Press Releases

Publications

– Factsheets
– Popular Pubs
– Scientific & Technical Pubs
– Industry Alerts & Tech Notes

Videos

Art & Symbols

Email Us

Privacy Statement
EEO Statement
USDA | MRP

APHIS Home Page

A 25-Year Retrospective of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1972–1997

Contents

Introduction
Early History of Plant and Animal
Regulatory Authority
Animal Protection Authority
Plant Protection Authority
Consolidation of Plant and Animal Bureaus
Emergence and Evolution of APHIS
Birth of the Agency
APHIS Evolves Under Various Administrators
Francis J. Mulhern
Harry C. Mussman
Bert W. Hawkins
Donald L. Houston
James W. Glosser
Robert B. Melland
Lonnie J. King
Terry L. Medley
APHIS Today and Tomorrow
Meeting Societal Changes
Looking Ahead
References

Introduction

April 1997 marks the 25-year anniversary of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

This short retrospective begins by examining the early animal and plant health bureaus. For most of the 20th century, these bureaus operated independently of one another. Eventually, these animal and plant health functions were consolidated under the APHIS structure. The bulk of this report assesses APHIS’ development over the past 25 years, focusing on the eight APHIS administrators and their particular visions and goals.

Interviews with the surviving administrators, internal documents, and other materials of historical significance were the major sources used in writing this history.

The effort here was not to capture each and every animal and plant health event or organizational change that occurred during APHIS’ first 25 years. Rather, this report is intended to identify some of the outstanding issues and events that have contributed to the agency’s development. Identifying the organization’s roots and past accomplishments may help us move into the decade ahead with greater confidence about our basic organization, mission, and capabilities.
Return to Contents

Early History of Plant and Animal Regulatory Authority

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was established in May 1862. Its original function was to acquire and disseminate agricultural information. To carry out this mission, a USDA Commissioner was appointed and authorized to conduct experiments, collect statistics, and to collect, test, and distribute new seeds and plants. This mission, as it was originally conceived, continues to be the basic function of the Department.

USDA’s first regulatory activity involved the livestock industry. The Bureau of Animal Industry was established in 1884 after outbreaks of contagious animal diseases led to the barring of U.S. meat from some European markets. This ban on U.S. meat exports focused attention on the need for controlling animal diseases. Regulatory activities to protect U.S. crops began three decades later with the 1912 Plant Quarantine Act. This section reviews the early development of the U.S. plant and animal health bureaus.
Return to Contents

In 1883, the USDA Commissioner established the Veterinary Division. One year later, it became the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI). Congress established the Bureau in order to promote livestock disease research, enforce animal import regulations, and regulate the interstate movement of animals.

Subsequent legislation, such as the 1891 and 1906 Meat Inspection Acts and legislation to regulate veterinary biological products under the Virus–Serum–Toxin Act of 1913, enlarged the BAI. During this time, inspection and quarantine functions were created within the Bureau to support inspection activities at U.S. ports of entry and elsewhere within our borders. Over the next 50 years, BAI’s inspection and quarantine divisions were reorganized on several occasions.
Return to Contents

In 1912, the Federal Horticultural Board was established to administer the 1912 Plant Quarantine Act. The Board included representatives from the Bureau of Entomology, the Bureau of Plant Industry, and the Forest Service. The following excerpt from a 1922 Federal Horticultural Board report describes the general responsibilities of the Board:

The Federal Plant Quarantine Act has for its object the prevention of entry into the U.S. of new and important insects or plant diseases injurious to agriculture, horticulture, and forestry....

Hence, the history of plant quarantine operations essentially began in 1912.

In 1928, the Federal Horticultural Board was abolished. Over the next 40 years, the plant health bureaus were reorganized numerous times.
Return to Contents

In 1942, the BAI—along with the other agencies whose missions related to animal health—was transferred to the Agricultural Research Administration, although each maintained its separate organizational identity. The intent of this reorganization was to better coordinate the scientific work conducted within the bureaus. This was the first effort to streamline the animal and plant protection organizations, or at least to consolidate agricultural research in these areas.

