A Use of CRA

 Dems use the CRA on civil rights. Why use it on this, and not other regulations? The article explains why the EEOC is different.

Congressional Review Act

 Politico has a piece on the Democrats use of the CRA, finally, with a discussion of why they're using it less than the Trump administration did.  If you can get the courts to kill the Trump rules, you don't need the CRA, and you don't run the risk involved in applying it--the provision that prohibits the agency from future rules to the same effect.

Congressional Review Act Not Used

 Apparently the Biden administration is opting for slow and possibly sure over fast and challengeable.  That is, rather than using the Congressional Review Act to undo last minute Trump regulations they're using the Administrative Procedure Act process--notice of proposed rulemaking, etc. The CRA could be done, but it has a kicker that when used, the agency can not later issue new regulations the same or reasonably similar to those which were killed.  

In a sense, a CRA kill is a permanent veto unless a future Congress enacts a new authority.

Undoing Trump's Work II

The Times has an article today on how the Democrats are planning to use the Congressional Review Act to undo Trump regulatory actions.  According to the article the Republicans are now within the period to which the Act applies so a new Congress controlled by the Democrats would be able to reverse any final rules published from here on to Jan. 19.

The piece quotes Sally Katzen as raising the issue of whether it's possible to reinstate the Obama regs which the Trump administration nullified using the CRA, but it doesn't explore it. I haven't looked at the actual wording of the act recently, but I wonder if the courts would uphold the ability of one Congress to bind a future Congress.

What Is "Genetically Modified"?

The most familiar GMO crops are those which have genes added to provide resistance to a herbicide, or to fight some disease or pest.  The anti-GMO people argue this is messing with mother nature, when you add a gene to corn which comes from some other organism, and that such messing is dangerous.  I don't agree, but I can understand why someone might think that way.

But now comes a report that Chinese scientists have genetically modified wheat to improve its resistance to powdery mildew. What strikes me is the method used: deleting  genes that encode proteins that repress defenses against the mildew.  To me, this undermines the anti-GMO argument--you aren't creating a Frankenstein's monster by combining parts from different organisms, you're simply streamlining an organism.

I suspect few anti-GMO types will agree with me.

[Update: this was a very early use of what is now familiar to most: CRISPR.  I give myself kudos for seeing this and noting the difference with standard genetic modification so early.  Sept. 10, 2018]

Customer Service and Regulatory Burden

Via NASCOE USDA requested comments on ways for reducing regulatory burden  under Obama's Executive Order 13563.  They were due by today.  So naturally I procrastinated until the last minute.  But I finally did offer my accumulated wisdom, which I've published as a Google document here.   Anyone who wants can insert comments, or even edit the damn thing.

[Updated: corrected language and added link to the FR document.]

Government Citizen Intermediaries

One of the issues in the government-citizen relationship is the role of intermediaries.

I remember the CED of Sherman County, KS in 1992 (Info Share days) being very disgusted with a firm which offering help to farmers dealing with payment limitation and conservation compliance issues.  He thought his office ought to be able to do everything his farmers needed, and have the farmers be content with it.  I have something of the same feeling with regards to IRS: our tax system and their software should be good enough to deprive Intuit and H&R Block of their business.  Of course, I know better.

With that as a preliminary, let me quote some paragraphs from the Jackson Lewis Civil Rights Assessment:

The Contract directed that the Assessment Team obtain USDA customer input by written surveys which were originally scheduled to conclude in August 2010 for inclusion in the Final Report by October 26, 2010. During the course of the Contract, however, USDA decided that the survey methodology was less likely to secure the type of reliable data necessary for this Assessment, and the Department replaced this approach with 30 customer Focus Groups in 10 of the 15 Assessment States, which required an extensive and time-consuming approval process by the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”). The OMB process delayed the Assessment Team’s efforts by at least 90 days. As a result, the Focus Group sessions began in Mississippi on January 6, 2011, and concluded in California, with the completion of the 30 sessions on February 3, 2011.
Focus Group recruiting was difficult in large part because of low interest, and attendance was generally below normal expectations. While helpful customer input was elicited from the Focus Groups, the Assessment Team recognized the need to supplement the Focus Group input by interviewing 30 Community-Based Organizations (“CBOs”) to obtain additional customer input, essential to the process but not originally by the Contract. [page iv]

 First, I wonder whether USDA had gotten OMB approval for the surveys, before switching to focus groups. Having had to deal with those OMB requirements, I had a bit of schadenfreude when I read of the big shot law firm's problems with it.

