Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government

                                              Release No.  0071.98

Remarks
                              of 
                     Secretary Dan Glickman
       Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government
    From Congress to The Cabinet: Making Public Policy Work'
         Cambridge, Massachusetts -- February 11, 1998

INTRODUCTION
     Thank you, Dean [Joseph] Nye, for the opportunity to be here. It's
good to see a colleague from my days in the House of Representatives --
Mickey Edwards. You know, USDA was created in the same year as the
Emancipation Proclamation. Our founding father, Abraham Lincoln, called us
the  the people's department.' So it's a bit ironic that when folks today
think of USDA, usually the first thing that comes to mind is corn and cows
 -- production agriculture, which is key, although not always thought of as
glamorous. 

     You have no idea how glamorous this job really is. Recently, I was at
the wedding of Vice President Gore's daughter. As I was leaving, a reporter
came up and asked,  lot of politicians here; you talk politics?' I said,
 no, it was a beautiful family wedding' and started to walk away. Then, he
yells after me,  wait, wait, wait ... who are you.'

     It's different in the international arena. Agriculture is an important
contributor to U.S. exports, one of the few sectors that has a positive
trade balance. We're a huge player in the global economy, so I get some
attention on the world stage, although I'm not sure that's always good. In
1996, I lead the U.S. delegation to the World Food Summit in Rome. I gave a
big speech on food security -- talking about how biotechnology can help us
produce more food without destroying the environment. I thought I did a good
job ... until protesters started pelting me with soybeans, which wouldn't
have been all that bad if they then hadn't held a press conference ... in
the nude. They had things written on their bodies like  the naked truth' and
 no gene bean,' at least that's what my staff who looked tell me.

     But somewhere between the extremes of anonymity and overexposure lies
the bulk of what I do. Beyond production agriculture, I manage America's
national forests -- Smokey Bear and everyone else at the U.S. Forest Service
works for me. This is the largest part of USDA. I put the USDA-inspection
seal on the meat and poultry you buy at the grocery store, and generally we
are referred to as the food safety agency. I run the food stamp, school
lunch and Women, Infants and Children nutrition programs.

     But today, I'd like to take this opportunity, speaking at America's
most prestigious school of government, to give you my perspectives on
America's system of governance, as I've seen it in action both as a member
of Congress for 18 years, and now as your Secretary of Agriculture. 

CONGRESS V. CABINET OVERVIEW
     The first seat I ran for was on the school board in Wichita, Kansas. I
went on to unseat a 16-year member of Congress, the ranking Republican on
the House Appropriations Committee. Eighteen years later, in the Republican
sweep of 1994, I got my own walking papers. But I think it was more of a
surprise when I won than when I finally lost. I was the first Democrat to
hold that seat in 40 years. Over time the district grew more conservative.
But as long as Reagan and Bush were in the White House, folks seemed fine
with me in Congress. There was balance. 

     Then along came a Democratic president; the budget vote in 1993; I
supported the assault weapons ban and a woman's right to choose -- all of
which ticked off a vocal, active minority in my district. I guess if I'd
been more parochial about these matters I could have held on, but I voted my
conscience, and paid the price ... with no regrets. 

     In Congress, you're one of 435, so the pressure is really on to stand
out -- which you can do eventually through seniority or quickly through
flamboyance. When I first came in, just like everyone else, I wanted to make
a point that I was different, so the first issue I took up was eliminating
elevator operators on automatic elevators in the Capitol. Why were we paying
hundreds of thousands of dollars for these people? Couldn't we push our own
buttons? I fought and fought, and my colleagues got angrier and angrier.
After all, these were their elevator operators, and they'd been pushing
buttons since the beginning of time. Then, it was holy war. Now, it seems,
well ... absurd. Needless to say, if you go to the Capitol today, those
elevator operators are still pushing those buttons, and I suspect they'll be
around for quite awhile longer. 

     Of course, you stand for election every two years in the House, so as
soon as you arrive, there is instant pressure to hone in on the economic and
political interests of your district. That's what landed me on the House
Agriculture Committee, where I lived wheat and cattle policy for years. 