In 1953, the plant protection bureau, the BAI, the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, and the Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils and Agricultural Engineering (all of which operated under the auspices of the Agricultural Research Administration) were abolished, and their functions were transferred to the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). Under the ARS structure, plant and livestock responsibilities devolved to either the research or regulatory division, depending on the nature of the activity. This reorganization reflected the continuing effort of the Department to consolidate and centralize animal and plant protection activities.

In 1971, the animal and plant regulatory functions were separated from ARS to become an entity known as the Animal and Plant Health Service (APHS)—the direct progenitor of today’s APHIS.
Return to Contents

Emergence and Evolution of APHIS

Birth of the Agency

The underlying rationale for consolidating plant and animal research and regulatory activities under the ARS structure (1953–71) was that regulatory work depends upon research to guide its programs and to provide new technologies to solve problems in the field.

Problems, however, eventually developed under the ARS structure. Balancing the competing demands of research and regulatory enforcement became increasingly difficult. ARS work was oriented toward basic scientific research while regulatory and control activities required practical pest and disease management tools to use in the field. By 1971, competition between the regulatory and research programs had reached a crisis. USDA Assistant Secretary Richard Lyng played a significant role (serving under Secretary Clifford Hardin) in the Department’s decision to remove the regulatory functions from ARS and create a separate agency. The new agency was called the Animal and Plant Health Service (APHS).

Five months later (1972), the meat and poultry inspection divisions of the Consumer and Marketing Service (later known as the Agricultural Marketing Service) were added to APHS. The organizational realignment was intended to group functions that rely on similar professional disciplines (e.g., veterinary expertise, inspection, and quarantine) together into one agency. This 1972 change gave our agency its present name.
Return to Contents

APHIS Evolves Under Various Administrators

For the most part, each APHIS administrator has had to respond to many of the same political and social issues. Throughout the 1970’s, 1980’s, and into the 1990’s, the agency faced increasing public concerns with the environment, animal welfare, and food safety. Budget constraints, waxing and waning during this period, also influenced APHIS’ staffing decisions and program priorities.

Throughout this period, APHIS administrators also saw a steady increase in international travel and agricultural trade. Maintaining effective protection against the introduction of foreign diseases and pests continues to be a challenge as travel and trade increase each year.

While the major issues faced by each of the eight APHIS administrators may have been similar, each brought a distinct personal and professional orientation to his work as the APHIS senior manager. The following section examines each of the eight APHIS administrations and their major concerns and accomplishments.
Return to Contents

Francis J. Mulhern (1971–80)

Francis J. Mulhern, previously the ARS Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Control, was the first APHS Administrator. A veterinarian by training, Mulhern had a long history of service with the various animal health bureaus (e.g., BAI, the Agricultural Research Administration, and ARS). He became the head of an animal and plant health agency with 5,000 employees.

From APHS to APHIS.—APHIS personnel were drawn from the animal health, veterinary biologics, plant protection, and agricultural quarantine inspection divisions at ARS. Five months after Mulhern took charge of the newly created APHS, the agency was enlarged by the addition of the meat and poultry inspection programs (putting the “I” into APHIS). Mulhern reported directly to the USDA Assistant Secretary for Consumer and Marketing Services (later known as the Marketing and Inspection Services).

Five years after APHIS was established (1977), its meat and poultry inspection functions were transferred to the newly created Food Safety and Quality Service (later reorganized as the Food Safety and Inspection Service). Removing these food safety responsibilities from APHIS further defined APHIS as primarily an animal and plant health agency rather than a provider of consumer services.

Building a Model Agency.—Mulhern’s first major task was to establish APHIS’ identity as a “model agency.” To accomplish this, Mulhern sought to articulate in clear and simple language APHIS’ distinct mission—protecting the health of U.S. agricultural resources. The significance and simplicity of this mission helped him rally APHIS employees and create, in their minds and in the minds of the agency’s constituents, a clear and distinct organizational purpose and identity.

Mulhern’s model agency gets things done, spends its money wisely, regulates firmly but fairly, trains its people, and rewards its outstanding personnel. To build a model agency, Mulhern believed it was necessary for APHIS’ top decisionmakers to adopt a philosophy of participatory management. He encouraged open communication between his managers and APHIS employees, hoping that such communication would allow agency decisionmakers to utilize the views and input of APHIS personnel and thereby know how management decisions would affect programs in the field before decisions were made.

