[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11975-S11979]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 2164. A bill to establish responsibility and accountability for 
information technology systems of the Department of Agriculture, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 
                                  1996

 Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President. I rise to introduce the Department 
of Agriculture Responsibility and Accountability Act of 1996. This bill 
establishes an Information Technology System Control Board to manage 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's [USDA] technology planning and 
procurement processes. The Board will give the Department a strong 
centralized decision-making body to eliminate the duplication and 
inefficiencies associated with the independent agency-based approach 
that has plagued the Department for years, delivered poor service, and 
squandered hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.
  The Office of Management and Budget estimates the Department of 
Agriculture will spend $1.4 billion on information technology and 
automated data processing equipment in fiscal year 1997. The 
Information Technology System Control Board will oversee all 
information technology spending at the Department. The Board, 
consisting of the Secretary and two appointees, will assume control of 
information technology planning and acquisition until the year 2002, 
guiding the creation of a technical architecture to take the Department 
into the 21st century. Finally, the Board will determine how best to 
accomplish the missions of the various agencies and the Department 
before purchasing information technology systems.
  The General Accounting Office, the Department of Agriculture's Office 
of Inspector General, and independent contractor reviews since 1989 
have identified ongoing problems with USDA's administration of 
information resource management programs, including the multiagency 
program called Info Share and computer and telecommunication purchases. 
Since the USDA Reorganization Act was enacted in 1994, USDA management 
has continued their historic trend of purchasing telecommunication and 
information systems that: fail to link information technology budgeting 
and purchases to strategic business needs; fail to integrate 
information management strategies with financial and programmatic 
information and reporting requirements; fail to define information 
technology requirements through business process reengineering; fail to 
achieve departmentwide efficiencies by standardizing administrative 
functions; and, fail to address the cultural changes necessary to 
migrate from a piecemeal approach to a standardized,

[[Page S11976]]

collaborative delivery system in field service centers.
  The Department continues to acquire hardware, software, and other 
equipment that does not match user needs, provides inefficient delivery 
of services to USDA customers, and creates unnecessary duplication. 
Many duplicated product and service acquisitions could have been 
avoided by departmentwide consolidation and sharing. Procurement 
activities do not allow the Farm Services Agency, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service and Rural Development to exchange information 
electronically in the agency headquarter and field offices. The 
Department lacks leadership to direct the changes necessary to 
establish a working field service center infrastructure.

  In April 1993, USDA established the Info Share program to reframe the 
business activities of individual agencies into a consolidated strategy 
to meet the goals outlined for one-stop-shopping field service centers. 
In August 1993, the General Services Administration delegated 
procurement authority for USDA to spend up to $2.6 billion on Info 
Share. Besides the General Accounting Office, the Office of Management 
and Budget, and the USDA Office of the Inspector General, the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology criticized USDA's approach to 
purchasing computer equipment, hardware, and software before defining 
the future mission objectives of its agencies in a May 1994 report. The 
report stated that Federal agencies should first determine how best to 
accomplish their mission and then acquire technology solutions to meet 
their needs. Info Share was to be the cure-all for USDA's management 
and acquisition control problems.
  The USDA Office of Inspector General sharply criticized the Info 
Share Program in a May 1995 report. The inspector general reported that 
USDA agencies were proceeding with their own information technology 
projects for information sharing between agencies with an apparent lack 
of funding and acquisition controls. The Office of Management and 
Budget complained to the Office of Budget and Program Analysis [OBPA] 
about inaccurate acquisition cost reporting and the need for a formal 
approval process for information technology purchases.
  Despite heavy pressures for Info Share to succeed, by December 1995 
Info Share had failed. The failure was due to an evident lack of upper 
management leadership, inadequate planning, failure to obtain consensus 
on program objectives, and poor program management. USDA's leadership, 
despite commitments made by Secretary Glickman, again failed to focus 
on the necessary development of departmentwide computer and information 
standards and a comprehensive analysis of emerging business 
requirements. The Info Share Program has now been replaced by a 
decentralized agency-led initiative under the National Food and 
Agriculture Council. As a result, individual agencies are again 
independently deciding what is best for their individual needs, 
abandoning the departmentwide effort necessary to consolidate 
administrative and information technology systems.
  According to an August 1994 GAO Report, ``USDA Restructuring--Refocus 
Info Share Program on Business Processes Rather Than Technology'', USDA 
is not performing key business process reengineering [BPR] steps 
necessary for a successful reorganization of the Department. BPR is a 
management technique used fundamentally to rethink and redesign 
business processes to achieve dramatic changes in overall performance. 
It is also used to change how employees think and work to improve 
customer satisfaction. The success of the field service center 
initiative depends on cross-training field office employees to operate 
as educated contacts for all USDA programs. The lack of training is 
making it difficult for field office employees who remain after 
downsizing efforts to provide quality service to their customers. 
USDA's focus on improving computer automation prior to concentrating on 
the skills of its work force has hamstrung program delivery.