     I also became chairman of the House intelligence committee which gave
me a glimpse of world-oriented politics. I'll never forget the night then-CIA
Director Jim Woolsey tracked me down in a Chinese restaurant to tell me
that the CIA had arrested the biggest spy of modern times -- Aldrich Ames.
It was pouring rain. We were standing in the vestibule of this tiny
restaurant, stopping our conversation each time someone walked in. There was
no partisanship at that moment, only concern for the country.

     In Congress, I enjoyed having time to come in on a Saturday morning,
sit in the middle of a huge pile of mail, open it up and get a sense of what
folks really cared about. It was a good way to stay grounded ... although I
don't think my staff much appreciated the mess on Monday morning.

     President Clinton selected me as his Secretary of Agriculture,
probably as much for my ties to Congress --  Republicans and Democrats -- as
for my knowledge of agriculture. But a few eyebrows went up when I cast my
last vote ... against the GATT agreement. I was joining a pro-trade
administration. But at that moment, I was still the congressman for the 4th
district. I had promised the folks back home that I would vote  no' --
largely because the vote took place during a lame-duck session of Congress
-- and I kept my promise.

     It's a different view from the Cabinet. Your perspective is national,
but you're working within the confines of legislation and a budget that are
decided by Congress. So there is parochialism, but of a different sort.
President Clinton's views obviously have a lot to do with my decisions. I
also have to contend with powerful members of Congress, who control the
purse strings of my budget. It's an interesting contrast from the Hill where
you're one of many and can pretty much say and do as you please. In the
Cabinet, there's less personal freedom, but certainly more power. 

     So we have members of Congress moored to the interests of their
districts, and a Cabinet focused on the good of the whole. It's perfectly
reasonable to ask: how does anything get done? I'd answer: much as our
founding fathers intended. Alexis du Tocqueville once asked Alexander
Hamilton: What is so great about America?  Here, sir,' Hamilton answered,
 the people govern.' I would add: when they choose to. Somewhere between the
cynics' view of a special-interest-driven Gomorrah and the optimists'
democratic utopia lies the reality of American governance today. I'd like to
briefly discuss four policy debates that illuminate both its pitfalls and
potential.
     
FOOD SAFETY
     Food safety is a great example. Throughout history, with few
exceptions, the public interest in safer food was subsumed by certain
interests, some in agribusiness, which tend to hold great sway over the
congressional committees that make our food safety laws. For nearly a
century, these interests at times have resisted major reforms despite our
growing understanding of what causes food-borne illness. 

     Take our meat and poultry inspections. Ever since Upton Sinclair wrote
The Jungle, inspectors have stood on production lines -- looking for
contamination as carcass after carcass whizzed by. Problem is, we've known
for years that the most dangerous threats in our food are invisible to the
naked eye. 

     Last month, we started new inspections that test for these hidden
pathogens. What made this breakthrough possible? An Administration that's
focused unprecedented attention on food safety, and also -- in terms of
breaking the logjam in Congress -- pure people power. Where did it come
from? 1993: thousands are sickened and four children die eating fast-food
hamburgers contaminated with a virulent strand of E. coli. Suddenly, a
sobering statistic -- as many as 9,000 Americans die every year from
food-borne illness -- has a human face ... a young, vulnerable face. A
tidal wave of public interest tips the political scales -- uniting industry
(and I really have to give them credit today for stepping up to the plate),
consumers, government and public health officials behind a food safety
revolution.

     Next year, President Clinton has proposed that America spend $100
million more on food safety than it ever has in the past. We're doing
cutting-edge research; we're expanding a high-tech early warning system to
quickly control outbreaks; we have a consumer education campaign; and you
know those new  inspections? Industry now uses them in its advertising
because safe food sells. 

     Food safety is one area where people want strong government. It's the
same with airplane safety, bank solvency and national security; people look
to government to protect them in ways they cannot protect themselves, and
cannot rely exclusively on the private sector to do it either. 

     So since the 1993 tragedy, an active, engaged public has been very
much in the driver's seat on food safety policy. But not always. If you're
like most Americans, you're probably shocked to learn that USDA cannot order
a recall of unsafe food. The Consumer Product Safety Commission can recall
unsafe toys and cars, and even fine the makers for negligence. But USDA
can't take these actions. I'll let you draw your own conclusions why. I'll
just say that it's not the average person on the sreet saying,  don't let
government protect you from unsafe food.'