In the spirit of open communication, Mulhern conducted an employee survey immediately after becoming administrator. Results of the survey showed a high level of employee dissatisfaction. This dissatisfaction, Mulhern believed, was related to the 1971 reorganization and the lingering confusion over employees’ new roles and organizational relationships.

The 1977 removal of the meat and poultry inspection functions allowed APHIS to simplify and consolidate its basic quarantine responsibilities. In addition, a subsequently smaller agency provided a better opportunity for Mulhern to try to foster a sense of identity and agency esprit de corps. A later survey showed that employee morale had improved, but management still had a long way to go in achieving Mulhern’s vision of a model organization.

PPQ and the Consolidation of APHIS’ Quarantine Functions.—Within the APHIS structure, the animal quarantine inspection activities at ports of entry had been conducted by the Veterinary Services (VS) division. In 1974, these inspection responsibilities were transferred to APHIS’ Plant Protection Division, which promptly changed its name to the one in use today, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). More significantly, this transfer made agricultural quarantine and inspection (AQI) a single line item in the agency’s budget structure. AQI is now the largest and most important program priority for the agency.

As a result of this program realignment, PPQ received approximately 70 animal technicians who had previously reported to VS. Here we can see, at least on one front, an early merging of the veterinary and plant health programs and personnel. Since 1974, port inspection responsibilities—or regulating both animal and plant products—have resided with PPQ.

The Brucellosis Saga.—Since the agency’s inception, the Cooperative State–Federal Brucellosis Eradication Program has been the subject of much controversy and the symbol of a basic agency dilemma.

Brucellosis is a cattle (and human) disease that makes pregnant cows abort spontaneously. Funds appropriated to eradicate this disease are a significant line-item in APHIS’ annual budget. In Mulhern’s time, the funds appropriated for the brucellosis program were used not only to carry out that eradication effort but also to support other animal disease-control activities. Brucellosis funding continues in this multiple role today. For many at APHIS, the brucellosis line-item represents the backbone of VS’ infrastructure. Eliminating it from the APHIS budget would affect other basic agency activities that are critical for ensuring the health of U.S. livestock.

Upon the eve of his departure from APHIS in 1980, Mulhern reflected on a general concern regarding the role of VS after brucellosis was eradicated. The concern over APHIS’ future in a brucellosis-free Nation was rooted in what has become a continuing organizational issue for the agency—how to maintain an animal disease-fighting infrastructure if an important funding source disappears. On this point, Mulhern advised that the agency and industry needed to establish a new philosophy about eradication. Mulhern urged that the agency should stress the goal of reducing infection to the lowest possible level. Eradication, if achieved, would be a fringe benefit. This view reflects Mulhern’s effort to address the controversies and excessive costs surrounding eradication programs.

Mulhern’s vision foreshadowed the philosophy of later administrators—that the agency should go from being a reactive organization to one that promotes agricultural health through ongoing disease and pest surveillance and control activities. The brucellosis program would continue to reveal the intrinsic dilemma of a line-item budget for an organization dedicated to protecting a wide variety of the country’s agricultural resources.

Major Events and Issues of the Mulhern Period.—

In 1980, Mulhern left APHIS to direct the animal health program of the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture.
Return to Contents

Harry C. Mussman (1980–83)

Harry Mussman came to APHIS after serving as director of animal production and health for the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Rome. He joined APHIS in 1971, eventually serving as associate administrator under Frank Mulhern between 1975 and 1977.

Promoting the Model Agency Concept.—While Frank Mulhern actively used participatory management practices, he never formally articulated or communicated this philosophy. Mussman made a major contribution to defining APHIS’ organizational identity by developing a document known as “APHIS Philosophy.” This document, which was subsequently distributed throughout the agency, articulated and communicated APHIS’ management philosophy and what was expected of APHIS employees.

Mussman’s management document addressed issues such as promoting an organizational climate that enables employees to work at their highest potential, maintaining open communication with the agency’s constituents and other interest groups, maintaining a lean administrative structure in order to maximize spending on program delivery, and emphasizing APHIS’ action orientation. These were essentially the same principles that Mulhern had sought to practice.

Mussman’s document was significant because it identified and communicated the agency’s core values, responsibilities, and expectations. Mussman’s document reaffirmed Mulhern’s vision of a model agency.

