    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                  LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 104, THE REALIZE
                     AMERICA'S MARITIME PROMISE (RAMP) ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    (112-44)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                        WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  JULY 8, 2011

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

             Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
            committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    67-286                    WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                        JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

    DON YOUNG, Alaska                    NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin           PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        Columbia
    GARY G. MILLER, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
    TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 BOB FILNER, California
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio                   LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            RICK LARSEN, Washington
    ANDY HARRIS, Maryland                MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
    JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington    MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
    FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire       RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota             MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         LAURA RICHARDSON, California
    RICHARD L. HANNA, New York           ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana         DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida
    JEFF DENHAM, California
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
    CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
    Tennessee

                                      (ii)

    ?

                Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

                           BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman

    DON YOUNG, Alaska                    TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
    GARY G. MILLER, California           ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         Columbia
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            BOB FILNER, California
    ANDY HARRIS, Maryland                EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington,   GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    Vice Chair                           JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
    CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota             STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               LAURA RICHARDSON, California
    JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana         MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    JEFF DENHAM, California              NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma               (Ex Officio)
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio)

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................   vii
    H.R. 104, a Bill to ensure that amounts credited to the Harbor
      Maintenance Trust Fund are used for harbor maintenance.........   xii
    H.R. 104 Fact Sheet..............................................    xv

                                   TESTIMONY
                                   Panel One

    Boustany, Hon. Charles W., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Louisiana.........................................    34

                                   Panel Two

    Brady, Bonnie, Executive Director, Long Island Commercial Fishing
      Association....................................................    44
    LaGrange, Gary P., President and CEO, Port of New Orleans........    44
    Weakley, James H.I., President, Lake Carriers' Association.......    44

              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., of California.........................    59

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

    Boustany, Hon. Charles W., Jr....................................    61
    Brady, Bonnie....................................................    64
    LaGrange, Gary P.................................................    66
    Weakley, James H.I...............................................    70

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Bishop, Hon. Timothy H., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New York, request to submit the following into the
      record: Letter in support of H.R. 104 from Hon. Joe Courtney, a
      Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut, July
      8, 2011; and statement from Chuck May, Chair Pro Tem, Great
      Lakes Small Harbors Coalition..................................    30
    Boustany, Hon. Charles W., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Louisiana, request to submit a letter in support
      of H.R. 104 from the following Senator and Representatives from
      Louisiana: Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Hon. Rodney Alexander, Hon.
      Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Hon. Bill Cassidy, Hon. John Fleming,
      Hon. Cedric L. Richmond, and Hon. Steve Scalise, July 8, 2011..    37
    Gibbs, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Ohio, request to submit the following into the record:

        Letters in support of H.R. 104 from Leonard Blackham,
          Commissioner, Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, and
          President of NASDA; Jeff Moseley, President and CEO,
          Greater Houston Partnership; Charles T. Carroll, Jr., of
          the National Association of Waterfront Employers; Barry W.
          Holliday, Chairman, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Fairness
          Coalition; Ford B. West, President, The Fertilizer
          Institute; Hon. Nikki R. Haley, Governor of South Carolina;
          and Brian Pallasch and Marco Giamberardino, on behalf of
          the Water Resources Coalition..............................     5
        Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers;
          testimony of Kurt J. Nagle, President and CEO, American
          Association of Port Authorities; and testimony of William
          J. Rase III, Port Director, Lake Charles Harbor and
          Terminal District..........................................    18

                            ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

    Big River Coalition, Sean M. Duffy, Sr., Big River Coalition
      Administrator, statement.......................................    86
    Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Mike Strain,
      D.V.M., Commissioner, letter, July 1, 2011.....................    88
    The International Propeller Club of the United States, R. Wade
      Wetherington, International President, letter, August 2, 2011..    90

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.009

                        LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 104,
                     THE REALIZE AMERICA'S MARITIME PROMISE
                                   (RAMP) ACT

