[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 22 (Friday, February 3, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1194-H1195]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               CONCERN OVER USDA PROPOSED REORGANIZATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly supports efforts to 
create a leaner and more efficient Federal Government. Such efforts
 are long overdue. However, as the U.S. Department of Agriculture moves 
forward with its reorganization plans, it is critical to keep in mind 
that reorganization simply for the sake of reorganizing is inefficient, 
counterproductive, and often very costly.

  The use of reorganization to achieve the appearance of change is 
certainly not new. This Member quotes from Petronius Arbiter in the 
year 210 B.C.:

       We trained hard * * * but it seemed that every time we were 
     beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I 
     was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new 
     situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be 
     for creating the illusion of progress while producing 
     confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.

  This Member believes this observation of some 2200 years ago is 
especially relevant as the U.S. Department of Agriculture considers a 
reorganization plan for the new Natural Resource Conservation Service 
[NRCS]. This Member is specifically concerned about the proposed 
closing of the Mid-West Technical Center located in Lincoln, NE. This 
technical center has proven to be productive and well-located and this 
Member is extremely doubtful that the proposed changes are either cost-
effective or will bring great efficiency.
  In addition to the specific concern, this Member is also concerned 
that the currently proposed reorganization plan will severely and 
adversely impact the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The 
current schedule to finalize plans by May 1, 1995, with implementation 
of the reorganization set for October 1, 1995, needs to be placed on 
hold until a reevaluation is completed.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member, is concerned that the charge given to the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture to reduce administrative staff in the 
Washington, DC office is being implemented in NRCS by moving many of 
their administrators to the six proposed regional offices. In order to 
make room in the budget to fund the new regional administrative staffs, 
the technical experts now located at the technical centers would then 
be
 sacrificed. It is this Member's belief that such a move would be very 
short-sighted and ultimately would undermine the technical capability 
and reputation of the agency.

  The NRCS, formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service, has earned 
a richly deserved reputation as a highly professional and technically 
competent agency. Now there appears to be a clear, and not so subtle, 
trend to diminish the carefully nurtured technical competence of the 
Service. For example, the proposed plan gives lip service to the need 
for technical competence while at the same time destroying the very 
repositories of technical skill and the knowledge, the National 
Technical Centers [NTC's]. The explanation for dismantling the 
collective technical expertise of the NRCS is not comforting. The plan 
calls for the duties of the NTC specialists to be taken over by the 
States. Yet, the States' budgets are being reduced and the State 
conservationists do not appear to be enthusiastic about assuming this 
responsibility.
   [[Page H1195]] Mr. Speaker, there are also suggestions to bolster 
technology by creating institutes of excellence at various locations 
throughout the country. This is a novel concept. However, in an age of 
integrated technology these miniature NTC's would lack synergy. This 
Member is afraid that in a few years someone will suggest 
reorganization that combines all the institutes into one or two units. 
They might even be called technical centers.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member is also concerned about the proposed 
realignment of U.S. Forest Service regions to coincide with the NRCS 
regions because there is not that much commonality between their 
functions and responsibilities. This may seem like a reasonable idea 
for those at the undersecretary level, but it is not a good idea for 
the vitality and future of the NRCS. Colocation with the Forest Service 
would not be for the benefit of the citizen or for programs of mutual 
concern. The NRCS and the Forest Service clearly serve different 
constituencies. Because there is little overlap between the agencies'
 responsibilities and areas of focus, a regional division which makes 
sense for one of the agencies would not necessarily work for the other.

  Furthermore, colocation of the NRCS with the Forest Service would, 
most likely, lead to the swamping of the NRCS and its programs by the 
larger agency. This Member believes there is a danger that the NRCS 
would eventually be absorbed into the larger Forest Service, rather 
than the two serving as coequal agencies. Also, since the Forest 
Service budget has been included in the Interior appropriations bill, 
this Member believes this is an added complication that may not have 
been thoroughly considered. The anticipated savings in administrative 
costs, as a result of colocation with the Forest Service, may also be a 
bit misleading since administration of the NTC's is usually a shared 
function between the NTC's and the State office of the NRCS.
  If new administrative regions are a good idea, and they may be, then 
it would seem to make sense to utilize the facilities of the existing 
technical centers as a base of operation within the four proposed 
regions in which technical centers are now located. Historically, the 
SCS has shared locations with the ASCS, now part of the Consolidated 
Farm Service Agency [CFSA], because of mutual program components and 
for the convenience of the citizens that utilized the services. In 
fact, colocation of NRCS and CFSA is being required at the local level.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this Member does not believe that the recently 
passed reorganization legislation was intended to change the mission of 
the old Soil Conservation Service. However, anonymous, but highly 
respected USDA employees have told me that NRCS officials have 
indicated that NRCS is no longer in the business of production 
agriculture! The SCS was born as a result of a calamity caused by 
nature and poor stewardship of the soil. The NRCS should be dedicated 
to assisting the private landowner in the production of food and fiber 
in a sustainable and conservation-friendly manner. Sweeping changes in 
the mission and basic structure of the NRCS should not be undertaken in 
haste and need the concurrence of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly urges the USDA to carefully 
reexamine the current proposal to reorganize the NRCS at the national, 
regional, and State levels. The proposed changes are, on balance, a 
very bad idea. I hope our distinguished former colleague, Dan Glickman, 
will send the USDA teams back to the drawing boards when he takes 
charge.


                          ____________________