Expanding APHIS’ International Role.—As a result of his FAO experience, Mussman was familiar with animal health institutions and pest and disease situations around the world. During his tenure, Mussman repeatedly asserted the importance of assisting other nations in dealing with plant and animal health problems before their pests and diseases reached American shores.

Mussman put this philosophy into action when be decided to assist Haiti and the Dominican Republic in eradicating African swine fever. More significantly, Mussman’s position on the importance of overseas pest and disease control programs has become a standard APHIS view, supported by the agency’s many foreign cooperative programs.

APHIS Faces New Budget Constraints.—During Mussman’s tenure, there was increasing recognition of the need to reduce Federal expenditures and to shift appropriate Federal responsibilities to the States and private industry. As a reflection of this need, significant decreases were proposed for APHIS’ fiscal year (FY) 1983 budget, with further reductions contemplated for subsequent years.

In light of the proposed cuts, APHIS embarked on an internal review of its plant and animal health mission and organizational structure. The goal of this review was to identify the basic organization and resources required by the Federal Government in order to maintain an effective agricultural protection program. In early 1982, APHIS contracted with a private consulting firm to perform this agency review and to make recommendations for streamlining APHIS.

The consultants’ report concluded that there were few ways in which to reduce APHIS’ role and still provide an effective system of agricultural protection. The analysis indicated general satisfaction with existing APHIS programs in Congress and among the agency’s constituents. Furthermore, reorganizing APHIS along functional lines was impractical because the work and skills of the plant and animal protection staffs were not interchangeable.

The Continuing Brucellosis Saga.—Mulhern noted on the eve of his departure from APHIS that the brucellosis program was meeting increasing controversy. When Mussman became administrator, he encountered a divided cattle industry. Some segments of the industry were opposed to the eradication program while others supported it. At the same time, agency veterinarians, accustomed to a perfect record in combating animal diseases, were not prepared to abandon the brucellosis eradication program and allow it to mar this record.

Mussman played a key role in developing a government–industry consensus that put the eradication program on a path to completion. Industry’s renewed support for brucellosis eradication was in part the result of the Brucellosis Technical Commission’s recommendations favoring eradication. The subsequent infusion of government support and industry’s close cooperation were the basis for striking a massive and final blow against brucellosis.

Eradicating brucellosis continues to be an important agency effort today. Administrators succeeding Mussman continued to confront the dilemma of phasing down the brucellosis program in a way that would not undermine the other disease-control activities supported with brucellosis funding.

Major Events and Issues of the Mussman Period.—

Return to Contents

Bert W. Hawkins (1983–87)

Bert Hawkins, a former rancher and cattle industry leader, liked to depict APHIS’ role as the “three-horse evener,” a hitching device used to distribute the load evenly among a team of three horses. The three horses represented industry, the States, and the Federal Government. APHIS played a role in evenly balancing the responsibilities undertaken by the three horses. In trying to balance these roles, Hawkins sought to reduce APHIS’ dominant position and emphasize industry’s responsibility in APHIS’ cooperative programs.

Expanding APHIS International Programs.—Hawkins shared Mussman’s interest in international programs. For example, screwworm eradication advanced from Mexico southward into Central America. The Medfly program in Mexico also continued to receive significant agency support. During Hawkins’ tenure, APHIS enhanced its presence abroad by stationing inspectors in other countries to preclear products destined for the United States. Also, at this time APHIS’ International Services personnel were granted Foreign Service status. This enhanced APHIS credibility, prestige, and influence in matters related to international agriculture.

APHIS Enters the Biotechnology Era.—During Hawkins’ tenure, the private sector made many advances in biotechnology. In 1985, the Secretary of Agriculture designated APHIS as the agency responsible for regulating biotechnology-derived products that affect animal and plant health. It was not until 1987, however, that the agency made a request for additional appropriations to establish a separate biotechnology program. At that point, Hawkins established a Biotechnology and Environmental Coordination Staff, seeking to demonstrate APHIS’ commitment and credibility in the biotechnology field.