                                  ----------

                              FRIDAY, JULY 8, 2011

                      House of Representatives,
                        Subcommittee on Water Resources
                                       and Environment,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in
    room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs
    (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Gibbs. Welcome. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and
    Environment will come to order. Today, we will have a
    legislative hearing on H.R. 104, Realize America's Maritime
    Promise Act of 2011. This hearing will give Members a chance to
    hear and review the challenges and opportunities facing
    America's navigation system, the current and future roles
    played by our ports and waterways, and Mr. Boustany's
    legislation.
        Ninety-five percent of the Nation's imports and exports go
    through the Nation's ports. Our integrated system of highways,
    railroads, airways, and waterways has efficiently moved freight
    in this Nation. But as we enter a new era of increased trade,
    our navigation systems have to keep pace. If not, this will
    ultimately lead to further delays in getting the Nation's
    economy back on its feet.
        In May 2010, the President proposed an export initiative
    that aims to double the Nation's exports over the next 5 years.
    However, with the Corps of Engineers navigation budget slashed
    by 22 percent over the previous 5 years, and the President only
    requesting $691 million from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund,
    the export initiative will not be a success. Only if our ports
    and waterways are at their authorized depths and widths will
    products be able to move to their overseas destinations in an
    efficient and economical manner.
        Since only 10 of the Nation's largest ports are at their
    authorized depths and widths, the President's budget does
    nothing to ensure our competitiveness in world markets. Modern
    ports and waterways are critical in keeping the U.S.
    manufacturers and producers competitive in the world markets.
    For instance, America's farmers, like the rest of the economy,
    depend on the modern and efficient waterways and ports to get
    the products to market. Improved transportation systems in
    South America have allowed South American farmers to keep their
    costs low enough to underbid U.S. green farmers for customers
    located in this country.
        With an outdated navigation system, transportation costs
    will increase and goods transported by water may switch to
    other congested modes of transportation. With today's
    overcrowded highways, like the I-95 corridor, we should be
    looking to water transportation to shoulder more of the load.
    Unless the issue of channel maintenance is addressed, the
    reliability and responsiveness of the entire intermodal system
    will slow economic growth and threaten national security.
        Thankfully, Congressman Charles Boustany from Louisiana
    introduced H.R. 104, the Realize America Maritime Promise
    (RAMP) Act earlier this Congress. His legislation, of which I
    was proud to be the 100th cosponsor, simply ties the Harbor
    Maintenance Trust Fund revenue to expenditures. It would
    require the total budget resources of expenditures for the
    trust fund for harbor maintenance programs to equal the level
    of receipts plus the interest credited to the trust fund for
    that fiscal year. The Airports and Highways Trust Fund operates
    in a similar manner.
        The RAMP Act is able to achieve these goals by declaring
    that it shall be out of order in the House of Representatives
    or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution,
    amendment, motion, or conference report, that would cause the
    total budget resources for the fund in a fiscal year for harbor
    maintenance programs to be less than the level of receipts,
    plus interest credited to the trust fund, for that fiscal year.
        Currently, the trust fund has been raising about $1.3
    billion a year. And in this proposed budget, less than $830
    million will be spent in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for
    dredging. So that is an example we need to spend it all for
    dredging.
        I would like to welcome our witnesses today. At this time,
    I recognize our ranking member, Mr. Bishop, for any remarks he
    would like to make.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    holding this hearing on the growing water infrastructure needs
    and challenges facing our Nation. This hearing highlights just
    one small facet of a much larger issue: how this Nation will
    ensure that its water infrastructure assets remain safe,
    reliable, and efficient to address our current and future
    needs.
        Over the past few years, this subcommittee has held hearing
    after hearing on the declining condition of our Nation's water
    transportation corridors, our levees and flood walls, and our
    Nation's wastewater infrastructure. Countless witnesses have
    come in here telling us that our water-related infrastructure
    is on the brink of failure, and of the ensuing adverse impacts
    to health, safety, prosperity, and quality of life should one
    of these systems fail.
        We have all witnessed stories on the tremendous impacts to
    lives and livelihoods that result from water infrastructure
    failures. In just the past decade, we have impacts ranging from
    the loss of over 700 lives from multiple levee failures in the
    city of New Orleans, to the recent loss of two lives in
    relation to a Tennessee wastewater treatment plant failure. We
    have also witnessed how the failure of large water mains in
    suburban Maryland can turn streets into rivers and disrupt
    homes and businesses for weeks afterward.
        The impact of neglect on navigation systems is equally as
    troublesome. In just the past decade, the Corps has had
    multiple emergency closures of navigation locks on almost every
    river system to address infrastructure deterioration. These
    unscheduled closures result in significant impacts to the
    movement of goods and services, as well as impacts shippers and
    customers alike in terms of higher costs.
        Similarly, the lack of available maintenance dredging funds
    has resulted in reduced depths at many major port facilities
    and has all but passed over the dredging needs of smaller ports
    such as Lake Montauk in my congressional district. Fortunately
    for the businesses and industries that rely on Lake Montauk,
    the story is hopeful, because the Corps was able to identify
    funding to remove over 16,000 cubic yards of material from the
    inlet later this fall. However, as Ms. Bonnie Brady will later
    testify, not all small harbors were as lucky.
        It would seem apparent, then, that underfunding the mission
    of the Corps of Engineers is shortsighted for many reasons.
    First, it puts our families and communities at an increased
    risk of flooding or damage from coastal storms. Second, it has
    a substantial negative impact on local economies and the bottom
    line of big industries and small businesses alike. Third, it
    delays the potential public and environmental health benefits
    that come from environmental restoration projects. Finally, it
    places this Nation on an unsustainable path where it is forced
    to rely on outdated and failing infrastructure to keep the
    Nation going.
        Yet in the first 6 months of the 112th Congress, the new
    House majority has put forward several legislative proposals to
    cut the funding for the Corps to levels not seen since 2003.
    The most aggressive proposal included as part of H.R. 1 would
    have cut over $500 million, or approximately 10 percent, from
    an already strained Corps budget and can only result in
    increased delay in carrying out vital Corps projects and
    increased reliance on using Band-Aids to remedy critical
    infrastructure maintenance issues.
        Similarly, next week the House will consider the Energy and
    Water Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012, which further
    reduces the level of funding for the Corps by 11\1/2\ percent,
    including a remarkable cut of 20\1/2\ percent to the Corps
    construction account and an additional 38.2 percent reduction
    for the Corps work along the Mississippi River. Collectively,
    for the hundreds of Corps projects around the country, these
    reductions in funding will result in growing deficiency in
    maintenance that will continue to expand until it becomes an
    emergency or fails at a critical moment.
        I am glad we are having this conversation today because it
    allows us to highlight one area of the critical backlog of
    Corps projects; that is, the backlog of maintenance dredging
    needs. While I am a strong supporter of using harbor
    maintenance receipts for their intended purposes, I want to
    remind my colleagues of the context in which we are having this
    conversation. If the intent of this hearings is to check the
    box and say we are serious about addressing the backlog of
    maintenance dredging needs, that is one point. However, what
    about the backlog in other maintenance work that needs to be
    carried out? Similarly, what about the backlog in authorized
    construction projects or proposed studies for new Corps
    projects, or about the backlog in clean water-related
    infrastructure?
        I hope today's hearing marks a subtle shift in recognizing
    the valuable work that the Corps carries out for our
    communities, for our economies, and for our Nation as a whole.
    If that is the case, then I hope that my colleagues will be
    similarly supportive in ensuring the adequacy, safety, and
    reliability of all of our water infrastructure investment
    programs. If we are serious about job creation, which I hope we
    are, then we should look no further than the proven track
    record for job creation that comes from investing in our
    Nation's infrastructure.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
        Because of voting this morning and our time restraints, if
    our other Members have opening statements, you can submit those
    for the written record.
        At this time I ask unanimous consent that the following be
    entered into the record. We have letters of support for H.R.
    104 from Leonard Blackham, Commissioner of the Utah Department
    of Agriculture and Food, and president of NASDA; Jeff Moseley,
    president and CEO of the Greater Houston Partnership; Charles
    Carroll, Jr., of the National Association of Waterfront
    Employers; Barry Holliday on behalf of the Harbor Maintenance
    Trust Fund Fairness Coalition; Ford West of The Fertilizer
    Institute; the Honorable Nikki Haley, Governor of South
    Carolina; and the Water Resources Coalition. Those are letters
    in support.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.021

        Mr. Gibbs. I also ask unanimous consent to include the
    written testimony from the American Society of Civil Engineers;
    Kurt Nagle of the American Association of Port Authorities; and
    William Rase of Port of Lake Charles, to be included in the
    record.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.032

        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter
    into the record a statement from the Honorable Joe Courtney of
    Connecticut, who joins Mr. Boustany as the primary sponsor of
    H.R. 104, and a statement from the Great Lakes Small Harbors
    Coalition.
        Mr. Gibbs. So ordered. All those will be put in the record.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.036

        Mr. Gibbs. At this time, our first panel, we have
    Congressman Charles Boustany of Louisiana, the sponsor of H.R.
    104. Welcome.

           TESTIMONY OF THE HON. CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., A
         REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