  During farm bill deliberations, it was determined that reforms were 
needed to rein in the uncontrolled and obscured use of CCC funds for 
information technology. Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] borrowing 
authority has been historically abused within the Department. Transfers 
and expenditures of CCC funds have too often been obscured from 
congressional oversight and at times have been of questionable 
legality. As a result, the FAIR Act established spending caps on the 
use of CCC funds for purchases or services for automated data 
processing or information technology, and for all reimbursable 
agreements--contracts--funded by the CCC. Finally, the CCC was required 
to report to Congress on a quarterly basis all expenditures of over 
$10,000 for these expenditures. This new level of transparency was 
designed to increase accountability by forcing USDA managers to fully 
examine information technology purchases and link purchase plans with 
work force needs.
  Despite repeated calls for leadership, USDA does not have the 
necessary management to link the Department's ability to define its 
work force to its information technology purchases. The Department has 
yet to determine how to provide quality services with a reduced work 
force and changing mission requirements. In addition, USDA is still 
using its Info Share initiative, now guided by the National Food and 
Agriculture Committee, as a vehicle to acquire new information 
technology, rather than develop a method to improve the way USDA does 
business and prepare the Department for the challenges of the 21st 
century.
  On May 31, 1996, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts and 
I wrote to the Secretary stating that the USDA should not make 
additional investments in information technology products that are 
exclusive to one agency unless USDA can show that the investments will 
provide technology that will be shared among agencies. We also shared 
our concern that funds were being spent without adequate consideration 
of USDA's future business requirements. The Department responded with a 
less than adequate catalog of ongoing initiatives designed for 
individual agency program use rather than a departmentwide information 
technology architecture.

  Despite efforts by USDA to meet the goal of information sharing as 
mandated by the USDA Reorganization Act of 1994 and Info Share, the 
Farm Services Agency, Rural Development, and Natural Resources 
Conservation Service field offices remain unable to operate in a common 
computing environment. This has resulted in the delivery of poor 
services to its customers. If USDA is ever to successfully share 
information, the Department must prevent agencies from planning and 
building their own individual networks.
  For example, last year the Farm Services Agency [FSA] spent $36 
million in Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] funds to purchase new 
minicomputers for FSA field offices during the debate of the Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. The FAIR Act resulted 
in a 7-year phaseout of farm subsidy programs, significantly reducing 
work force requirements and workload of the Farm Service Agency. Less 
than a year later, FSA is proposing another upgrade that does not meet 
the requirements necessary for information sharing with other field 
office agency computer systems. Why did FSA spend $36 million on a new 
system if the agency knew it would be outdated only 9 months later? 
USDA estimates the upgrade alternative will result in acquisition costs 
of $125.8 million for FSA alone. Estimates of costs to be incurred by 
the Natural Resources Conservation Service and Rural Development to 
acquire similar equipment have not been made. This ill-conceived 
approach will result in an investment of $11,604 per computer in FSA 
offices that may not have employees to run those computers after work 
force downsizing occurs. This is yet another example of poor planning 
and waste of taxpayer dollars resulting from a lack of direction.
  Despite repeated reviews by the General Accounting Office and the 
USDA Office of the Inspector General, and considerable concern of 
Congress, the Director of the Office of Information Resource Management 
has not determined how to address the information sharing needs of the 
Department. Therefore, USDA risks wasting millions by building new 
networks that are redundant, do not address future business needs, and 
do not provide the information sharing capabilities necessary among 
agencies. The creation of

