[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2471-2473]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. VITTER (for himself and Mr. Nelson of Florida):
  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

[[Page 2472]]

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 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

[[Page 2473]]

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.

                          ____________________