        Dr. Boustany. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member
    Bishop. I want to thank you all and our colleagues on this
    subcommittee for giving me the privilege of testifying in front
    of you today on H.R. 104. I also want to thank Chairman Mica
    for working with me on this bill. The work started early in the
    last Congress, and we have continued to move forward with this.
    I also want to single out John Anderson, the staff director,
    and Geoff Bowman, who have been really very, very helpful in
    this effort. Clearly, we have a lot of work to do in really
    dealing with and correcting this injustice affecting our
    maritime community.
        As a former member of the subcommittee, I am pleased to
    return and provide testimony regarding this issue not only in
    front of our Members here today but also some friends in the
    audience, Gary LaGrange from the Port of New Orleans, and a
    number of folks back from my district in Southwest Louisiana
    with the Port of Lake Charles.
        Since I served as vice chairman of the Water Resources
    Subcommittee in the 109th Congress, I have remained concerned
    about existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers funding levels and
    the negative impact this has had on our Federal ports and
    harbors. Because most ports do not have naturally deep harbors,
    they must be regularly dredged and maintained to allow ships to
    move safely through Federal navigation channels.
        The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund was created in 1986 to
    provide a stable source, a long-term source of funding to pay
    for maintenance costs for federally maintained harbors. Users
    of the ports and waterways would pay a small tariff on the
    goods passing through these waters to maintain this critical
    infrastructure. The revenues would then be placed in the trust
    fund, where they would be used promptly and exclusively for
    harbor maintenance costs. However, over the past decade,
    problems have developed with the mechanism of this.
        Because the revenues and expenditures of the trust fund are
    part of the overall budget, if all revenues are not spent the
    surplus now is used to help offset deficits in the rest of the
    general budget. As a result, we have a chronic underfunding of
    critical harbor maintenance needs. In fiscal year 2010, the
    harbor maintenance tax collected more than $1.2 billion from
    shippers for the purpose of funding dredging projects. However,
    only about half of dredging and related maintenance costs were
    allocated to the Corps operations and maintenance, and ports
    and harbors are unable to dredge to their authorized project
    dimensions.
        The uncommitted balance in the trust fund continues to
    grow. According to the House Appropriations Committee's Fiscal
    Year 2012 Energy and Water Development report, it will reach
    $6.1 billion by the beginning of 2012, even though there are
    significant harbor maintenance needs that are out there.
    According to the Corps own fiscal 2010 budget justification,
    full channel dimensions at America's top 59 harbors are
    maintained less than one-third of the time.
        There are many examples of dredging problems in ports and
    harbors across the Nation. In many cases, vessels must light
    load because of dredging shortfalls, and the economic
    implications are enormous. For every foot of draft, a ship is
    restricted, up to $1 million of cargo will sit on the dock as a
    result of this light loading.
        As a member of this subcommittee, I participated several
    years ago in a hearing in which U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    Major General Carl Strock testified. I asked him the reason for
    the Corps constantly reprogramming funds from thewaterways in
    my district to the Mississippi River. This was alarming,
    because the Calcasieu River, which is in my district, is a 70-
    mile channel serving the Port of Lake Charles--the 11th largest
    port in the United States. Based on studies done in 2006, the
    Port of Lake Charles generated over 31,000 jobs, contributed
    $765 million directly to the Federal Treasury, equal to the
    money allocated annually to the Corps for operations and
    maintenance projects.
        Despite these significant contributions to the national
    economy, the dredging budget of the Calcasieu project has
    historically been grossly underfunded. In fact, in my first
    year in office, the initial budget had zero allocated for
    dredging. We were able to bump that up to $9 million, but it
    wasn't near what we needed to get the job done.
        Between fiscal years 2003 and 2011, the appropriations for
    the Calcasieu ship channel have been about 51 percent of the
    amount needed to fully fund maintenance of the waterway. This
    example at the Port of Lake Charles is identical to examples
    all over the country, ports large and small, facing inadequate
    maintenance dredging, and oftentimes when an emergency arises,
    we further rob Peter to pay Paul. We have seen this recently on
    the Mississippi.
        As the conversation continued, General Strock stated to me
    that the Corps could dredge all federally maintained ports and
    waterways to the authorized depth and width should they get
    full allocation of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund that is
    collected annually, just as Congress intended when this harbor
    maintenance tax was created. This includes small harbors and
    ports, because basically the allocation would double and the
    money coming in annually is more than sufficient to take care
    of all of the federally authorized ports to meet their
    authorized depth and width. Keep in mind, General Strock
    referenced just future revenues, those incoming revenues, not
    the existing $6.1 billion surplus in the trust fund.
        So in order to address this situation, I introduced H.R.
    104. This strongly bipartisan bill seeks full access for our
    ports to the annual revenues deposited in the Harbor
    Maintenance Trust Fund, without creating mandatory spending,
    which would trigger budget implication. The RAMP Act, with
    bipartisan cosponsorship of 101, includes a guarantee requiring
    the total amount available for spending from the Harbor
    Maintenance Trust Fund each year be equal to the trust fund
    receipts, plus interest, as annually estimated by the
    President's budget.
        If an appropriations bill spending trust fund revenue is
    brought to the House or Senate floor not meeting this
    requirement, any Member would be able to make a point of order
    against it and the bill would not be allowed to be considered
    in that form.
        While the intent of the RAMP Act is to increase harbor
    maintenance and spending, it does not make increased mandatory
    spending. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed the
    bill does not have any scoring impact. That is because of the
    way this bill has been written.
        Responsible for moving more than 99 percent of the
    country's overseas cargo, U.S. ports and waterways handle more
    than 2.5 billion tons of domestic and international trade
    annually, and the volume is projected to double within the next
    15 years, especially after the expansion of the Panama Canal.
        In 2007, there were 13.3 million port-related jobs, 9
    percent of all the jobs in the United States, accounting for
    $649 billion in personal income. A $1 billion increase in
    exports creates an estimated 15,000 new jobs. And that is just
    what this bill is intended to do: strengthen our
    infrastructure, create jobs, double our exports, as the
    President wants to do, and stimulate our economy.
        America's deep-draft navigation system is at acrossroad.
    Our ability to support continuing growth in trade hinges on
    critical channel maintenance at our ports. I urge the
    subcommittee to use this unique opportunity, this bipartisan
    opportunity, to make changes needed and pass the RAMP Act.
    Future port dimensions affecting jobs, trade, the economy, and
    our national defense, cannot be compromised. And that is why I
    urge passage.
        Again, thank you all for allowing me to testify. I will be
    happy to take any questions from the subcommittee.
        Mr. Gibbs. Before we do questions, we have got to do a
    little housekeeping here. I would like to ask unanimous consent
    that I be authorized to declare a recess during today's markup,
    pursuant to rule 1(a)1 of the rules of the Committee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure.
        Is there objection? Hearing none, so ordered.
        Just an FYI, they are calling votes here shortly and we
    will have to recess for a series of votes--the only series
    today. We will come back after votes at around 12:30,
    approximately.
        Dr. Boustany. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter. This is from
    the Louisiana delegation. I ask it be made part of the record.
        Mr. Gibbs. So ordered.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7286.038