APHIS’ New Wildlife Damage Control Role.—In 1985, Congress transferred the Animal Damage Control (ADC) program from the U.S. Department of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to USDA. Secretary of Agriculture John R. Block subsequently assigned the program to APHIS. The transfer of ADC to APHIS had two consequences for the agency. First and most obvious, the ADC acquisition enlarged the agency, adding a new facet of agricultural protection to the APHIS mission. Second, the intense public interest in ADC’s predator-control activities has drawn APHIS closer to the tensions between environmental protection and agricultural groups.

Bert Hawkins died at his home in Oregon in November 1992

Major Events and Issues of the Hawkins Period.—

...During the 100 days he spent as administrator of APHIS, he charted a clear course of action to strengthen the agency and lead it into the future. He recognized the importance of the agency’s programs and had implemented action to improve management and strengthen the agency’s scientific and technical base.

Houston envisioned an APHIS whose laboratories and staffs received worldwide recognition as centers of excellence and whose employees were among the foremost experts in the world in the areas of animal and plant health. He wanted the industry and the public to better understand the agency’s role in maintaining an abundant, safe, and affordable food supply for Americans and the world.

The dramatic reorganization that followed the management review group’s recommendations, and the current structure of the agency, are the direct result and product of Houston’s vision and initiative.
Return to Contents

James W. Glosser (1988–91)

As administrator, James Glosser’s first major task was to spearhead the 1988 reorganization. Based on recommendations from the management review group’s analysis and supplemented with ideas developed by an APHIS team of deputy administrators, this reorganization led to the creation of five new units.

The APHIS Reorganization.—The new APHIS structure consisted of 11 programs, each headed by a director or deputy administrator sharing equal access to the administrator. The existing and new functions included the following:

Some of the more significant goals of the reorganization were to establish a strong, cohesive APHIS top management team, enhance the agency’s planning and decisionmaking processes (e.g., strategic planning), and establish an integrated human resource management system. Glosser hoped that stronger recruitment programs would strengthen the agency’s scientific and technical base.

The creation of new units and responsibilities within the agency presented new linkage and internal communication problems. Building agency cohesiveness continues to be a major APHIS concern. In March 1991, Glosser reactivated the management review group to evaluate the 1988 reorganization, setting the agency on a course for further organizational adjustments.

Recasting the Perception of APHIS.—Glosser, like Hawkins before him, found that the public perception of APHIS as a “regulatory policeman” put the agency in an unnecessarily adversarial relationship with the regulated community. Glosser attempted to recast this agency–industry relationship by emphasizing APHIS’ role as a service provider and by taking measures to increase the participation of affected groups in developing regulations.

As a result of Glosser’s interest in improving agency–industry relations, he championed a new approach for writing regulations known as negotiated rulemaking (or “reg-neg”). This regulation-writing method allows affected groups to participate in the early stages of drafting new regulations.

APHIS first employed the negotiated rulemaking approach with the honey bee industry in response to industry concern with the spread of the Varroa mite. Soon afterwards APHIS used the “reg-neg” approach with the sheep industry in formulating a regulatory response to scrapie.

The Core-Funding Concept Emerges.—It became apparent from the strategic planning process that an appropriate budget-allocation process was also required. Glosser subsequently became interested in modernizing APHIS’ budget structure so it would be compatible with the agency’s strategic plans. This interest in modernizing the budget evolved into what became known as the “core-funding” concept.
Traditionally, Congress has provided line-item funding for approximately 37 individual APHIS programs. There is no specific funding for some of the agency’s basic activities, such as identification systems, surveillance for exotic diseases, and interstate inspection and compliance. These activities are funded by taking money from each of the individual programs.

Like Mulhern, Mussman, and Hawkins, Glosser grappled with the dilemma of the line-item budget structure. These administrators understood that once a specific program, such as brucellosis, is brought to completion, its funding would be terminated. This, in turn, would reduce funds that support some of the agency’s basic activities, such as its systems for detecting and responding to emergency outbreaks.
Glosser believed the future direction of APHIS called for a new funding approach—one that would help the agency maintain its infrastructure so it could always provide surveillance, information analysis (e.g., the National Animal Health Monitoring System, NAHMS), and ongoing laboratory support services. These activities are essential to preventing and/or combating disease and pest outbreaks.

