, at 
     the option of the Director, to hold a new hearing. The 
     Director shall complete the review and either issue a final 
     determination or remand the determination not later than--
       (1) 10 business days after receipt of the request for 
     review, in the case of a request by the head of an agency for 
     review; or
       (2) 30 business days after receipt of the request for 
     review, in the case of a request by an appellant for review.
       (c) Equitable Relief.--Subject to regulations issued by the 
     Secretary, the Director shall have the authority to grant 
     equitable relief under this section in the same manner and to 
     the same extent as such authority is provided to the 
     Secretary under section 326 of the Food and Agriculture Act 
     of 1962 (7 U.S.C. 1339a) and other laws. Notwithstanding the 
     administrative finality of a final determination of an appeal 
     by the Division, the Secretary shall have the authority to 
     grant equitable or other types of relief to the appellant 
     after a final determination is issued by the Division.
       (d) Effective Date.--A final determination issued by the 
     Director shall be effective as of the date of filing of an 
     application, the date of the transaction or event in 
     question, or the date of the original adverse decision, 
     whichever is applicable.

     SEC. 809. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       A final determination of the Division shall be reviewable 
     and enforceable by any United States district court of 
     competent jurisdiction in accordance with chapter 7 of title 
     5, United States Code.

     SEC. 810. IMPLEMENTATION OF FINAL DETERMINATIONS OF DIVISION.

       On the return of a case to an agency pursuant to the final 
     determination of the Division, the head of the agency shall 
     implement the final determination not later than 30 days 
     after the effective date of the notice of the final 
     determination.

     SEC. 811. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS RELATING TO NATIONAL APPEALS 
                   DIVISION.

       (a) Decisions of State, County, and Area Committees.--
       (1) Application of subsection.--This subsection shall apply 
     only with respect to functions of the Agricultural Service 
     Agency or the Commodity Credit Corporation that are under the 
     jurisdiction of a State, county, or area committee 
     established under section 8(b)(5) of the Soil Conservation 
     and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)(5)) or an 
     employee of such a committee.
       (2) Finality.--Each decision of a State, county, or area 
     committee (or an employee of such a committee) covered by 
     paragraph (1) that is made in good faith in the absence of 
     misrepresentation, false statement, fraud, or willful 
     misconduct shall be final not later than 90 days after the 
     date of filing of the application for benefits, unless the 
     decision is--
       (A) appealed under this title; or
       (B) modified by the Administrator of the Agricultural 
     Service Agency or the Executive Vice President of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation.
       (3) Recovery of Amounts.--If the decision of the State, 
     county, or area committee has become final under paragraph 
     (2), no action may be taken by the Agricultural Service 
     Agency, the Commodity Credit Corporation, or a State, county, 
     or area committee to recover amounts found to have been 
     disbursed as a result of a decision in error unless the 
     participant had reason to believe that the decision was 
     erroneous.
       (b) Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.--
     Section 426 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1433e) 
     is repealed.
       (c) Farmers Home Administration.--Section 333B of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1983b) 
     is repealed.
       (d) Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.--The last sentence 
     of section 508(f) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(f)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end 
     the following: ``or within 1 year after the claimant receives 
     a final determination notice from an administrative appeal 
     made in accordance with title VIII of the Department of 
     Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, whichever is later''.