        Mr. Gibbs. I yield if there are any questions.
        Mr. Duncan. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions.
    I do want to say during the 12 years that we had control of the
    Congress in the mid-nineties and early years of this decade, I
    chaired the Aviation Subcommittee for 6 years, and then this
    subcommittee, the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee
    for 6 years. The last 2 years chairing this subcommittee,
    Congressman Boustany was my vice chairman and was an
    outstanding Member.
        And I am pleased to see his continuing good work on this
    legislation. It is very, very important. Very few people in
    this country really know how important this work is to our
    entire Nation and our entire economy, and other developed
    nations. And even some developing nations are spending more
    doing these types of things and taking better care of their
    harbors than we are.
        I am pleased that we were able to include this, basically,
    in the bill that we unveiled yesterday. It is good legislation.
    And, really, the historic predecessor of this full committee,
    one of the original committees in the Congress, was the Rivers
    and Harbors Subcommittee--Rivers and Harbors Committee that led
    to the Public Works and Transportation Committee and now the
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
        So I support this legislation and I think it is something
    that all Members can support.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Gibbs. Representative Bishop.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Boustany, thank you very much for your leadership on
    this issue. As you know, I am a cosponsor of the bill, and I
    very much hope we can pass it out of the House and get it
    signed into law.
        I just have one concern, and it is a concern you and I have
    spoken about a little bit. That has to do with the enforcement
    mechanism. My concern is this. As you know, the rules package
    that passed out of the House of Representatives I think our
    first day of session--this session--removed the firewall that
    protected the Highway Trust Fund money. And my concern is that
    if we have taken that action, what level of assurance will we
    have that we will be able to wall off the Harbor Maintenance
    Trust Fund money to be used for the purposes that you want to
    use it for, I want to use it for, and not have it go to become
    a part of general fund revenue.
        So I guess my question is: What conversations have you had
    with your leadership, what assurances have you received from
    your leadership, or is this something that people like you and
    me and Mr. Duncan that are paying close attention to this are
    just going to have to stay on top of as we go forward?
        Dr. Boustany. A couple of points. One, the rules package
    pertained to the Highway Trust Fund, and that is because we got
    in difficulties in the past where general funds were having to
    be used, which is not the case with the Harbor Maintenance
    Trust Fund situation. I have had some conversations with senior
    staff in the Speaker's office as well as one preliminary
    discussion with the Speaker himself on this. We are going to
    continue to work through to make sure that the spirit of this
    bill and its enforcement mechanism is intact. It is too
    important.
        This is a unique opportunity for us to do something in a
    bipartisan way that is going to promote job growth. It doesn't
    add to the deficit. It is going to help us spur the economy.
    And it fits into the goals expressed by the President and many
    on both sides of the aisle that we have to expand trade. We
    have to have the infrastructure necessary to do so.
        So I am in continuing discussions, along with another
    colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, Pat Tiberi, who is
    also a cosponsor of the bill and very concerned. We will
    certainly keep you and the chairman of the subcommittee abreast
    of those discussions.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Mr. Gibbs. Representative Landry.
        Mr. Landry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I just wanted to recognize Congressman Boustany for
    bringing this issue to a head. This is what the American people
    want us to do. Whenever we as a Congress don't allocate money
    when that money is legally entitled to be spent on a particular
    project, we lose credibility. And that is why Congress'
    credibility is so low.
        It reminds me of a recent visit from the Army Corps of
    Engineers I had in my office when I first got elected and
    started serving. And I was talking to them about dredging the
    Mississippi River. And they said, ``Look, Congressman, if it
    makes you feel better, 7 of our 10 largest ports are under
    draft restrictions.'' I said, ``That doesn't make me feel
    better. You should be fired.'' If now 8 of our 10 largest ports
    in this country are under draft restriction, we are just
    impeding economic development in this country.
        So I just wanted to recognize him and let him know that
    this is the right way to go and I hope that this Congress not
    only does it for this particular fund but looks at all of the
    funds and the way that we are allocating money that the
    American people tag for specific projects. And I echo both
    Congressman Duncan and Congressman Boustany's point that this
    is a jobs bill.
        So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Gibbs. Representative Napolitano.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Congressman Boustany, thank you very much for the bill. I
    really am impressed that this is something that is coming to
    the attention, again, of Congress because it has long been
    overdue, especially when I don't represent LA or Long Beach
    ports, but they are adjoining my district. And I have the
    Alameda Corridor going through my whole district for
    distribution of goods to the rest of the Nation. So I am very
    well aware of the issue.
        And I agree with my colleague about the dredging issue,
    that there has been a long overdue maintenance funding not
    available to the biggest ports. In fact, most of the ports in
    California are facing the same conditions.
        I would like to propose, and hopefully you will be
    interested in adding to your bill, a use of funds so it would
    read, ``to level of receipts plus interest collected at
    individual harbor in a fiscal year may be used only for harbor
    maintenance programs described in section 9505(c) of such code,
    at the harbor at which such receipts were collected.'' Of
    course, minus the admin fee.
        I would love to work with you on this because it is an
    issue of protecting those funds for those harbors that pay for
    it. Now, I don't mind whatever it is that needs to be done to
    help other harbors, but essentially the goods and the jobs are
    at stake; the goods movement in those areas.
        So I would love to hear your comments.
        Dr. Boustany. Based on my study of the issue and
    conversations with the Army Corps of Engineers and others, what
    we do know is that the incoming revenue, which ranges from $1.3
    to $1.6 billion a year, is more than sufficient to cover all
    the authorized projects where there is a Federal jurisdiction
    for operations and maintenance. On top of that, there is going
    to still be a surplus, based on current law, which would still
    go into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
        I think it is premature to start allocating the direction
    of funds. We have more than enough. And so I know there has
    been discussion about small ports versus large ports. I think
    it is in the best interest to move the bill as it is today,
    because it will basically make these funds available for all
    these federally authorized projects and we will still have some
    surplus. I think if we start trying to put additional language
    in, it may upset the apple cart and possibly hurt us in moving
    this legislation forward, especially as we look at the Senate.
        There is a companion bill in the Senate. I believe it has
    over 20 cosponsors. It has been introduced by Senator Levin and
    Senator Hutchison of Texas. We think there is a strong
    opportunity to move the bill in the Senate and get this into
    law.
        So my sense is that in looking at the politics of this, the
    policy, the bill as written has been carefully crafted to meet
    the needs now, going forward. And if we get into a future
    problem where there is a revenue issue, then perhaps it is
    something we can look at. But I would be reluctant to amend
    this at this time.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Would it be possible to get some figures
    from you in regard to your conversations with the Army Corps as
    to percentage of the ports that can be done with the money that
    is available, and what is the hang-up, why is it not being
    allocated to the ports to be able to get that dredging done?
    Because the drafting issue is a very real issue. If they are
    dragging their feet, then we need to look at how do we propose
    a change to help that happen so we don't lose our cargo to
    Canada or to Mexico.
        Dr. Boustany. This is a vital issue. We recently several
    weeks ago, on the Mississippi River--and I think you will hear
    testimony from the next panel--we had a large tanker that ran
