[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1148-S1150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. VITTER (for himself and Mr. Nelson of Florida):
[[Page S1149]]
S. 2138. A bill to establish a pilot program to evaluate the cost-
effectiveness and project delivery efficiency of non-Federal sponsors
as the lead project delivery team for authorized civil works flood
control and navigation construction projects of the Corps of Engineers;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to talk about
important and bipartisan legislation that I am introducing today, along
with Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. It is about the Corps of
Engineers, and it is intended, and will once passed, to make a real
impact in terms of lessening the delays, the bureaucracy, and the
hurdles all of us must go through in terms of seeing important Corps of
Engineers projects through to fruition. It is called the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Flood Control and Navigation Project Pilot Program.
Let us get right to the heart of the matter. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is a broken bureaucracy. In several significant respects, it
is simply a badly broken bureaucracy. Let me say upfront that there are
many smart, qualified people who work there. They are dedicated. They
work long, hard hours in so many cases, and I applaud their efforts.
But the overall structure and the overall bureaucracy within which we
all must work to get important Corps of Engineers work done is simply
broken.
It takes, on average, about 6 years--6 years--for the Corps not to do
a project but to perform a preliminary study that might lead to an
important flood control or navigation project. Then, when we actually
talk about the engineering work, the construction work, it takes at
least 20 years, on average, to accomplish any meaningful project. That
is simply too long.
There are many reasons for this, and let me say at the outset that
not all those are the Corps of Engineers' fault. We in Congress, the
public, the country put so many demands and burdens on them that they
are simply swamped. They have a backlog that, to some extent, is
unavoidable, and that backlog for active projects--not projects being
studied or considered but the backlog for active approved projects--is
currently $59.6 billion. But even considering that--even considering
that avalanche of demands and that backlog--the Corps of Engineers'
bureaucracy is broken, and it adds to those problems and magnifies them
enormously by extending the time and the cost of any given project.
Of course, when projects get extended in time and are delayed, when
costs grow over time. Then the initial problem--the backlog, that
initial avalanche of demands--explodes and is multiplied tenfold. This
is the situation Senator Nelson and I are trying to address in a
focused, proactive, positive way.
Our bill would do one thing to address this. It would establish a
pilot program whereby the Corps of Engineers selects certain
significant flood control and/or navigation projects and moves project
management authority, responsibility for those projects, from the Corps
of Engineers down to the State and/or local sponsors. What do I mean by
that? Every project we are talking about, every Corps project, whether
it is a flood control project or a navigation project, the Corps of
Engineers doesn't do it alone. They have partners. On the governmental
side, they specifically have State and/or local partners who almost
always pay a significant cost share of the project--usually about 35
percent. So those entities are already involved in a very meaningful
way in these projects.
Our pilot program would tell the Corps to take certain select
projects which have been delayed, which are sitting on the shelf, with
costs and timelines growing, and move the project manager
responsibility out of the Corps of Engineers down to the State and
local sponsors. The States and localities are the folks on the ground
who have even more of a vested interest and a need to actually get this
work done. They have the desire to cut through delays and the
bureaucracy to get it done in a more aggressive way. So I am absolutely
convinced, if we can move this responsibility in a careful, thoughtful
way down to the State and local sponsors, in virtually all cases that
will cut delays, that will cut timeframes, and in doing so it will
significantly cut costs.
Again, this is not a radical idea. For one thing, these State and
local entities I am talking about are already intimately involved in
these projects. They already have significant capacity to be
proactively involved in these projects and they already have a stake in
the game--in most cases paying 35 percent of the project cost.
Secondly, the actual design, engineering and construction work is not
done by any of these entities anyway. In almost all cases, the huge
majority, or 100 percent, of that work--design, engineering,
construction--is done by private business hired by the Corps, hired by
the State and locals to get this done. That will remain the same. So
the professionals doing the design, engineering, and construction work
will remain the same. That is not changing at all.
Third, the reason this idea is not a radical concept but is actually
a proven model is that what I am describing is more or less exactly
what we do for Federal highway projects. It just so happens we are
debating a highway bill on the Senate floor, and that is a useful model
to look to in this context. When we do highway projects, we have a
Federal Highway Administration and we have significant Federal funds
that go to these highway projects, but the Federal agency--in that case
the Federal Highway Administration--is not the lead project manager, is
not intimately involved day to day, week to week, and year to year in
moving those projects along. Quite to the contrary, they are shipped
and the dollars are shipped to the States and locals. In the huge
majority of cases, the States and/or locals are the lead project
manager entity taking control and leading the way.
So that is a proven model. That model works better compared to the
way the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers works; that is, broad brush,
exactly the model we are adopting. It will save time, and in doing so
it will save significant money.
To ensure the Corps does not feel threatened by this, built into the
bill, Senator Nelson and I have identified an offset. So even though
these projects that will be included in the pilot program have money
that has been allocated for them, we have an offset so that amount of
money can be spent on those projects without diminishing what will
remain as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' budget.