DAIRY
     Of course, part of the genius of the American political system is the
protections it gives to minority interests. Depending on a minority's
commitment, majority does not always rule.

     Take dairy policy. This is the penultimate stereotype of a byzantine,
incomprehensible-to-the average-person federal program. Sparing you the
details, I'll just explain that for decades, government has set milk prices
around the country based not on some highly sophisticated  economic model,
but how far you live from a town called Eau Claire in Wisconsin. Years ago,
this region produced most of America's milk. The thinking went: if we
increase prices by distance, the market will make sure that consumers in
non-dairy-producing areas have a regular supply of milk. We succeeded. Dairy
production today is much more regionally diverse, but we're left with a
rather peculiar system. 

     A reasonable person might say,  let's take a fresh look at dairy
production, and adapt the program to modern circumstances.' I say this is
what a reasonable person might say because, of course, it's what I proposed.
But reason has little to do with reality. Why? Because if you're a dairy
farmer, there's only one way you want prices to go. And, dairy folks and
their elected representatives are among the few who actually understand let
alone care about dairy policy. 

     Only problem is, dairy farmers in different parts of the country can't
agree on what they want. This has given rise to two feuding sects in
Congress -- both extremely powerful, but nearly perfectly balanced in their
opposition. The result is paralysis which forced the issue into my lap. I
employed a basic maxim: when faced with a lose-lose political situation,
just make darn sure you do the right thing ... right by America's
agricultural policy which is moving toward freer markets; right by dairy
farmers whom America has a stake in seeing stay in business, and right by
consumers who need a reliable, affordable supply of milk.

     Coming at this from a national perspective, I had to take all three of
these factors into consideration. I asked my staff for maps that showed
exactly where and what is being produced and at what cost. And, I updated
the formula to reflect today's realities and better ensure consumers a fair
market price. I also proposed transition assistance for farmers as we phase
in the new system.

     Already the debate is devolving back into regional politics. I
understand the pressure behind that. It was relatively easy for me to reach
straightforward, national conclusions. This would have been nearly
impossible to do in Congress. Ironically, the ultimate solution may be dairy
compacts -- states banding together and voluntarily raising prices on
consumers to support the industry, as they have here in New England. 

FORESTRY
     So when consumers are quiet, small, dedicated interests usually
prevail. But when people participate actively in the democratic process,
they tend to get their way. There are few more compelling examples of this
than forestry policy which pits two powerful interests against each other:
the timber industry with allies who are extraordinarily well-placed in
Congress versus the environmental movement which wields a different, but
even more intense, sort of power.

     For decades, it was the local sawmill versus the nation's pristine
jewels with the timber folks usually winning out since they had the support
of the previous two Administrations. Then, President Clinton came in and
introduced a third option: sustainable economy, sustainable environment. We
helped timber communities diversify their economic base to include tourism
and recreation, which today earn far more from the forests than chopping
down trees. There are still big confrontations, but I think we're moving
toward a common-sense consensus.

     And, just in case there are any cynics out there, I should point out
that this debate shows that elections matter. Who makes national decisions
matters. This Administration has cut timber sales on public lands to one
third of what they were in 1992. The timber folks aren't thrilled; neither
are the environmentalists, which tells me we're close to the mark. Americans
enjoy a strong economy, and our great, open, natural places. We don't have
to sacrifice either one. 

TRADE
     When we look ahead and speculate on what great tests our democratic
system may face in the years ahead, trade poses one of the more fascinating
dilemmas because it has the potential to pit not just various interests
against one another but the very natures of Congress and the Cabinet
themselves.

     For most of this century, our international relations were framed
largely around war: World War I, World War II, and the Cold War defined
whole generations of Americans' world views. Faced with an outside enemy, it
was fairly easy to forge consensus. Parochial and national interests were
one and the same. This is no longer the case in a world increasingly defined
by trade. 