    aground at great risk to our river pilots and shipping traffic.
    It threatened to shut down shipping on the Mississippi River,
    which would have a huge impact on the Nation's economy if that
    were to happen, considering 60 percent of our grain is exported
    down the Mississippi and through the Port of New Orleans.
        These are very important issues. And as I said in my
    testimony, this is a unique opportunity for us to come together
    in a bipartisan way to do something that is sensible; to
    correct a problem that has been in existence; to do, as my
    colleague from Louisiana just said, to use the money as it was
    intended to be used by Congress, going all the way back to
    1986.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I would love to be able to work with you,
    sir. And knowledge that Mexico is building a deepwater right
    down below California, it is a big threat to our economy.
        With that, I would yield back my time.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
        Representative Cravaack.
        Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
    Boustany, for this great bill, because the Port of Duluth needs
    this bill. Whether you are a big port or a small port, I think
    it is all essential to our overall arching economy. What I
    think is just a travesty is that there are $6 billion in user
    fees theoretically sitting in the Harbor Trust Fund, and we
    have harbors that are not dredged the way they should be.
        The reason why I say it is theoretically is because these
    funds have been diverted out of this trust fund. And I echo Mr.
    Bishop's concerns in making sure that these moneys go to the
    ports that need them the most and allowing the Army Corps of
    Engineers to do their job.
        So I want to thank you very much for this. This is
    essential for the Port of Duluth. For each inch of silted in,
    the American laker fleet collectively per voyage leaves 8,000
    tons of Minnesota ore in Duluth. Just that one voyage can
    manufacture 6,000 cars. That is a heck of an economic impact in
    my State.
        So thank you very much for bringing it forth, and I yield
    back in support of this bill.
        Mr. Gibbs. Representative Hirono.
        Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning, Mr. Boustany. I, too, am a cosponsor of this
    legislation. And I did have a concern that with this additional
    money to ensure that every State that has harbors would get an
    equitable share of the additional funds available. And thank
    you for the clarification that these moneys will cover all
    federally authorized projects and still have a surplus.
        One of the ways that we authorize the work of the Army Corp
    is through the WRDA bill. That is the Water Resources
    Development Act. And that act authorizes activities of the Army
    Corps of Engineers and it directs the Corps to carry out
    projects, modifies their mandates on existing projects, and
    adjusts funding levels for projects, which of course includes
    what we are talking about today. We have not passed the WRDA
    bill since 2007. So I hope you agree with me that we should
    definitely look at passing a WRDA bill as soon as we can.
        Dr. Boustany. Well, as a former member of this
    subcommittee, I was involved with the last WRDA bill that was
    written and passed. Yes, it is important.
        Keep in mind that in the past, Congress was able to earmark
    funds. We don't earmark funds anymore. And so the advantage of
    this bill is it allows the Army Corps of Engineers access to
    the funds necessary to deal with the authorized projects
    without resorting to earmarks and without triggering a score by
    the Congressional Budget Office. So we tried to really
    carefully craft the language of the bill to meet the needs
    without getting into different types of problems such as
    earmarks and increasing deficit spending.
        So I think the bill came out as best we could hope. I urge
    its passage.
        Ms. Hirono. We probably could have another conversation
    about whether the authorized projects under WRDA would be
    considered earmarks. But that is for another day.
        I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gibbs. I think we have got time for one more question.
    FYI, they just called votes. So one more question, then we will
    go vote.
        Representative Ribble.
        Mr. Ribble. Representative Boustany, thanks for bringing
    this bill to us today. I appreciate your work on this. I was a
    proud cosponsor of the legislation and I think it is very well
    written.
        I represent Wisconsin's Eighth Congressional District,
    which includes the Port of Green Bay. The Port of Green Bay has
    lost over 2 feet of depth because of lack of dredging. I really
    hope that by protecting the fund that--as my colleague from
    Minnesota just alluded to the Port of Duluth--that the Great
    Lakes shipping lanes will be protected and we will finally see
    some improvement in commerce, we will see improvement in jobs.
    And based on today's job report, clearly this type of bill
    needs to pass, not just for this committee, but I would
    encourage you and the Members here to help get it passed
    through the House of Representatives and move it over to the
    Senate for full passage.
        I just want to commend you for your work on this. I think
    this is exactly the type of thing we ought to be doing more. So
    thank you very much.
        Dr. Boustany. Thank you.
        Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chairman, can I have a moment of personal
    privilege?
        We have a woman in the audience who probably knows more
    about this issue than anybody else, former head of the Federal
    Maritime Commission and a longtime Member of this Congress, a
    good Republican leader, Helen Bentley. It was an honor for me
    and privilege for me to serve with her for many, many years. I
    would just like to welcome Helen back to the committee here
    today.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
        We have got time, Mr. Harris, for another question.
        Dr. Harris. Thank you very much. Thank you, Doctor, for
    bringing the bill.
        The Port of Baltimore is actually called the Helen Delich
    Bentley Port of Baltimore, obviously, an important economic
    driver in the State. I served 12 years on the committee that
    oversaw the port. It became clear that if we really want to
    create jobs and keep our manufacturing and our industrial base
    going, we have to keep our ports open.
        The Port of Baltimore is a key port for shipping of coal,
    for instance, a key energy component in the world economy
    today. As we know, the ships are getting larger and larger. The
    drafts are deeper and deeper. We have to do this. And we have
    to do it sooner rather than later.
        So thank you very much for introducing the bill. I am proud
    to be a cosponsor.
        Dr. Boustany. Thank you.
        Mr. Gibbs. Before we conclude this first panel, I would
    just like to interject and make everybody aware that this is a
    key time. We are 3 years out, the Panama Canal is supposed to
    be completed. And they are building new ships that handle more
    cargo. They are bigger. And we have probably got one, maybe
    two, ports currently that can handle these bigger ships.
        If we are going to increase our exports with the Panama
    Canal, this is essential that we get the bill passed and get
    the dredging done to handle those bigger ships.
        At this time, we are going to recess and I ask all Members
    to come back immediately after votes, or approximately 12:30,
    as we have another panel. We have got witnesses that have
    traveled from New Orleans and Long Island and elsewhere.
        We have got three witnesses on the next panel. We have a
    markup on H.R. 104. So come back at 12:30, please.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Gibbs. The committee will reconvene.
        A little bit more housekeeping. I have been informed by
    legal counsel I have to do this again.
        I would like to ask for unanimous consent that I be
    authorized to declare recesses during today's markup pursuant
    to Rule 1(a)(i) of the rules of the Committee on Transportation
    and Infrastructure. Is there objection?
        Hearing none, so ordered.
        At this time, we will start our second panel. I will go
    ahead and introduce them: Mr. Gary LaGrange, president and CEO
    of the Port of New Orleans--welcome; Mr. James Weakley,
    president, Lake Carriers' Association; and Ms. Bonnie Brady,
    the executive director of Long Island Commercial Fishing
    Association.
        And I would recognize Ranking Member Bishop. I think he
    wants to make an introduction.
        Mr. Bishop. I just want to make a special welcome to
    Washington for one of my constituents, Bonnie Brady.
        She is the executive director of the Long Island Commercial
    Fishing Association. Her husband is a commercial fisherman
    fishing out of the Port of Montauk, which is the largest
    commercial fishing port in the State of New York. And hers is a
    voice that is listened to by policymakers at all levels of
    Government.
        And so, Bonnie, welcome. Welcome to our committee, and
    welcome to Washington.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
        We will start with Mr. LaGrange, who is president and CEO
    of the Port of New Orleans.
        Welcome.