Glosser, like Mulhern, tried to promote a philosophy that agricultural health is best ensured by employing surveillance systems and activities rather than depending solely on emergency eradication or control programs. Through the core-funding concept, Glosser hoped to establish a funding base that would allow the agency to carry out ongoing health monitoring functions instead of depending on disease outbreaks for special appropriations from Congress.

There has been some success in implementing the core-funding concept, with increased recognition and funding for some surveillance and detection activities. Full implementation remains an agency goal.

Major Events and Issues of the Glosser Period.—

In November 1991, Robert Melland was named administrator of APHIS. Melland’s relationship with the agency began in 1987, when he served as an assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Marketing and Inspection Services (the predecessor of today’s Marketing and Regulatory Programs). In 1990, he became APHIS’ associate administrator. Like former administrator Bert Hawkins, Melland was not a veterinarian.

Melland came from a private-business and public-service background. He owned and operated a farm machinery dealership in North Dakota. During that time, Melland also served as a member of the North Dakota Senate. Following a period as director of the State’s Office of Management and Budget, he came to Washington as a special assistant to a U.S. Senator from North Dakota.

Given the increasing number of competing demands made on APHIS (e.g., from trade, environmental, food safety, and animal welfare groups), Melland’s political and private-sector experience served the agency well.

Melland’s Focus: Refining the Organization.—Melland’s particular focus was on refining the existing organization. Like Glosser before him, Melland recognized that organizational and cultural barriers remain among the agency’s program areas as a result of the 1988 reorganization. This, he believed, impeded the effective cross-utilization of program expertise and inhibited the agency from developing a single APHIS culture and identity. Melland’s goal was to take the agency another step toward integration as a single team.

For Melland the notion of an integrated team also meant eliminating any barriers that prevent the full participation of minorities and women in the agency’s decisionmaking and program development and delivery.

In addition, Melland recognized that disciplinary differences between the agency’s veterinarians and plant personnel have, in the course of APHIS’ evolution, impeded the development of a single agency culture. Historically, veterinarians have been perceived as assuming a dominant role within the agency. As this retrospective shows, all previous APHIS administrators either were veterinarians or came from the livestock arena. The perception of lack of parity between animal and plant health programs within the agency prompted Melland’s interest in measures that would establish greater equality between the livestock and plant health program areas.

Melland’s focus, throughout his tenure, was on bringing closure to projects, commitments, and regulations that remained uncompleted. Melland left the agency because of illness in October 1992, and he died in August 1993.

Significant Events of Melland’s Tenure.—

Lonnie King, a veterinarian, rose through the ranks to be named acting APHIS administrator in October 1992. Before that, he served as deputy administrator of Veterinary Services from 1988 to 1991 and as the agency’s associate administrator under Bob Melland. King was confirmed as APHIS Administrator in July 1995.

King brought with him a vision of where the agency might go after active eradication programs, such as brucellosis, were completed. In part due to his prior staff work with the VS National Animal Health Monitoring System, King focused on moving APHIS from active animal disease control and eradication programs to surveillance, information analysis, and management of animal health.

Major Challenges.—King recalled four major challenges during his time as administrator. First was the shift toward globalization and a new interest in international trade and how industry and the agency interacted to meet these needs. Second was a new emphasis on food safety and consumerism, with resulting APHIS activities in preharvest food safety efforts, such as Salmonella
enteritidis, Escherichia coli, and preventing the entry of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or “mad cow” disease.

A third challenge was converting the agency from a mindset of responding to headlines and crisis situations to a proactive world view. “This,” King noted, “can be termed ‘the ability to separate the urgent from the important.’” Finally, the fourth challenge was the problems of keeping focused and preparing for the future needs of the agency in the face of reduced public confidence in Government coupled with calls for reengineering, reinvention, and downsizing of Government agencies.

Progress in Eradication and Prevention.—King’s term saw continued progress in the national brucellosis eradication program. The Rapid Completion Plan, developed in concert with cattle groups and adopted in 1989, put increased emphasis on herd depopulation as an eradication tool. These continuing efforts brought striking results during King’s administration, with the number of cattle herds under quarantine dropping from 415 in October 1992 to only 51 in July 1996. During the same timeframe, the number of States free of the disease rose from 32 to 34.