Second, and the point. It's disturbing to learn there are so many CBO's.  That alone indicates the depth of USDA's problems: people don't create organizations just for the hell of it, or if they do the organizations don't stick around; 30 CBO's indicates a big gap between FSA/NRCS/RMA/RD and their customers.

Third.  So far in my reading I've not seen any metrics on these CBO's--how many states they operate in, how many members they have, what areas they focus on (blacks, women, Latinos), did they include any tribal organizations?

[Updated: for some reason I have a mental block on the name of the firm doing the CRA.]

Sherrod Still Negotiating

That's the word from the Post.   As I read the Jackson Lewis Civil Rights Assessment I thought I was seeing repeated suggestions that USDA hire Jackson Lewis for follow-on work.  I'm not clear whether Sherrod's group would be doing that, or whether it's two separate areas of work.

[Updated: corrected the name of the firm doing the assessment.] 

Bureaucratic Palimpsest

In the old days, the really old days, they'd take the parchment on which some guy, such as Plato or Aristotle, had written his thoughts, scrape off the ink, and reuse the parchment for something more important, like a to-do list for one's better half. But sometimes you could still read the original writing--a palimpsest.

When I was at ASCS/FSA you could still sense the presence of the old Agricultural Conservation Agency (which was a predecessor of ASCS specializing, as one might think, in the old Agricultural Conservation Program.  And now, reading the Jackson Lewis Civil Rights Assessment, you can see the carryover of the Farmers' Home Administration/Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service divide, even after 15 years.

[Updated: corrected the name of the firm doing the assessment.] 

Bureaucratic Structure Has Advantages

Back in the 1990's, Secretary Glickman had an ad hoc structure set up to handle the "service center" initiative.  "Service centers" were the effort to consolidate USDA field offices and, possibly, to reengineer business processes and share operations among the service center agencies.  Management oversight came from a council composed of the heads of FSA, NRCS, RD, and maybe RMA.  Greg Carnill headed the effort, which eventually proposed establishing a "Support Services Bureau" providing IT and administrative services to the service center agencies in the field. See this for a Secretary Glickman speech defending the proposal in front of the National Association of Conservation Districts Spring Legislative Conference.  However, Glickman couldn't get the support on the Hill, and a few Congresspersons killed the proposal (if I remember, by a provision in the appropriations bill).

That's ancient history, but there's a point coming. The Jackson-Lewis Civil Rights Assessment says at one point they couldn't find any data where producers had previously given feedback on how well the agencies were doing.  Back in 1995-6, Len Covello, working under Greg, oversaw a survey effort.  I remember it well, to quote Gigi, because Len and I had had some problems over the years.  My point is: once the Support Services bureau was scrapped, the whole supporting structure vanished, and so did any institutional memory, as well as any likelihood of the bureaucracy repeating Len's surveys.  To the bureaucrats who were inside the agencies such surveys were NIH, something alien.

I don't know how you fix the problem.  You've got to combine the focus of a targeted effort, the speed gained by sidestepping bureaucratic hurdles, and yet get the old-line bureaucrats involved.

[Updated: corrected the name of the firm doing the assessment.]

Jackson Lewis Civil Rights Assessment

I tend to have enthusiasm which I don't follow through on, so fair warning: my current enthusiasm is reading and critiquing the:

Independent Assessment of the Delivery of Technical and Financial Assistance
Contract AG-3142-C-09-0049
―Civil Rights Assessment‖
FINAL REPORT
March 31, 2011
Prepared By:
Jackson Lewis LLP
Corporate Diversity Counseling Group
―Assessment Team‖

This is the report which Sec. Vilsack released this past week.  The press release cited these two items for FSA:

"

Farm Service Agency employees will be required to thoroughly explain to applicants the reasons when they deny loan or program applications and what the applicant can do to improve chances of securing approval in subsequent applications.

Farm Service Agency employees involved in the lending and/or outreach processes will learn what assistance they can and cannot provide to customers and potential customers in connection with completing their applications to avoid unequal treatment that could be construed by any customer or potential customer as discriminatory."

 Also, the return of Shirley Sherrod ties to this. I'll label posts: "CRA" for civil rights assessment.