     TESTIMONY OF GARY P. LAGRANGE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, PORT OF NEW
        ORLEANS; JAMES H.I. WEAKLEY, PRESIDENT, LAKE CARRIERS'
    ASSOCIATION; AND BONNIE BRADY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LONG ISLAND
                     COMMERCIAL FISHING ASSOCIATION

        Mr. LaGrange. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    committee. We certainly appreciate the honor and the
    opportunity to testify before you today on what we think has
    become a very grave issue, particularly over the last 4 to 5
    months.
        As president and chief executive officer of the Port of New
    Orleans, I certainly, again, appreciate the opportunity to
    highlight the need for the passage of Congressman Boustany's
    Realize America's Maritime Promise Act, the RAMP Act.
        The Port of New Orleans and a majority of the ports
    throughout the United States supports the swift congressional
    passage of RAMP. And the reason for that being very simply a
    lot of what was stated earlier today in the first panel: the
    fact that a number of our ports, a majority number of our
    ports, are suffering the consequences from limited draft,
    limited tonnage, and basically not the free flow of commerce as
    we normally have it.
        We are seeing that happen right now on the Mississippi
    River. The Mississippi River, of course, connected, being the
    largest port system in the United States, from Baton Rouge to
    the mouth of river, not for Louisiana but for the entire
    country, connecting 30 States. And those 30 States including
    the corn growers, the coal miners, manufacturers. As
    Congressman Boustany said earlier, 60 percent of all of the
    grain in the United States is exported out of the Lower
    Mississippi River, and another 33 percent of all the
    petrochemical and petroleum for the United States comes into
    the Mississippi River.
        The draft has gone down from 45 feet to 43 feet on the
    order of the bar pilots, primarily because of the fact that
    there is simply no passage there anymore. With the high waters
    in early fall, there was an underfunding amount by the Army
    Corps of Engineers by about $40 million. We created a coalition
    known as the Big River Coalition, which now has over 100
    members. Created back in September of last year, that coalition
    consists of members from those 30 States who are affected by
    the inability to get their goods to foreign markets.
        So it is a huge, growing hue and cry, if you will,
    throughout America, throughout the United States, throughout
    mid-America and up the Ohio River Valley as far as Pittsburgh,
    crying about the inability for the lack of channel depth.
        The channel is restricted to 43 from its project depth of
    45 feet now. The New Orleans district is telling us that there
    is a possibility they could go low as 38 feet. The economic
    consequence of that--as I said, it is the largest port system
    in the United States. Six thousand ships a year come in, 6,000
    ships a year go out of the Mississippi River, 12,000 ships a
    year, roughly 500 million tons of cargo last year. Only the
    Yangtze River in China can even come close to comparing to
    that. It is larger than Rotterdam, Singapore, Shanghai, or any
    of the major international ports in the world.
        That said, we believe, again, that via that Mississippi
    River, with the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which I remember
    like yesterday when it was passed in 1986--much to my chagrin,
    I remember it like yesterday--is something that we really are
    quite disappointed in the fact that the funds are only used at
    a rate of about 50 to 60 percent for their intended use, again,
    as stated earlier.
        Supposedly, a fictitious--as you stated earlier,
    Congressman Gibbs, about the funds, it is a fictitious balance
    of $5.6 billion. You are absolutely correct. Last year in 2010,
    $1.36 billion was collected, but only with a surplus of $535
    million left over at the end of the day.
        If those funds would be used on a year-in and year-out
    basis as intended originally, paid for in the ad valorem tax by
    the shippers and the importers who come into this country, if
    those funds were used for the proper reason for which you guys
    passed them for back in 1986, we wouldn't be sitting here today
    with the problems with OMB and with the Corps of Engineers that
    we have on a day-in and day-out basis, and the administration,
    for a lack of funding.
        And, unfortunately, it is a situation on the Lower
    Mississippi River where we average, to dredge that river, to
    keep the economy of the country, the Midwest and the Ohio River
    Valley going averages about $104 million a year. The amount
    that is funded on an annual basis is roughly $63 million to $65
    million a year. So you can see it is a shortfall.
        The Corps of Engineers has historically had to reprogram
    funds from other parts of the United States. That has gotten
    really old because their budgets are running askew. And so it
    is an issue that we have. Again, the RAMP Act would certainly
    rectify those issues and those problems.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, along with the RAMP Act, because of
    the inland waterway system, because of the Pittsburghs,
    Cincinnatis, St. Louises, and Little Rocks and Memphises and
    Chicagos and Tulsa, Oklahomas, because of all those inland
    ports, we really need to look at the Inland Waterways Trust
    Fund, which I know you have as well, and thank you for that.
    And we need to address the capital development plan for keeping
    the locks and dams and those rivers navigable as well, in order
    that all of the farmers, the miners, and all of our other
    manufacturers throughout the hinterland of America and points
    in between can stay on track.
        So, again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    It is a critical issue. It is an issue that is of an emergency
    nature right now. We have already lost 2 feet, and we simply
    can't stand to lose any more.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Gibbs. I thank you.
        Mr. Weakley, president of the Lake Carriers' Association,
    welcome.
        I am skipping around on you.
        Mr. Weakley. Yes, sir. I am hoping my PowerPoint will be
    brought up.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK.
        Ms. Brady, go ahead, and we will get our technical glitches
    fixed. Welcome.
        Ms. Brady. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my
    name is Bonnie Brady, and I am here today representing the Long
    Island Commercial Fishing Association as its executive
    director. Our membership represents commercial fishermen from
    11 different gear groups at 15 ports throughout Long Island. I
    would like to thank you for the opportunity to present my
    comments before you and the subcommittee today.
        It is my understanding that H.R. 104, Realizing America's
    Maritime Promise, RAMP, Act, will allow funds gathered from
    import tariffs in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to be used
    specifically for dredging and maintenance of U.S. ports,
    harbors, and waterways. It is also my understanding that, in
    the past, the funds in the HMTF were not always fully utilized
    in their original intent.
        Commercial fishing on Long Island is responsible for 99
    percent of New York's landed seafood catch. In 2009, that
    translated to over 34 million pounds of fish, shellfish, and
    crustaceans worth just over $49 million at the dock. With the
    standard economic multiplier of 4, that translates to an almost
    $200 million industry which helps to power the economic engine
    of hundreds of Long Island businesses.
        These mom and pop shops, whether it is a fishing boat, ice
    supplier, welder shop, or restaurant, are the very fabric which
    makes up the coastal communities of Long Island. Our Long
    Island coastal waterways and ports are our Metro and Beltway,
    and without properly maintained dredging, hundreds of local
    businesses and families are negatively impacted yearly on Long
    Island.
        Our own Congressman Bishop, from the First District, has
    done an admirable job to stay on top of dredging nightmares as
    they appear courtesy of Mother Nature, but, in some cases, by
    the time funding is secured for dredging, thousands of dollars
    in potential revenue are lost--lost through inability to land
    one's catch at the closest port for the best market price; lost
    through repairs necessary due to accidents involving hull and
    wheel issues, along with vessel groundings; and lost through
    pollution control costs from these groundings. Of course there
    is also the potential loss of life through accidents because of
    shoaling that can and has happened on Long Island. All of the
    above are unacceptable sequelae due to improper and inadequate
    maintenance.
        Just this year in Montauk, New York State's largest
    commercial fishing port and the 48th largest commercial fishing
    port in the Nation, we have had some of the most severe
    shoaling at the harbor's inlet in years. Instead of a 12-foot
    depth and a 150-foot-wide inlet, instead we have had barely a
    9-foot depth in some of the most traveled areas under the best
    of conditions. Add a northwest wind and low tide to the
    scenario and the depth shrinks to 6 feet.
        Several commercial boats have had to either pack in
    different States, due to Montauk's excessive shoaling, or wait
    up to 14 hours for the tide to be favorable in order for them
    to pack their fish. In some cases, the delay in shipping fish
    to Hunts Point has had dramatic consequences to the price of
    the catch, dropping from $1 a pound to 15 cents a pound. When
    are you landing sometimes in excess of 40,000 pounds of fish,
    it is basically the difference between a decent trip
    financially and what is referred to as a ``broker'' in
    commercial fishing parlance.
        Montauk's port is just one of many ports on Long Island
    that could benefit from H.R. 104. Other ports with excessive
    shoaling issues, such as Shinnecock and Moriches Inlet, would
    immediately benefit from well-maintained dredging for both the
    commercial and recreational fleet.
        Shinnecock used to be a major commercial fishing port to
    New York State, especially is in the summer months when squid
    schools nearby. Commercial fishing landings equaled $9.5
    million to Shinnecock in 2000. However, its often shoaled port
    with limited access during key summer catch months helped to
    further the burden on limited shoreside infrastructure
    businesses already reeling from increased State catch
    restrictions, increased fuel costs, and decreasing economic
    revenue.
        Even though Congressman Bishop accessed funding for
    dredging the Shinnecock in 2004 and 2010, a series of northeast
    storms continued to wreak havoc with dredging efforts. Boats
    that avoided Shinnecock to decrease the risk of grounding
    translated into less catch on the dock, which then dominoed
    into less ice, fuel, and box sales--the end result of which was
    to further plunge Shinnecock's shoreside businesses
    economically. By 2009, commercial fish revenue dropped by
    almost half to $5.3 million. It is my belief that a more
    continual maintenance dredging of Shinnecock Inlet could have
    made the difference.
        On behalf of Long Island's commercial fishermen, we applaud
    the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Infrastructure's
    attempt to address these issues through H.R. 104. My thanks to
    the subcommittee for allowing me to express these views today,
    and I look forward to any questions from you or any other
    members of the subcommittee.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
        Mr. Weakley, I think we are ready.
        Mr. Weakley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        On behalf of Lake Carriers' Association and Great Lakes
    Maritime Task Force, I ask this subcommittee to pass H.R. 104