One vexing problem that remained as King left the agency was how to deal with the problem of brucellosis in bison in Yellowstone National Park and the threat that infected wildlife there poses to cattle in surrounding brucellosis-free States.

The pseudorabies eradication program made steady progress, with 19 States free of the disease by the time King left. An infestation of Asian gypsy moths in North Carolina introduced via a military cargo ship returning from Europe was contained and eliminated.

King’s era saw a shift in strategy in dealing with Mediterranean fruit-fly infestations. Instead of focusing eradication efforts around specific areas where Medflies were trapped, the agency began massive releases of sterilized Medflies over the entire Los Angeles basin. This approach successfully eradicated this potentially damaging foreign pest and was instrumental in preventing the establishment of new introductions.

Surveillance, information analysis, and management of animal health took on added importance under King. Started under Glosser and emphasized by King, the position of Veterinary Services’ Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH) at Ft. Collins, CO, was solidified. This, in turn, helped legitimize APHIS’ animal disease surveillance and monitoring activities.

Responding to Threats.—APHIS played a leadership role with industry and other Government agencies during King’s tenure in dealing with problems such as Salmonella enteritidis (SE) in eggs, E. coli 0157:H7, and BSE. In particular, King believed that the United States has dealt with the threat of BSE better than any other nation in the world.

International Trade.—A major accomplishment during King’s administration was helping the agency get ready to deal with sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) trade standards and all the implications stemming from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Trade Support Team was set up as a separate unit within International Services to coordinate and focus APHIS activities in this area, and the Phytosanitary Issues Management Team was established in PPQ to aid this effort.

The “foundation building” initiative with the APHIS Management Team (AMT) was a significant achievement of King’s administration. Called foundation building to stress the need to clarify the agency’s trade mission in the midst of changes in global agriculture, this exercise with the AMT resulted in a recognition that APHIS must embrace a dual mission of trade facilitation and protecting agriculture. That is, APHIS must effect a paradigm shift in the way the agency looks at itself.

Visioning.—The APHIS Visioning and Future Search, begun under King and continuing under the present administrator, Terry L. Medley, was an important process that helped set new directions for APHIS and produced shifts in the organizational culture of the agency. Reinvention labs helped change the way the agency did business. A number of these efforts received Hammer Awards from Vice President Gore’s National Performance Review.

Finally, King’s tenure saw the agency conduct an “information systems planning” process that helped move information technology and computer programs from an individual unit focus to an APHIS- wide, centralized approach. The agency also awarded a multimillion-dollar contract—the Integrated Systems Acquisition Project or ISAP—to help standardize computer hardware and software within APHIS.

Model Agency.—King viewed a “model agency” as one that is able to successfully convert ideas into action through a three-cycle process of doing, learning, and changing.

This view resulted in an ability to put the overall APHIS mission and vision ahead of the self-interest of individual units and helped create an agency that adopts new techniques, is flexible, has a global perspective, and is outcome based.

Finally, King believed that a model agency is one that has both a passion for its mission and a special care for its employees. He felt this was exemplified by the response to the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995, when seven APHIS employees lost their lives.

King left the agency in July 1996 to become dean of the School of Veterinary Medicine at Michigan State University.

Major Events and Issues of the King Period.—

APHIS Today and Tomorrow

While APHIS’ mission has remained essentially the same over its 25-year history, the number of actors involved in the agricultural policy arena, both inside and outside of government, has grown, as have the number and type of agricultural issues.

Today, interest groups that demand to have a voice in agricultural policy include commodity groups, specialized trade associations, grassroots agricultural reform organizations, agribusiness, and environmental and animal welfare groups. Furthermore, agricultural policy is more than just farm policy. Today, agricultural policy encompasses farm, food and fiber, trade, environmental, and macroeconomic policy.
Return to Contents

Meeting Societal Changes

In the course of the past 25 years, APHIS has adapted to societal changes by changing its organizational structure and adopting innovative approaches in the way it develops regulations and conducts its programs.

For example, as a result of new environmental concerns and subsequent legislation, APHIS has been required to create new staffs to provide environmental documentation and conduct environmental-monitoring activities. Similarly, animal welfare legislation, enacted because of a public concern that evolved during the sixties, seventies, and eighties, culminated in new regulatory responsibilities for APHIS. APHIS responded by creating an animal care staff and later establishing a formal division to enforce animal care regulations.