[[Page S11977]]

the Information Technology System Control Board will put the Department 
back on track and save millions of taxpayer dollars.
  My bill also makes necessary changes to the buyout authority granted 
to USDA in the 1997 Agriculture Appropriation Conference Report. The 
buyout authority gives the Department the authority to offer $25,000 
bonuses to retirement-age employees, and those eligible for early 
retirement. This golden handshake approach to Department downsizing 
pays off employees who are already preparing to retire. In addition, it 
comes at the expense of conservation programs. The Senate Agriculture 
Committee recently learned that the Department may transfer an 
estimated $43 million from unobligated Conservation Reserve Program 
funds to pay for buyouts for 1,341 Farm Services Agency employees. The 
bill mandates that buyouts can only be paid from appropriations made 
available for salaries and expenses and prohibits the use of mandatory 
funds, including Commodity Credit Corporation funds, for buyout plans. 
In addition, the bill limits the Department's buyout authority to 1 
year. These changes are important to monitor the Department's work 
force downsizing efforts by compelling USDA to properly plan for future 
work force reductions.

  I cannot overstate my concern that the Department has failed to 
adequately assess the impact that the FAIR Act will have on the people 
who use the services of the Department and on the Department's work 
force requirements. Department management lacks strong central 
leadership in planning for information technology for the 21st century, 
continues to acquire equipment, hardware, software, and computers that 
do not match user needs, continues to provide inefficient delivery of 
services to USDA customers, and continues to allow unnecessary 
duplication.
  Since I am introducing my bill at the end of this session, obviously 
it cannot become law before the 105th Congress convenes next year. 
However, I intend to pursue this important issue in the next Congress, 
and I will reintroduce this bill.
  I ask my colleagues to support this important endeavor and I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the summary and the bill be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2164

       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 Responsibility and Accountability Act of 
     1996''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

          TITLE I--INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM CONTROL BOARD

Sec. 101. Findings.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Information Technology System Control Board.
Sec. 104. Mission of the Board.
Sec. 105. Duties of the Board.
Sec. 106. Powers of the Board.
Sec. 107. Review by Office of Management and Budget.
Sec. 108. Technical amendment.
Sec. 109. Termination of authorities.

         TITLE II--ADMINISTRATION OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Sec. 201. Administration of Department of Agriculture.

                       TITLE III--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 301. Effective date.
          TITLE I--INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM CONTROL BOARD

     SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Office of Management and Budget estimates that the 
     Department of Agriculture will spend $1,100,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1996 and $1,400,000,000 for fiscal year 1997 on 
     information technology and automated data processing 
     equipment;
       (2) according to the Department of Agriculture, as of 
     October 1993, the Department had 17 major information 
     technology systems under development with an estimated life-
     cycle cost of $6,300,000,000;
       (3) both the General Accounting Office and the Office of 
     Management and Budget have categorized the information 
     technology programs of the Department as high risk due to 
     lack of management and financial controls;
       (4) the General Accounting Office, the Office of the 
     Inspector General of the Department, and independent contract 
     studies have shown that the Department's information 
     technology decisions have been made in piecemeal fashion, on 
     an individual agency basis, resulting in a lack of 
     coordination, duplication, and wasted financial and 
     technological resources among the various offices and 
     agencies of the Department and costing hundreds of millions 
     of wasted dollars over the past decade;
       (5) over the past 10 years, committees of Congress, the 
     General Accounting Office, the Office of Management and 
     Budget, and private consultants have repeatedly pointed to 
     the lack of strong central leadership and accountability as 
     the fundamental reasons for the Department's failure to make 
     informed decisions on critical information technology 
     investments;
       (6) committees of Congress, the General Accounting Office, 
     the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of the 
     Inspector General of the Department, and private consultants 
     have--
       (A) strongly criticized the Department over the past 10 
     years for ignoring business process reengineering; and
       (B) pointed to the Department's refusal to use an industry 
     accepted methodology as key to its failure to develop a 
     technology platform that services the entire Department;
       (7) the Department's role in regulating agriculture in the 
     United States was substantially reduced by the FAIR Act;
       (8) the Department has failed to adequately assess the 
     impact of the FAIR Act will have on the needs of its 
     customers;
       (9) the Department has continued information technology 
     procurement absent future business need considerations and 
     workforce requirements resulting from the FAIR Act;
       (10) the Department continues to approach the technological 
     changes brought about by the Act without studying the changes 
     in the context of the business processes of the Department;
       (11) because the Department has failed to implement the 
     internal changes necessary to effectively address the 
     deficiencies raised by committees of Congress, the General 
     Accounting Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and 
     the Office of the Inspector General of the Department over 
     the past decade, it is necessary to establish a single entity 
     within the Department with both the responsibility and 
     authority to make decisions regarding information technology 
     planning and procurement; and
       (12) having an Information Technology System Control Board 
     to control the Department's information technology planning 
     and procurements will--
       (A) provide the Department with strong and coordinated 
     leadership and direction;
       (B) ensure that funds will be spent by the Department on 
     information technology only after the Department has 
     completed the required planning and review of future business 
     requirements; and
       (C) force the Department to act as a single enterprise with 
     respect to information technology, thus eliminating the 
     duplication and inefficiency associated with an independent 
     agency-based approach.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Information 
     Technology System Control Board established under section 
     103.
       (2) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of Agriculture.
       (3) FAIR act.--The term ``FAIR Act'' means the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 
     104-127).
       (4) Information technology system.--The term ``information 
     technology system'' means all or part of each system of 
     automated data processing, telecommunications, information 
     resource management, or business process reengineering of an 
     office or agency of the Department.
       (5) Office or agency of the department.--The term ``office 
     or agency of the Department'' means each current or future--
       (A) national, regional, county, or local office or agency 
     of the Department;
       (B) county committee established under section 8(b)(5) of 
     the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 
     590h(b)(5));
       (C) State committee, State office, or field service center 
     of the Farm Service Agency; and
       (D) multiple offices and agencies of the Department that 
     are currently, or will be, connected by an information 
     technology system.
       (6) Transfer or obligation of funds.--The term ``transfer 
     or obligation of funds'' means, as applicable--
       (A) the transfer of funds (including appropriated funds, 
     mandatory funds, and funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation) from 1 account to another account of an office 
     or agency of the Department for the purpose of funding any 
     activity of the Department regarding planning, providing 
     services, or leasing or purchasing of personal property 
     (including all hardware and software) or services for an 
     information technology system of an office or agency of the 
     Department;
       (B) the obligation of funds (including appropriated funds, 
     mandatory funds, and funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation) for the purpose of funding any activity of the 
     Department regarding planning, providing services, or leasing 
     or purchasing of personal property (including all hardware 
     and software) or services for an information technology 
     system of an office or agency of the Department; or
       (C) the obligation of funds (including appropriated funds, 
     mandatory funds, and funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation) for the purpose of funding any activity of the 
     Department regarding planning, providing

[[Page S11978]]

     services, or leasing or purchasing of personal property 
     (including all hardware and software) or services for an 
     information technology system of an office or agency of the 
     Department, to be obtained through a contract with any office 
     or agency of the Federal Government, a State, the District of 
     Columbia, or any person in the private sector.
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

     SEC. 103. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM CONTROL BOARD.