    without amendment. It is about trust in Government, jobs, and
    marine transportation. All are vital to America's future.
        Ships enable domestic and global trade. Unfortunately, our
    waterways, the very arteries of maritime infrastructure, have
    been neglected and are now restricting commerce. Our navigation
    channels clog with sediment, while only half of the taxes paid
    by maritime commerce to maintain them are used for this
    purpose.
        Half of the members of this subcommittee, including
    Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member Bishop, have taken the first
    step to end the national dredging crisis by cosponsoring H.R.
    104. Thank you.
        Restoring trust in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
    benefits all four of our Nation's coasts as well as the
    economies of inland States. California importers, Minnesota
    miners, New York fishermen, Mississippi River Basin farmers,
    Ohio River Basin manufacturers, and many others depend on the
    efficient waterborne transportation to receive goods, move
    product to markets, and expand our horizons.
        Our ports and the maritime industry keep America open for
    business. We do it by employing economies of scale--one laker
    can carry as much as 2,800 trucks--and the laws of physics,
    requiring less horsepower to move a ton of cargo. If trucks
    were as efficient, they would only need a lawnmower engine.
        A lack of dredging forces light loading. For every inch of
    depth lost, lakers forfeit 270 tons of cargo. For each inch
    silted in, per voyage the American laker fleet collectively
    leaves 8,000 tons of Minnesota ore in Duluth, enough to
    manufacture 6,000 cars; we leave behind enough Montana coal to
    produce electricity for Detroit for 3 hours; or we abandon
    enough Ohio limestone for 24 Pennsylvania homes.
        Tragically, lost draft is measured in feet. The impacts are
    systemwide. The inefficiency makes American products more
    expensive and exports jobs. Dunkirk, New York's port closed in
    2005 due to insufficient depth. More will follow.
        Similar problems exist on our other coasts. The Corps own
    statistics show that the authorized depth of federally
    maintained navigation channels is available across only half of
    its authorized width less than one-third of the time. And this
    performance is declining. Another Corps study estimated that 30
    percent of the 95,550 vessels calls at U.S. ports were limited
    by inadequate channels.
        Tributaries to the Great Lakes naturally deposit more than
    3.3 million cubic yards of sediment per year. However, never in
    the past decade has an administration proposed enough spending
    to remove it. Only twice have congressional adds achieved that
    mark.
        The need for maintenance dredging is dire. The payoff of
    harbor maintenance investment is great. Maritime commerce is
    paying enough into the trust fund to maintain the entire
    system, but little more than half of the fund's revenues are
    being used for this purpose. In 2010, maritime commerce and
    interest income provided almost $1.4 billion to the trust fund;
    however, only $828 million were expended. Most harbors still
    lost depth and width to the unrelenting deposition of sediment.
    The fund's surplus is almost $6 billion.
        H.R. 104 is the solution. Modeled after the Airport and
    Airways Trust Fund fix in 2000, it bases the annual trust fund
    expenditures on trust fund revenues. The bill shouldn't score
    or violate budget rules. It reduces the need for maintenance
    dredging earmarks. I respectfully urge you to pass H.R. 104
    without amendment. We need to revive our dying infrastructure
    with the angioplasty of dredging and sustain it with a healthy
    maintenance diet. It is a matter of trust.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
        We will start our questions now. I will start off.
        Mr. LaGrange, the issue with the Panama Canal, I think in
    about 3 years, I think, it is going to be completed. What has
    to happen in the Port of New Orleans to access those bigger
    ships? Can you expound on that a little bit more?
        Mr. LaGrange. Well, the first thing we have to do is
    maintain the channel, the project depth that we have now, which
    is 45 feet. For the most part, there is a 2-foot overcut that
    happens. It is 47 feet. Two things will happen. You really need
    to get to 50 feet to access the post-Panamax-size ships. There
    are only three ports, to my knowledge, in the United States who
    can handle those size ships right now, and that is Baltimore,
    Virginia--Hampton Roads--and New York, but they have a bridge
    problem in New York, as you well know.
        So we would have to get to 50 feet. However, even
    maintaining at 47 feet, 45 feet, at the project depth would be
    a coup in itself because of transshipment. The lion's share of
    most of the cargo that comes through, according to four
    different studies that were done by Booz Allen Hamilton,
    Parsons Brinckerhoff, A.T. Kearney, and The NorthBridge Group,
    those studies all concur, collectively, that the
    transshipment--that 72 percent of all the cargo coming through
    the Panama Canal, incremental new cargo, will amount to about
    25 million TEUs or 25 million containers a year.
        Twenty million of those containers will go up to the east
    coast, primarily because that is where the consumers and the
    population are. However, 5 million will come to the gulf coast,
    and those 5 million that come to the gulf coast are huge.
        So, from a container standpoint, which is the primary
    benefactor of the Panama Canal, it needs to be dredged. Does it
    need to go to 50 feet? Not necessarily. But does it need to
    maintain and manifest itself at 47 to 45? For the sake of the
    corn growers, the coal exporters, the petrochemical and the
    petroleum industry, yes, sir.
        Mr. Gibbs. The recent rainfall we have had, which has
    been--I think we broke some records in my area. We shipped a
    lot of dirt down to the Lower Mississippi.
        Mr. LaGrange. Thank you.
        Mr. Gibbs. What is happening with that right now? My
    understanding is that it is actually one lane of traffic?
        Mr. LaGrange. Yes, sir. Our channel has gone from a 750-
    foot width to barely 150 feet. Congressman Boustany alluded
    this morning to the fact that one carbon black oil tanker ran
    aground. That could have caused another--without sounding
    overzealous, it could have caused another Exxon Valdez
    incident. That is the last thing we need on the gulf coast.
    That is the last thing we need in our coastal marshes and
    estuaries.
        And the pilots are basically threading needles every time
    they take these huge ships in and out of there. It is one-way
    passage. It is reduced to 43 feet. And so the ships are coming
    in light-loaded now. They are not reaching the benefit of
    efficiency that they should be reached.
        And somebody in mid-America and up the Ohio River Valley is
    paying for it. There will come a point of no return, where the
    channel is going to have to be dredged or somebody is out of
    business.
        Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Weakley, in my State of Ohio, Cleveland and
    the Toledo ports need dredging, in a bad way. What is happening
    around--are we seeing a reduced tonnage coming out of the Great
    Lakes and into the Great Lakes on the shipping? What has
    happened to the Great Lakes shipping industry?
        Mr. Weakley. We are, sir. And we are continuing to see the
    squeeze. You are exactly right. The Port of Toledo and the Port
    of Cleveland are the two largest users of dredging, just
    because of natural deposition that takes place in those river
    systems into the ports.
        We are seeing light loading. In Cleveland, this spring
    there were some ships that used to be able to make that trade
    up the river to ArcelorMittal that simply stopped. They simply
    drew too much water, where they couldn't get up there even
    half-full. We see that disease starting to spread throughout
    the Great Lakes.
        And without more money to dredge and maintain the system,
    it is not just the big ports that are being impacted, it is the
    entire system. It really is an interconnected system.
        Mr. Gibbs. So what you are saying, if you have several of
    the ports, major ports, that can't function at the level they
    should, we are going to lose the shipping business, because
    there has to be viability to hit certain ports. This is a whole
    systems approach. And that is why the dredging is so important,
    that it is done at all these ports.
        And that is why I think there is such a strong argument why
    the full funding ought to be--revenue that comes in needs to go
    for the dredging. Because in the system if a link in the chain
    breaks, the system can collapse. And I think that is an
    important point you are trying to make, right?
        Mr. Weakley. Yes, sir. To reinforce your point, if you look
    at the St. Mary's River, where all that cargo is coming from
    the Lake Superior, upper lake ports and lower lake ports, it is
    not a port, but it is critical to the infrastructure and
    critical to all those ports below Lake Superior to get that
    cargo from up above.
        The Detroit-St. Clair River system, another critical
    connecting waterways. If that is not maintained, anything below
    that system gets shut down.
        Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Bishop.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you to the panel.
        Let me start with a question for the whole panel regarding
    the issue of earmarks. And let me apologize for using a four-
    letter word in polite company. But, historically, the Army
    Corps of Engineers budget has been 100 percent earmarked, about
    75 percent by the administration and about 25 percent by
    Congress.
        We are now in an earmark-free environment. And leaving
    aside the constitutional issues of who gets to decide how
    Federal dollars are allocated--I would ask each of you to
    respond--are you comfortable with leaving 100 percent of the
    decisions on how Corps funds are allocated to the
    administration? Or would you prefer to see at least some
    congressional involvement in directing Federal moneys to
    projects that are of significance to that particular
    congressional district?
        Mr. Weakley, why don't we start with you?
        Mr. Weakley. Yes, sir.
        That is part of the brilliance of H.R. 104, is there is no
    way to keep the administration and OMB or the Army Corps honest
    in expending the money for the purpose for which it is
    collected.
        Ideally, I think it is a shared responsibility.
    Constitutionally, I think, there is no question in my mind, at
    least, that Congress has the power of the purse. And I believe
    Congress, at least from the Great Lakes perspective, has had to
    step in to right the administration's wrong for misallocating
    those funds.
        I think the brilliance of the way H.R. 104 is structured is
    it reduces the probability or the possibility or, really, the
    likelihood that OMB will continue to game the system and
    neglect our ports and our infrastructures.
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. LaGrange?
        Mr. LaGrange. I totally concur, sir. You know, we are
    basically 0 for 4 in the batter's box from the administration
    standpoint. So we are putting all of our money in this hat, and
    we really think there should be a better balance. There is no
    question in our mind about it.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        Ms. Brady?
        Ms. Brady. Well, I think what I will say along the lines of
    diplomacy is, perhaps the administration, the OMB, have been
    just too busy to realize what is going on in the individual
    districts. And as the great democracy that we have, having
    constituents go to their congressional leaders first to tell
    them as issues appear, as we have done with you in the past, is