In fact, the Corps itself faces a win-win with this situation. They
will get rid of some of their responsibility and some of their work,
but there will not be any Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers money
that will leave them alone with that responsibility and with that work.
Quite honestly, the Corps welcomes this, particularly in light of their
backlog and particularly in light of the avalanche of demands that are
placed on them.
For all these reasons, I hope all our colleagues in the Senate,
Democrats and Republicans, will look carefully at this legislation and
join Senator Bill Nelson of Florida and myself. This is something that
needs to be done, because as I said at the beginning, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, unfortunately, is a badly broken bureaucracy in
many respects. It needs to be fixed. We need to respond to these flood
control and navigation needs on a real-time basis, not with 20, 30
years' delay. We can't continue to compete in a global economy with
this sort of delay for vital navigation or vital flood control
projects. We need to cut through the bureaucracy and do a lot more with
less. This legislation will help us get there.
I invite, and Senator Bill Nelson invites, all of our colleagues,
Democrats and Republicans, to look at this legislation. We invite all
of our colleagues to join us in this very important reform of the Corps
of Engineers.
In closing, let me also say that independent of this legislation, I
am also pursuing a GAO audit of the Corps. I have already requested
that in writing and have received assurances that audit will happen. I
think that will be an additional and very helpful and necessary tool
for us to see how the Corps does or doesn't effectively do its business
and to make other needed reforms in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
bureaucracy.
I look forward to pursuing that audit, getting the results of that,
and seeing
[[Page S1150]]
where that leads in terms of other necessary Corps reforms in the near
future.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Johnson of South
Dakota, and Mr. Harkin):
S. 2141. A bill to amend the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to
make it unlawful for a packer to own, feed, or control livestock
intended for slaughter; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
designed to help family farmers across this nation have a more level
playing field when it comes to livestock markets. The bill would
prohibit meat packers from owning livestock. The ownership of livestock
by packers compromises the marketplace and hinders the ability of the
farmer to receive a fair price. It is simple, as one meat-packing
executive once told me, packers own livestock so that when prices are
high, they slaughter their own livestock. When prices are low, they buy
from farmers.
I would love to say opportunities for independent producers have
gotten better since the last time we debated this bill during the 2008
Farm Bill. But that simply isn't the case. We are to the point where
most farmers have to deliver their livestock to one of a few very large
packers. Farmers' bargaining power is diminished by the sheer size and
economic position of the packers. But beyond that, farmers have to
compete with the livestock owned by the packing plant itself. The
packer ban would make sure the forces of the marketplace work for the
benefit of the farmer as much as it does for the slaughterhouse.
I am sure there will be folks in the packing industry that point out
that farmers are doing okay right now, and that's great that farmers
are experiencing a good period. I am pleased anytime the hard work of
livestock farmers results in a good price. But I don't want my
colleagues here in the Senate to be lulled to sleep and think just
because prices are good right now means we don't have competition
issues in the livestock industry that need to be addressed. This is
about ensuring farmers are able to get fair prices for years to come.
We need to work today, and implement this reform, to ensure the next
generation of independent farmers has an opportunity to raise livestock
and receive fair prices as a result of their hard work.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2141
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON PACKERS OWNING, FEEDING, OR
CONTROLLING LIVESTOCK.
(a) In General.--Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards
Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 192), is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections
(g) and (h), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) Own or feed livestock directly, through a subsidiary,
or through an arrangement that gives the packer operational,
managerial, or supervisory control over the livestock, or
over the farming operation that produces the livestock, to
such an extent that the producer is no longer materially
participating in the management of the operation with respect
to the production of the livestock, except that this
subsection shall not apply to--
``(1) an arrangement entered into within 7 days (excluding
any Saturday or Sunday) before slaughter of the livestock by
a packer, a person acting through the packer, or a person
that directly or indirectly controls, or is controlled by or
under common control with, the packer;
``(2) a cooperative or entity owned by a cooperative, if a
majority of the ownership interest in the cooperative is held
by active cooperative members that--
``(A) own, feed, or control livestock; and
``(B) provide the livestock to the cooperative for
slaughter;
``(3) a packer that is not required to report to the
Secretary on each reporting day (as defined in section 212 of
the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1635a))
information on the price and quantity of livestock purchased
by the packer; or
``(4) a packer that owns 1 livestock processing plant;
or''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments
made by subsection (a) take effect on the date of enactment
of this Act.
(2) Transition rules.--In the case of a packer that on the
date of enactment of this Act owns, feeds, or controls
livestock intended for slaughter in violation of section
202(f) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (as amended by
subsection (a)), the amendments made by subsection (a) apply
to the packer--
(A) in the case of a packer of swine, beginning on the date
that is 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act;
and
(B) in the case of a packer of any other type of livestock,
beginning as soon as practicable, but not later than 180
days, after the date of enactment of this Act, as determined
by the Secretary of Agriculture.
____________________