Vaden Testifies on Reorganization at Senate Hearing Wednesday

I’m taking a slight break from posting about Transformation to note that there is a Senate hearing tomorrow on this. I wish there were another entity who would take it upon themselves to organize a history of FS reorganization and improvement efforts, before those with memories become inaccessible (mediumship isn’t a popular data collection tool at Schools of Public Administration).

I noted before that during the National Performance Review reorg, the plans had to be approved by Congress as noted here:

for the Department’s programs the

Does anyone have a record of the final bill as passed (or was a bill passed)?

Back to the present. In a recent E&E News story on the subject of the Wednesday Senate Hearing on the reorganization:

Stephen Vaden, who was sworn in July 7 and will lead the reorganization effort, should expect sharp questions Wednesday from the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which hastily called the hearing after the USDA announced the plan without first informing lawmakers.
Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) said he was “disappointed” that lawmakers were kept in the dark, saying he questioned just how effective the reorganization would be. Ranking member Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) called the move “half-baked.”

********

The question of working with Congress ahead of time on agency reorganizations came up at Vaden’s nomination hearing in April.
At the time, Boozman, the Agriculture chair, asked Vaden whether he anticipated further reorganizations, “and if so, will you commit to working with and communicating with Congress as any such actions are contemplated?”
Vaden answered, “When it comes to the actions of the department, we need to be communicating with you on a regular basis whether it’s about reorganizations, policy matters or anything else, because ultimately all the department does is carry out the will of Congress.”

OK then. It appears that interest groups of all stripes and degrees of disagreement with each other are coming out of the woodwork to say no to the current Reorganization plan (dropped on the FS by USDA parties unknown to me, at least).

The E&E news story had interesting background about Vaden’s prior legal skirmishes with Congress over reorganization. Apparently moving entire agencies like NIFA and ERA didn’t invoke the need for Congressional approval?

At the time, Vaden vigorously defended the relocations against criticism that the department had bypassed Congress — a theme that’s likely to be repeated this week.
In that 2019 case, Vaden pushed back on the notion that the USDA can’t relocate offices without the approval of congressional appropriators, although that requirement is boilerplate language in annual appropriation bills.
Vaden sparred with the USDA Inspector General’s Office on the point after the OIG found that the relocation went astray of the requirement. Since federal agencies have the authority to relocate offices, he said — a point the OIG didn’t dispute — a
requirement to obtain one committee or one congressional chamber’s approval is unconstitutional.
Regulations specific to the USDA also outline procedures around realignments and reorganizations, although Vaden said they didn’t apply to the ERS and NIFA relocations.
Among other provisions, the USDA policy says reorganizations must take into account “maximum attraction and retention of employees,” as well as economy and efficiency of operations.

Why did USDA put this out knowing that so many would be against it? So Congress will settle for the usual three regions ultimately (Vaden is an attorney by profession so is this some kind of opening negotiating posture? Is there an Interior mole at USDA who wants the FS to lose its attachment to USDA?

Please put your ideas in the comments. No generic comments, please

(Trump Admin people are stupid/evil).