     SEC. 812. EXPANSION OF ISSUES COVERED BY STATE MEDIATION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Expansion of Mediation Programs.--Section 501 of the 
     Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``an agricultural loan 
     mediation program'' and inserting ``a mediation program'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``agricultural loan''; 
     and
       (3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(c) Requirements of State Mediation Programs.--
       ``(1) Issues covered.--To be certified as a qualifying 
     State, the mediation program of the State must provide 
     mediation services for the persons described in paragraph (2) 
     who are involved in agricultural loans or agricultural loans 
     and one or more of the following issues under the 
     jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture:
       ``(A) Wetlands determinations.
       ``(B) Compliance with farm programs, including conservation 
     programs.
       ``(C) Agricultural credit.
       ``(D) Rural water loan programs.
       ``(E) Grazing on National Forest System lands.
       ``(F) Pesticides.
       ``(G) Such other issues as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(2) Persons eligible for mediation.--The persons referred 
     to in paragraph (1) are producers, their creditors (if 
     applicable), and other persons directly affected by actions 
     of the Department of Agriculture.
       ``(3) Certification conditions.--The Secretary shall 
     certify a State as a qualifying State with respect to the 
     issues proposed to be covered by the mediation program of the 
     State if the mediation program--
       ``(A) provides for mediation services that, if decisions 
     are reached, result in mediated, mutually agreeable decisions 
     between the parties to the mediation;
       ``(B) is authorized or administered by an agency of the 
     State government or by the Governor of the State;
       ``(C) provides for the training of mediators;
       ``(D) provides that the mediation sessions shall be 
     confidential;
       ``(E) ensures, in the case of agricultural loans, that all 
     lenders and borrowers of agricultural loans receive adequate 
     notification of the mediation program; and
       ``(F) ensures, in the case of other issues covered by the 
     mediation program, that persons directly affected by actions 
     of the Department of Agriculture receive adequate 
     notification of the mediation program.''.
       (b) Participation of Department.--Section 503 of such Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 5103) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``agricultural loan'' each place it 
     appears;
       (2) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of subsection 
     (a)(1)--
       (A) by inserting ``or agency'' after ``program''; and
       (B) by striking ``that makes, guarantees, or insures 
     agricultural loans'';
       (3) in subsection (a)(1)(A)--
       (A) by inserting ``or agency'' after ``such program''; and
       (B) by inserting ``certified under section 501'' after 
     ``mediation program'';
       (4) in subsection (a)(1)(B)--
       (A) by striking ``, effective beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``certified under section 501'' after 
     ``mediation programs''; and
       (5) in subsection (a)(1)(C)--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``described in'' and 
     inserting ``certified under''; and
       (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``if applicable,'' before 
     ``present''.
       (c) Regulations.--Section 504 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 5104) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Within 150 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the'' and inserting ``The''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary shall require 
     qualifying States to adequately train mediators to address 
     all of the issues covered by the mediation program of the 
     State.''.
       (d) Report.--Section 505 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 5105) is 
     amended by striking ``1990'' and inserting ``1998''.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 506 of such 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 5106) is amended by striking ``1995'' and 
     inserting ``2000''.
       (f) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) References to agricultural loans.--Subtitle A of title 
     V of such Act is amended--
       (A) in sections 502 and 505(1) (7 U.S.C. 5102, 5105(1)), by 
     striking ``agricultural loan'' each place it appears; and
       (B) in section 505(3) (7 U.S.C. 5105(3)), by striking ``an 
     agricultural loan mediation'' and inserting ``a mediation''.
       (2) Waiver of farm credit system mediation rights by 
     borrowers.--Section 4.14E of the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 
     U.S.C. 2202e) is amended by striking ``agricultural loan''.
       (3) Waiver of fmha mediation rights by borrowers.--Section 
     358 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2006) is amended by striking ``agricultural loan''.
                   TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 901. SUCCESSORSHIP PROVISIONS RELATING TO BARGAINING 
                   UNITS AND EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Voluntary Agreement.--
       (1) In general.--If the exercise of the Secretary's 
     authority under this Act results in changes to an existing 
     bargaining unit that has been certified under chapter 71 of 
     title 5, United States Code, the affected parties shall 
     attempt to reach a voluntary agreement on a new bargaining 
     unit and an exclusive representative for such unit.
       (2) Criteria.--In carrying out the requirements of this 
     subsection, the affected parties shall use criteria set forth 
     in--
       (A) sections 7103(a)(4), 7111(e), 7111(f)(1), and 7120 of 
     title 5, United States Code, relating to determining an 
     exclusive representative; and
       (B) section 7112 of title 5, United States Code 
     (disregarding subsections (b)(5) and (d) thereof), relating 
     to determining appropriate units.
       (b) Effect of an Agreement.--
       (1) In general.--If the affected parties reach agreement on 
     the appropriate unit and the exclusive representative for 
     such unit under subsection (a), the Federal Labor Relations 
     Authority shall certify the terms of such agreement, subject 
     to paragraph (2)(A). Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     considered to require the holding of any hearing or election 
     as a condition for certification.
       (2) Restrictions.--
       (A) Conditions requiring noncer- tification.--The Federal 
     Labor Relations Authority may not certify the terms of an 
     agreement under paragraph (1) if--
       (i) it determines that any of the criteria referred to in 
     subsection (a)(2) (disregarding section 7112(a) of title 5, 
     United States Code) have not been met; or
       (ii) after the Secretary's exercise of authority and before 
     certification under this section, a valid election under 
     section 7111(b) of title 5, United States Code, is held 
     covering any employees who would be included in the unit 
     proposed for certification.
       (B) Temporary waiver of provision that would bar an 
     election after a collective bargaining agreement is 
     reached.--Nothing in section 7111(f)(3) of title 5, United 
     States Code, shall prevent the holding of an election under 
     section 7111(b) of such title that covers employees within a 
     unit certified under paragraph (1), or giving effect to the 
     results of such an election (including a decision not to be 
     represented by any labor organization), if the election is 
     held before the end of the 12-month period beginning on the 
     date such unit is so certified.
       (C) Clarification.--The certification of a unit under 
     paragraph (1) shall not, for purposes of the last sentence of 
     section 7111(b) of title 5, United States Code, or section 
     7111(f)(4) of such title, be treated as if it had occurred 
     pursuant to an election.
       (3) Delegation.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal Labor Relations Authority may 
     delegate to any regional director (as referred to in section 
     7105(e) of title 5, United States Code) its authority under 
     the preceding provisions of this subsection.
       (B) Review.--Any action taken by a regional director under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be subject to review under the 
     provisions of section 7105(f) of title 5, United States Code, 
     in the same manner as if such action had been taken under 
     section 7105(e) of such title, except that in the case of a 
     decision not to certify, such review shall be required if 
     application therefor is filed by an affected party within the 
     time specified in such provisions.
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``affected party'' means--
       (1) with respect to an exercise of authority by the 
     Secretary under this Act, any labor organization affected 
     thereby; and
       (2) the Department of Agriculture.