Another example of the way APHIS has responded to the challenge of incorporating and balancing the conflicting demands of new and traditional interest groups can be seen in Glosser’s effort to institute the negotiated rulemaking process. This regulation- writing method attempts to reconcile competing interests by inviting affected groups into the regulation-writing process.

Finally, APHIS administrators, beginning with Mulhern, sought to demonstrate a management mindset that welcomes both internal and external criticism. Mulhern, and Mussman later, emphasized that critics, such as animal welfare and environmental groups, are the agency’s best allies. Their views keep the agency in the dynamic process of self-assessment and improvement. Their criticism can be the basis for positive change.
Return to Contents

Looking Ahead

Environmental and food safety concerns will continue to require APHIS attention in the future. However, the emphasis will be on improving the agency’s risk-management and risk-communication capabilities. The critical challenge for the agency is to provide eradication and control programs or license biotechnology products while at the same time responding to the concerns of those who oppose the use of tools perceived to present an unacceptable risk to human or environmental health.

Another challenge APHIS has faced and will continue to face is how to modernize its budget structure to reflect a philosophy that emphasizes maintaining agricultural health instead of responding to agricultural-health emergencies. APHIS has built an enviable record and reputation for its quick emergency response capability. This has been evident in the successes of both its animal and plant health and disease-fighting programs. However, each administrator has sought to make APHIS more than an emergency response organization by promoting a vision of an agency that can provide ongoing disease and pest surveillance and prevention services.

This vision of an agency oriented to prevention has been evident at various times in APHIS’ history. For example, the expansion of APHIS preclearance and control and eradication programs in foreign countries demonstrated a prevention philosophy for it attempted to stymie pests and diseases before they could reach U.S. shores. James Glosser also emphasized prevention approaches and activities. His core-funding concept was the first step to promote a budget that would support an agency capable of protecting agricultural resources through ongoing animal and plant health monitoring services.

Today, the Department of Agriculture has come under intense scrutiny. Questions come up often about USDA efficiency and relevance in a world that has changed dramatically. This scrutiny by members of Congress and by the media has put the spotlight on all USDA agencies, including APHIS. APHIS’ challenge in the immediate future will be to continually modernize and demonstrate its vitality and significance to farmers, exporters and importers, and consumers.

Every administrator has faced the challenge of trying to maintain a dynamic, highly competent, and responsive organization in the face of changing needs and perceptions. However, Frank Mulhern’s statement that “management in all government is going to come under close scrutiny and that mediocrity is not going to be tolerated because we don’t have all those resources we had at one time” seems especially prescient today.

The basic challenge of building and maintaining an effective organization will continue to depend on cultivating productive management–employee relationships. Twenty years ago, Mulhern recognized the value of participatory management and open communication
.
Robert Melland also recognized the talent and energy that exist among APHIS employees and sought ways to tap into it. His interest in equal opportunity policies, workplace issues, program parity, and measures for consolidating and strengthening field operations reflected a vision, conceived 25 years ago, of making APHIS a model agency.

Today, SPS issues play an increasingly important role in international trade. Both GATT and NAFTA affect APHIS’ decisions in this area. Science-based import-export regulations must form the long-term basis of APHIS’ trade policy.

As this history demonstrates, the path to agency preeminence never reaches an endpoint. Instead, we find that attaining excellence is a dynamic, ongoing process.
Return to Contents

References

Caro, Luhrs Associates. 1982. A study to assess the long-term goals and mission of APHIS. Washington, DC: Caro, Luhrs Associates.

Moore, Ernest G. 1967. The Agricultural Research Service. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1922. Annual report of the Federal Horticultural Board, 1913–1922. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1963. Century of service: the first 100 years of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Centennial Committee.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 1974. Protecting American agriculture: inspection and quarantine of imported plants and animals. Agric. Econ. Rep. 266. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 1991. History of U.S. agriculture: 1966–1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Weber, Gustavus A. 1930. The Plant Quarantine and Control Administration. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Return to Contents

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at (202) 720-2791.

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or call (800) 245-6340 (voice) or (202) 720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer.

United States Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

APHIS 10-05-007
Issued April 1997