       (a) Establishment.--An Information Technology System 
     Control Board is established in the Department.
       (b) Composition.--The Board shall consist of 3 members, of 
     whom--
       (1) 2 members shall be appointed from the private sector by 
     the President by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate; and
       (2) 1 member shall be the Secretary.
       (c) Qualifications of Board Members.--Of the members of the 
     Board appointed by the President (other than the Secretary)--
       (1) 1 member shall have--
       (A) extensive private sector work-related experience in the 
     field of total quality management; and
       (B) at least 5 years of demonstrated work related 
     experience in a full range of activities with large 
     organizations involving information strategic planning, 
     strategic quality planning, and strategic process management, 
     including business process reengineering and business process 
     improvement project-related experience; and
       (2) 1 member shall have at least 15 years experience and 
     industry-recognized credentials in the field of planning and 
     managing the specification, design, and implementation of 
     information technology, telecommunications, and information 
     management systems in the private sector.
       (d) Compensation.--
       (1) In general.--A member of the Board appointed by the 
     President (other than the Secretary) shall--
       (A) be a limited term appointee (as defined in section 
     3132(a) of title 5, United States Code); and
       (B) be paid an annual rate of compensation that does not 
     exceed the annual rate in effect for positions at level V of 
     the Executive Schedule.
       (2) Administration.--A member of the Board (other than the 
     Secretary) shall not be governed by--
       (A) the provisions of title 5, United States Code, relating 
     to appointments in the competitive service; or
       (B) the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of 
     chapter 53 of title 5, or any other provision of law, 
     relating to number or classification of General Schedule 
     rates.
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 5316 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``Limited term appointees of the Information Technology 
     System Control Board, Department of Agriculture (2).''.
       (e) Clerical and Support Personnel.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law:
       (1) In general.--The Board is authorized to obtain and 
     employ such clerical or other support personnel, including 
     detailees from an office or agency of the Department, as are 
     necessary to enable the Board to carry out this title. The 
     Secretary shall approve the transfer of each detailee 
     selected by the Board.
       (2) Management and supervisory duties.--The Board shall 
     have general management and supervisory authority over all 
     clerical and support personnel and detailees selected by the 
     Board.
       (3) Specific duties.--In the case of clerical and support 
     personnel and detailees selected by the Board, the 
     supervisory and management authority of the Board under 
     paragraph (2) shall include the exclusive authority (unless 
     expressly delegated by a unanimous vote of the Board) to--
       (A) establish and control workloads, quality of work, and 
     work content;
       (B) approve bonuses, step advancements, and promotions; and
       (C) discipline employees for unsatisfactory performance or 
     conduct.
       (f) Board Voting Procedure.--Except as otherwise provided 
     in this title--
       (1) a decision or action of the Board shall require at 
     least a \2/3\-majority vote in favor of the decision or 
     action; and
       (2) if at least a \2/3\-majority vote on a decision or 
     action is obtained, the Secretary shall carry out the 
     decision or action of the Board.

     SEC. 104. MISSION OF THE BOARD.

       (a) In General.--The Board shall--
       (1) develop and implement for the future a blueprint for a 
     single platform information technology system of the 
     Department that is coordinated between the offices or 
     agencies of the Department, eliminate duplication, and are 
     cost effective; and
       (2) provide the strong central leadership, planning, and 
     accountability that is needed in light of the substantial 
     changes created by the FAIR Act and reorganization and 
     downsizing initiatives already commenced within the 
     Department.
       (b) Specific Goals of the Board.--The Board shall ensure 
     that--
       (1) information technology systems of the Department are 
     designed to coordinate the functions of the offices or 
     agencies of the Department on a departmental basis in 
     contrast to the current practice of individual agencies 
     designing and procuring information technology systems that 
     service only a single agency;
       (2) information technology systems are designed for field 
     service centers--
       (A) to best facilitate the exchange of information between 
     field service centers and other offices or agencies of the 
     Department;
       (B) that integrate the changed missions of the Department 
     in light of the FAIR Act and reorganization and downsizing 
     initiatives of the Department; and
       (C) that are cost effective; and
       (3) a technical architecture is established that serves the 
     entire Department.
       (c) Business Plan.--
       (1) Approval; report.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date the last member of the Board appointed by the President 
     (other than the Secretary) is confirmed by the Senate, the 
     Board shall approve and report to the Committee on 
     Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a 
     business plan to carry out this section through March 31, 
     2002.
       (2) Failure to report.--If a business plan is not approved 
     and reported in accordance with paragraph (1), 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the transfer or 
     obligation of funds available to the Department for the 
     purpose of funding any activity of the Department regarding 
     planning, providing services, or leasing or purchasing of 
     personal property (including all hardware and software) or 
     services for an information technology system of an office or 
     agency of the Department shall be prohibited until the 
     business plan is reported to the Committee on Agriculture of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate.

     SEC. 105. DUTIES OF THE BOARD.