     SEC. 902. OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT.

       (a) Office of Environmental Risk Assessment.--The Secretary 
     shall establish in the Department an Office of Environmental 
     Risk Assessment (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Office''), which shall be independent of other offices and 
     agencies of the Department, but shall have the authority to 
     advise such offices and agencies regarding the environmental 
     risks addressed by Department regulations and the 
     implementation and compliance costs associated with such 
     regulations. The Office shall be under the direction of a 
     Director appointed by the Secretary.
       (b) Strategy to Analyze Risks and Benefits.--The Director 
     of the Office shall develop a strategy for performing, to the 
     greatest extent practicable and consistent with the 
     provisions of this section and other provisions of the law 
     applicable to the Department, risk/benefit analyses in 
     connection with the regulations described in subsection (c) 
     that are performed consistently and employ state-of-the-art 
     scientific techniques that are practicable with the resources 
     available. The implementation of the strategy shall be 
     subject to the approval of the Secretary.
       (c) Review and Certification of Department Regulations.--In 
     connection with each proposed major regulation relating to 
     public health, public safety, or the environment that is 
     issued by the Department after the date on which the 
     Secretary approves of the risk/benefit analysis strategy 
     under subsection (b), the Director of the Office shall 
     publish in the Federal Register--
       (1) an estimate, with as much specificity as practicable, 
     of--
       (A) the risk to the health and safety of individuals that 
     is addressed by the regulation, including the effect of the 
     risk on human health or the environment;
       (B) the costs associated with the implementation of, and 
     compliance with, the regulation; and
       (C) a comparative analysis of that risk relative to other 
     risks to which the public is exposed; and
       (2) subject to subsection (d), a certification by the 
     Director that--
       (A) the estimate under paragraph (1)(B) and the analysis 
     under paragraph (1)(C) are based on a scientific evaluation 
     of the risk referred to in paragraph (1)(A) and are supported 
     by the best available scientific data;
       (B) the regulation will substantially advance the purpose 
     of protecting the public health and safety or the environment 
     against the risk referred to in paragraph (1)(A); and
       (C) the regulation will produce benefits to public health 
     and safety or the environment that will justify the costs 
     incurred by local, State, and Federal Government and other 
     public and private entities as a result of the implementation 
     of, and compliance with, the regulation, as estimated in 
     paragraph (1)(B).
       (d) Report to Congress of Lack of Certification.--If the 
     Director of the Office cannot make the certification required 
     under subsection (c)(2) for a regulation, the Director shall 
     submit to Congress a report containing a statement of the 
     reasons why the certification cannot be made. The statement 
     shall be included in the final regulation.
       (e) Effect on Other Laws; Judicial Review.--This section, 
     and any certification made under subsection (c), shall not be 
     construed to amend, modify, or alter any law and shall not be 
     subject to judicial review. This section shall not be 
     construed to grant a cause of action to any person.

