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