       The Board shall--
       (1) review, evaluate, and approve (or, at the option of the 
     Board, develop) each plan or design for all or part of each 
     information technology system of each office or agency of the 
     Department;
       (2) exercise exclusive authority to approve each transfer 
     or obligation of funds to be used to acquire all or part of 
     each information technology system (including all hardware 
     and software) for each office or agency of the Department;
       (3) ensure that major information technology systems of the 
     Department, where appropriate, result in improvements to the 
     operations of the Department that are commensurate with the 
     level of investment;
       (4) ensure that the information technology system of each 
     office or agency of the Department maximizes the 
     effectiveness and efficiency of mission delivery and is 
     focused first on specific improvements to core business 
     processes (the strategic process management architecture) of 
     the Department;
       (5) ensure that the information technology system of each 
     office or agency of the Department maximizes quality per 
     dollar expended, and maximizes efficiency and coordination of 
     information technology systems between offices and agencies 
     of the Department;
       (6) ensure that planning for, leases, and purchases of the 
     information technology system of each office or agency of the 
     Department most efficiently satisfy the needs of the office 
     or agency in terms of the demographics, program, and the 
     number of employees affected by the system; and
       (7) ensure that funding used for planning or purchasing of 
     the information technology system of each office or agency of 
     the Department is used in the most effective manner.

     SEC. 106. POWERS OF THE BOARD.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c) and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Board shall 
     have the exclusive authority (except as expressly delegated 
     by a unanimous vote of the Board) to--
       (1) review, evaluate, and approve each plan or design for 
     each activity or regulation of the Department regarding 
     planning, providing services, leasing, or purchasing of 
     personal property (including all hardware and software) or 
     services for the information technology system of each office 
     or agency of the Department;
       (2) develop (or, on a unanimous vote of the Board, direct 
     employees of an agency or office of the Department to 
     develop) a plan or design for an activity of the Department 
     regarding planning, providing services, leasing, or 
     purchasing of personal property (including hardware and 
     software) or services for the information technology system 
     of an office or agency of the Department; and
       (3) approve each transfer or obligation of funds to be used 
     for the purpose of funding any activity of the Department 
     regarding planning, providing services, or leasing or 
     purchasing of personal property (including all hardware and 
     software) or services for the information technology system 
     of each office or agency of the Department.
       (b) Report to Board.--An employee directed by the Board to 
     develop a plan or design under paragraph (2) of subsection 
     (a) shall report to the Board on actions taken to carry out 
     the paragraph.
       (c) Board Not Subject to Control of Secretary.--The Board 
     (including a decision or action of the Board approved by at 
     least a \2/3\-majority vote) shall not be subject to the 
     control, direction, or supervision of the Secretary.
       (d) Exclusive Authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Board shall have the exclusive 
     authority to exercise all powers described in subsection (a) 
     during the period--
       (1) beginning on the earlier of--

[[Page S11979]]

       (A) the date the last member of the Board appointed by the 
     President (other than the Secretary) is confirmed by the 
     Senate; or
       (B) March 31, 1997; and
       (2) ending on March 31, 2002.

     SEC. 107. REVIEW BY OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.

       The Director of the Office of Management and Budget may 
     review any regulation or transfer or obligation of funds 
     involving an information technology system of the Department.

     SEC. 108. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

       The second sentence of section 13 of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714k) is amended by 
     striking ``section 5 or 11'' and inserting ``section 4, 5, or 
     11''.

     SEC. 109. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITIES.

       The Board and all other authorities provided by this title 
     (other than section 108) shall terminate on March 31, 2002.
         TITLE II--ADMINISTRATION OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

     SEC. 201. ADMINISTRATION OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

       Section 735 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1997 (Public Law 104-180; 110 Stat. 1604), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) any employee who, on separation and application, 
     would be eligible for an immediate annuity under subchapter 
     III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States 
     Code (or another retirement system for an employee of the 
     agency), other than an annuity subject to a reduction under 
     section 8339(h) or 8415(f) of title 5, United States Code (or 
     corresponding provisions of another retirement system for an 
     employee of the agency).'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) shall be paid from appropriations made available for 
     salaries and expenses of the agency;'';
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (E) as 
     subparagraphs (D) through (F), respectively;
       (iii) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) may not originate from funds of a mandatory account 
     (including funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation) that 
     are transferred to the salaries and expenses account of the 
     agency;''; and
       (iv) in subparagraph (D)(ii) (as so redesignated), by 
     striking ``in fiscal year 1997,'' and all that follows 
     through ``2000''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``September 30, 2000'' 
     and inserting ``March 31, 1997''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Period.--The authority to offer separation incentive 
     payments under this section shall apply during the period 
     beginning October 1, 1996, and ending March 31, 1997.''.
                       TITLE III--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 301. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as provided in section 106(d)(1), this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act shall become effective on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