     SEC. 903. FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT OF SOCIALLY 
                   DISADVANTAGED PRODUCERS.

       (a) Fair Crop Acreage Bases and Farm Program Payment 
     Yields.--If the Secretary of Agriculture determines that crop 
     acreage bases or farm program payment yields established for 
     farms owned or operated by socially disadvantaged producers 
     are not established in accordance with title V of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.), the 
     Secretary shall adjust the bases and yields to conform to the 
     requirements of such title and make available any appropriate 
     commodity program benefits.
       (b) Fair Application of Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act.--If the Secretary of Agriculture determines 
     that application of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.) with respect to 
     socially disadvantaged producers is not consistent with the 
     requirements of such Act, the Secretary shall make such 
     changes in the administration of such Act as the Secretary 
     considers necessary to provide for the fair and equitable 
     treatment of socially disadvantaged producers under such Act.
       (c) Report on Treatment of Socially Disadvantaged 
     Producers.--
       (1) Report required.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall prepare a report to determine--
       (A) whether socially disadvantaged producers are 
     underrepresented on State, county, or local committees 
     established under section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and 
     Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)) or local review 
     committees established under section 363 of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1363) because of racial, 
     ethnic, or gender prejudice; and
       (B) if such underrepresentation exists, whether it inhibits 
     or interferes with the participation of socially 
     disadvantaged producers in programs of the Department of 
     Agriculture.
       (2) Submission of report.--Not later than February 1, 1995, 
     the Comptroller General shall submit the report required by 
     this subsection to the Committee on Agriculture of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate.
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``socially disadvantaged producer'' means a producer who is a 
     member of a group whose members have been subjected to 
     racial, ethnic, or gender prejudice because of their identity 
     as members of a group without regard to their individual 
     qualities.

     SEC. 904. REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--The following provisions of law are 
     repealed:
       (1) Section 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 (5 
     U.S.C. App; 7 U.S.C. 2201 note).
       (2) Section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act to enlarge the 
     powers and duties of the Department of Agriculture and to 
     create an Executive Department to be known as the Department 
     of Agriculture.'', approved February 9, 1889 (7 U.S.C. 2212).
       (3) The first paragraph designated ``Office of the 
     Secretary:'' under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'' 
     of the Act entitled ``An Act making appropriations for the 
     Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 
     thirtieth, nineteen hundred and seven.'', approved June 30, 
     1906 (34 Stat. 670; 7 U.S.C. 2212).
       (4) Section 604(a) of the Rural Development Act of 1972 (7 
     U.S.C. 2212a).
       (5) Section 2 of Public Law 94-561 (7 U.S.C. 2212b).
       (6) Section 8(a) of Public Law 97-325 (7 U.S.C. 2212c).
       (7) Section 1413(d) of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     3128(d)).
       (8) Section 306(a)(15)(C) of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(15)(C)).
       (9) Section 2322(d)(2) of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 1926-1(d)(2)).
       (10) Section 364 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2006f).
       (b) Termination of Authority for Assistant Secretaries.--
     Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``Assistant Secretaries of Agriculture (7).''.
       (c) Termination of Other Executive Schedule Positions.--
     Section 5316 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 
     Service, Department of Agriculture.'';
       (2) by striking ``Administrator, Agricultural Research 
     Service, Department of Agriculture.'';
       (3) by striking ``Administrator, Agricultural Stabilization 
     and Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture.'';
       (4) by striking ``Administrator, Farmers Home 
     Administration.'';
       (5) by striking ``Administrator, Foreign Agricultural 
     Service, Department of Agriculture.'';
       (6) by striking ``Administrator, Rural Electrification 
     Administration, Department of Agriculture.'';
       (7) by striking ``Administrator, Soil Conservation Service, 
     Department of Agriculture.'';
       (8) by striking ``Chief Forester of the Forest Service, 
     Department of Agriculture.'';
       (9) by striking ``Director of Science and Education, 
     Department of Agriculture.'';
       (10) by striking ``Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 
     Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture.''; and
       (11) by striking ``Administrator, Federal Grain Inspection 
     Service, Department of Agriculture.''.