     It would be easy for me to stand here at Harvard and talk about the
importance of expanding trade -- to our economy, to global stability and to
America's place in a new world. But let's look at this from a Congressional
perspective. With few exceptions, it all comes down to how their people fare
-- grain farmers in the plains states, dairy producers in the upper Midwest
and Northeast, avocado growers in California, orange growers in Florida --
do they face more competition or more opportunity? That calculation will
always dominate the equation. 

     On a macroeconomic level, the free traders generally win this debate.
It's a simple fact of life: if you don't grow, you die. Here in the U.S., we
have stable incomes and population growth. Our biggest economic
opportunities lie in developing markets. Without increases in our sales
abroad, this strong U.S. economy will sputter. You know this. It's Economics
101 ... which is precisely our problem. We have had trouble convincing
people of the merits of the global economy because we talk in academic terms
and have failed to sell people on the connection between their job, their
quality of life, their future and the world.

     It is the ultimate irony that America is a spectacular success in the
global economy, yet we have difficulty convincing our own people of its
importance. Part of the problem is that the hurt is far more easily
exploited than the help. A lost job, or lost production, is felt more
intensely than the gain of several thousand jobs where it is not clear what
created those jobs. Man bites dog, rather than dog bites man. One of the
great challenges facing future democratic leaders will be selling people on
far more sophisticated, high-stakes decisions. Sitting on a national perch
in the Cabinet, it's easy to see the world of opportunity that's out there
for America. But until the American people can also see what it is we're
looking at, we will have a hard time in Congress. We also must address the
hurt that occurs in the process and fight for fair trade.

HOW TO SUCCEED IN POLITICS 
     I guess I could go on about all that I've learned in more than two
decades in Washington, but what strikes me most is that what you think you
need most to learn, you already know: 

     One, believe in the golden rule. Treat others with respect, fairness,
decency and honesty. Otherwise, you cannot have an intellectual debate; you
will get killed on the little things. Today, we don't just debate our
adversaries in politics, we try to kill them. It's a take-no-prisoners
policy which is extremely unhealthy.

     Two, keep the lines of communication open. Never surprise people.
Folks don't like to be caught off-guard. They take it personally, it effects
their dignity, and they react strongly. 

     Three, don't try to please everybody. You will fail. The things that
are rooted in principle are the things that endure in politics. 

     And, four, never underestimate the importance of humor. Yes, we deal
with serious matters. But there used to be a time (and it's not totally
gone) when folks would fight the battles with intensity, then go have drinks
together. Who knows? Your enemies may be your allies tomorrow.  Too many
people in Washington these days take themselves far too seriously. No matter
who we are, it's useful to remember that the world will move ahead
notwithstanding our absence. 

CONCLUSION
     I consider myself one of the luckiest guys alive for having had the
opportunity to serve in two branches of our government. I know a lot of
folks look at Washington these days and are jaded and glum about the state
of our democracy. I don't count myself among them.

     My time in Washington has given me a deep respect for the wisdom of
our founding fathers. I think sometimes when we look at the often chaotic,
messy business of democracy, we tend to overlook a central point: Our
founding fathers didn't want a government that ran smoothly. If they had,
they wouldn't have created three branches. They wanted hoops and hurdles,
weights and counterweights. They are the very guardians of our freedom and
our democracy.

     And, I would have to say that one branch is  super-equal,' and that's
the Congress, as Article I of the Constitution so proclaims. The Congress is
closest to the people, and most capable of changing with the times -- even
though its volatile and parochial natures often have to give way to the
national stability of the executive. 

     Yes, we need campaign finance reform. But our system works. After two
decades of participating in it and appreciating it -- warts and all -- I can
say that with utter confidence. Will it ever achieve perfection? Of course,
not. We have always sought only  a more perfect union' -- one that accepts
our human limitations, but strives for the best in our nature, striking a
chord that rings true across cultures and across time.

     Twenty seven centuries ago, a Chinese philosopher noted,  Of the best
rulers, the people only know that they exist, the next best they love and
praise ... but of the best, when their task is accomplished, and their work
done, the people all remark,  we have done it ourselves.'

     That is a lesson each and every one of us must never forget. Thank
you.

                                #

NOTE: USDA news releases and media advisories are available on the Internet. 
Access the USDA Home Page on the World Wide Web at http://www.usda.gov