      Summary of the Department of Agriculture Responsibility and 
                       Accountability Act of 1996


          TITLE I-INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM CONTROL BOARD

  SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
       Sec. 101. Findings.--Studies by several governmental and 
     private organizations have repeatedly found that the 
     Department of Agriculture has made planning decisions for, 
     and procurement of, information technology in a piecemeal 
     fashion, and on an individual agency basis (instead of a 
     Department-wide basis), resulting in duplication, a lack of 
     coordination, and wasted financial and technological 
     resources. The Department has failed to adequately assess the 
     impact that the 1996 Farm Bill will have on the people who 
     use the services of the Department and on the Department's 
     workforce requirements. Because of these and other 
     longstanding deficiencies, it is necessary to establish a 
     single entity within the Department that has the exclusive 
     responsibility and authority to make decisions regarding 
     planning for, and procurement of, information technology. 
     This entity will--provide the Department with strong and 
     coordinated leadership; ensure that funds will be spent on 
     information technology only after a thorough review of future 
     business requirements; and ensure that planning and 
     procurement for information technology is performed on a 
     departmental basis, instead of the Current independent 
     agency-based approach.
       Sec. 102. Definitions.
       Sec. 103. Information Technology System Control Board.
       An Information Technology System Control Board (Board) is 
     established within the Department that consists of three 
     members- the Secretary of Agriculture and two persons with 
     extensive experience from the private sector who have 
     qualifications such as quality management, strategic 
     planning, and business process reengineering. The two members 
     of the Board other than the Secretary shall be compensated at 
     a rate according to level V of the Executive Schedule.
       Sec. 104. Mission of the Board.--The Board is required to--
       Develop and implement for the future a blueprint for a 
     single platform for information technology; ensure that 
     planning and procurement for information technology is 
     performed on a departmental basis, instead of an independent 
     agency-based approach;
       Ensure that information technology for field service 
     centers is coordinated, cost effective, and designed in light 
     of the changed requirements and reduced work force realities 
     created by the 1996 Farm Bill;
       Establish a technical architecture for information 
     technology for the Department; and
       Submit to Congress a business plan on how the Board intends 
     to carry out its mission though 2002.
       Sec.  105 & 106. Duties and Powers of the Board.
       The Board is authorized and required to--
       Review, evaluate, and approve every plan or design for an 
     activity or regulation of the Department regarding planning, 
     providing services, or procuring information technology for 
     offices and agencies of the Department;
       Develop a plan or design for activities of the Department 
     regarding planning, providing services, or procuring 
     information technology for offices and agencies of the 
     Department; and
       Approve every transfer or obligation of funds for 
     procurement of information technology for offices and 
     agencies of the Department.
       The Board will not be subject to the control, direction, or 
     supervision of the Secretary. The Board will obtain the 
     exclusive authority to exercise these powers when the last 
     member of the Board is confirmed by the Senate, or March 31, 
     1997, whichever is earlier, and will terminate on March 31, 
     2002.
       Sec.  107. Review by Office of Management and Budget.
       The Office of Management and Budget may review any 
     regulation or transfer or obligation of funds approved by the 
     Board.
       Sec. 108.  Technical Amendment.
       A technical change is made to a reporting requirement 
     regarding funding for automated data processing or 
     information resource management.
       Sec. 109. Termination of Authorities.
       All authorities of this subtitle (except the technical 
     amendment in section 108) will terminate on March 31, 2002.

         TITLE II--ADMINISTRATION OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

       The personnel buyout authority in the FY 1997 Agriculture 
     Appropriations Act is amended--
       By prohibiting persons who are eligible for retirement from 
     also obtaining a buyout payment;
       By requiring that only funds from an agency's salaries and 
     expense accounts be used to pay for buyout payments;
       By limiting this buyout authority to only FY 1997.

                       TITLE III--EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This bill will become effective when it is signed into law 
     by the President.
                                 ______