     SEC. 905. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) United States Grain Standards Act.--The United States 
     Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 3 (7 U.S.C. 75)--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subsection (y);
       (B) by striking subsections (z) and (aa); and
       (C) by redesignating subsection (bb) as subsection (z);
       (2) by striking section 3A (7 U.S.C. 75a);
       (3) in section 5(b) (7 U.S.C. 77(b)), by striking ``Service 
     employees'' and inserting ``employees of the Secretary'';
       (4) in sections 7(j)(2) and 7A(l)(2) (7 U.S.C. 79(j)(2) and 
     79a(l)(2)), by striking ``supervision by Service personnel of 
     its field office personnel'' both places it appears and 
     inserting ``supervision by the Secretary of the Secretary's 
     field office personnel'';
       (5) in section 12(c) (7 U.S.C. 87a(c)), by striking ``or 
     Administrator'';
       (6) in section 12(d) (7 U.S.C. 87a(d)), by striking ``or 
     the Administrator'';
       (7) except as otherwise provided in this subsection, by 
     striking ``Administrator'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Secretary''; and
       (8) except as otherwise provided in this subsection, by 
     striking ``Service'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Secretary''.
       (b) Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921.--Section 407 of the 
     Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 228), is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), as 
     subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e), respectively; and
       (3) in subsection (e) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``subsection (e)'' and inserting ``subsection (d)''.

     SEC. 906. PROPOSED CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress recommended 
     legislation containing additional technical and conforming 
     amendments to Federal laws that are required as a result of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 907. PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that, to the greatest extent practicable, all equipment and 
     products purchased using funds made available pursuant to 
     this Act should be American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available pursuant to this Act, the Secretary, to 
     the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to such entity 
     a notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by 
     the Congress.

     SEC. 908. CONDITIONS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERATION IN LEVEL 
                   OF SELENIUM ALLOWED IN ANIMAL DIETS.

       (a) Conditions.--The Food and Drug Administration shall not 
     implement or enforce the final rule described in subsection 
     (b) to alter the level of selenium allowed to be used as a 
     supplement in animal diets unless the Commissioner of the 
     Food and Drug Administration makes a determination that--
       (1) selenium additives are not essential, at levels 
     authorized in the absence of such final rule, to maintain 
     animal nutrition and protect animal health;
       (2) selenium at such levels is not safe to the animals 
     consuming the additive;
       (3) selenium at such levels is not safe to individuals 
     consuming edible portions of animals that receive the 
     additive;
       (4) selenium at such levels does not achieve its intended 
     effect of promoting normal growth and reproduction of 
     livestock and poultry; and
       (5) the manufacture and use of selenium at such levels 
     cannot reasonably be controlled by adherence to current good 
     manufacturing practice requirements.
       (b) Final Rule Described.--The final rule referred to in 
     subsection (a) is the final rule issued by the Food and Drug 
     Administration and published in the Federal Register on 
     September 13, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 47962), in which the 
     Administration stayed 1987 amendments to the selenium food 
     additive regulations, and any modification of such rule 
     issued after the date of the enactment of this Act.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.
  A similar House bill (H.R. 3171) was laid on the table.

                          ____________________