    really the best way to keep a pulse as to what is going on.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        The way I have always phrased that in the district is I
    just ask the question, who do you think is spending more time
    worrying about Lake Montauk Harbor, me or the director of OMB?
    I think I win that one.
        Let me ask another question for the panel. And, Mr.
    Weakley, I support H.R. 104. I am a cosponsor of it. I hope we
    pass it. I believe it is a step in the right direction.
        I don't know whether you were here before when Mr. Boustany
    was testifying, but I continue to worry about the enforcement
    mechanism because, technically, it doesn't necessarily increase
    the top line of the Army Corps of Engineers. The top line of
    the Army Corps of Engineers is set by the so-called 302(b)
    allocation. And what I am worried about is a scenario in which
    the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund moneys are fully expended, or
    it would appear as if they were, but that expenditure is at the
    expense of other areas in the Corps.
        So, in other words, we will spend more money on operation
    and maintenance, more money on dredging, and less money on
    construction so as to satisfy the harbor maintenance transfer,
    if you will, but because we haven't increased top line of the
    Army Corps, other priorities of the Army Corps suffer.
        So I think this is an area where we are all going to have
    to be very careful. And one of the things that I worry about is
    the airport trust fund. The point of order that protects that
    trust fund has been waived many times by the Rules Committee,
    or it has not been enforced on the floor.
        So I just want to put that concern out there, that--I mean,
    I think we all have the same goal in mind here.
        Mr. Weakley. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Bishop. I just hope the enforcement mechanism is
    appropriate. Do you want to comment on that?
        Mr. Weakley. Well, sir, I share your concern. And, in fact,
    to add fuel to your fire, the administration hinted at looking
    at other uses for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund beyond even
    navigation. I think there have been some attempts at
    legislation to expand it to land-based or stuff beyond the Army
    Corps. So it is a very legitimate concern, and I share that.
        The reason I like the point-of-order mechanism is that it
    scores at zero.
        Mr. Bishop. Right.
        Mr. Weakley. I think it is more likely to pass. It doesn't
    put an additional burden on the debt. And it is my belief--and
    I could be wrong on this, sir--that since 2000, in the aviation
    community, those revenues have been balanced. So it seems to
    have worked.
        And on the Senate side, I think they are less prone to
    waive the point of orders than the House.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        I yield back. My time has expired. Thank you.
        Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Cravaack?
        Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you all for coming here today on this very important
    issue since the Port of Duluth is in Minnesota. And we are very
    proud of that port, and we want to make sure she is up and
    ready to go.
        And I think that, as a freshman Congressman coming here
    from Minnesota, we are finding what is happening to the harbor
    trust fund is what I am finding endemic through Congress, where
    we have raided different funds and are using them for other
    things instead of using them for their primary intention,
    Social Security being one of them. But I really echo Mr.
    Bishop's concerns in ensuring that the moneys acquired by the
    trust fund are actually used for what their intended purposes
    are. And as long as I am in Congress, that will be under my
    microscope. So thank you for that.
        I think Mr. Weakley hit it directly when he said this is
    about jobs. This is most definitely a jobs issue. And we are
    not just talking the ones at the dock; we are talking
    throughout the industry.
        Maritime transportation, like I said, is critical to my
    State. And we are very fortunate to have the Port of Duluth in
    my district, which is heavily involved in transporting taconite
    throughout the steel mills throughout the country. And this is
    a huge issue in regards to the--taconite is not exactly light.
    We leave a lot of taconite on the shore because we can't get
    the ships out. So I share that, and I will be right on top of
    that as long as I am here.
        However, the dredging of our ports and waterways simply
    cannot be looked at as a parochial issue--that is, something
    that is only important for the Great Lakes--but also for the
    country, as well. And make no mistake, harbor maintenance is
    truly a national issue in regards to competitiveness, as well,
    and getting our product out and under way to ports on foreign
    shores.
        The more we do to decrease the transportation costs, as you
    have brought out, Mr. Weakley, also creates a better bottom
    line for us, as well. So, with exports, we can better compete
    with other nations. So this is also not only of interest to the
    United States, but in a global issue as well.
        So, Mr. Weakley, as you said in regards to the jobs, what
    do you think is the impact of lost productivity in terms of
    American jobs and American prosperity? Can you actually coin
    that for us?
        Mr. Weakley. Well, sir, I can't put a number on it, but I
    can tell you we are exporting jobs. And if you want to export
    more jobs, make sure that we continue to make the system less
    efficient. If we are going to compete in a global marketplace,
    we need to move products and raw materials internally
    efficiently so we can ship them to New Orleans so he can export
    them to the world. So I think there is no greater risk to the
    American worker, particularly the manufacturer, the farmer, the
    miner, than making the system as inefficient as it is.
        Much to your credit, Congressman, maybe it is your
    experience as a naval officer, you certainly understand the
    tons per inch immersion and the concepts of controlling depth.
    And, to your credit again, it is not just the Port of Duluth,
    but it is the miners up in the range, as you just mentioned,
    who have a very vested interest, not just in the port, but if
    we are going to ship coal to Congressman Ribble's district we
    have to go through the St. Mary's, and that is our controlling
    depth.
        So we appreciate your support not just for the Superior but
    for the entire Great Lakes system. And we are blessed to have
    you serve us.
        Mr. Cravaack. Thank you for those kind comments. Appreciate
    that.
        You know, you also mentioned a little bit about the Port of
    Dunkirk in your written testimony. Could you also expand about
    that? How many ports are actually--are we in danger of losing
    Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund moneys that are not used as
    intended?
        Mr. Weakley. Absolutely, nationwide. And I believe there is
    a port in South Carolina, Georgetown, which will probably be
    next to close, I would say, if it is a 2-year budget cycle,
    2012. On the Great Lakes, I have extreme concerns about St.
    Joe, Michigan; Holland, Michigan; Grand Haven, Michigan;
    Waukegan, Illinois. Anything that moves less than a million
    tons of cargo is zeroed out by the President's budget, which
    goes to Mr. Bishop's earlier point.
        If Congress can't right that wrong by passing this bill or
    by doing earmarks, we are going to end up with 2 ports that are
    maintained and probably 10 ports that are marginally
    maintained. And you just can't double your exports by reducing
    your number of ports.
        Mr. Cravaack. Well, thank you very much for the comments. I
    appreciate all of your testimony.
        I have 24 seconds left.
        And I appreciate you bringing this to our attention. I
    appreciate your passion in getting America moving again and
    getting jobs back in the United States. So thank you very much.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Landry, do you have questions?
        Mr. Landry. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Just a couple of points. One, I would like to again echo
    something that I had echoed about this piece of legislation,
    which, actually, Mr. Bishop raised, and I wasn't going to say
    anything, but the point of order is something that does concern
    me.
        You know, I am hellbent on making sure that we don't use
    this money for anything other than what the American people
    have--the American people, through Congress, has basically
    earmarked this money, if you want to say anything. And it is
    supposed to be used so that our ports and our harbors are
    maintained and that our trade operates sufficiently. And so,
    you know, that is a concern. And I think it is a valid one. I
    am glad that Mr. Bishop raised that, I wasn't the only one that
    had raised that.
        The second point is, I just wanted to ask, Ms. Brady, the
    port that you are at, it has an authorized depth, right?
        Ms. Brady. Yes. Right now, presently, the authorized depth
    is 12 feet and 150 feet wide, which it has never been----
        Mr. Landry. Do you think that if I vote to help dredge your
    port to a depth that is authorized by Congress that that is an
    earmark?
        Ms. Brady. No, I think it is a way to increase trade and
    commerce from our small town of 3,000 people, frankly, that
    goes to 30,000 in the summertime with the recreational fleet
    that joins it. And, right now, even the recreational fleet, the
    larger boats, for those that are lucky enough to have them,
    they are not able to come in because they draw 13, 14 feet, and
    it is just not possible.
        Mr. Landry. And, Mr. LaGrange, I mean, you know, if we have
    an authorized depth, if the Corps of Engineers has said, ``This
    is what depth channels and ports should be maintained,'' when
    Congress ensures that we maintain what they have already
    established, do you think that is an earmark?
        Mr. LaGrange. I don't think it is an earmark. However, I
    don't think the program has been administered properly. It is
    criminal. It is on the verge of criminal is what it is. I have
    never seen anything like it at all in my life.
        Mr. Landry. OK. All right.
        Mr. Weakley?
        Mr. Weakley. I would like to think of it as adult
    supervision.
        Mr. Landry. There you go. Good.
        All right. Thank you.
        Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Lankford?
        Mr. Lankford. That is probably the best thing I have heard
    all day.
        Mr. LaGrange, let me ask you a little bit, you mentioned
    earlier, you know, when you are down in New Orleans things are
    moving north. I am one of those areas. I am in central
    Oklahoma. But the Port of Catoosa and the Port of Muskogee are
    pretty essential to the Oklahoma economy. And the intermodal
    that is being established around Tulsa is essential to all of
    central America, because the trucks, the trains, everything
    begin to pick it up from there and it goes all over the country
    at that spot. So it is essential.
        The dredging is a big deal to us, to be able to keep that
    waterway going all the way from New Orleans all the way up into
    Tulsa. So are the locks and the dams. What would be your
    thoughts initially on something like this for the inland
    waterways, as well?
        Mr. LaGrange. Well, I think the inland waterway system,
    there is a plan, I think, that certainly Congressman Gibbs, I
    think, advocates, from what I understand, if that is correct.
    And it is a program that would stretch out over a number of
    years a mechanism of more efficiently funding our lock and dam
    system.
        It is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen in my
    life, and I share your pain. I think the McClellan-Kerr, by the
    way, is a stroke of genius. I think it needs to be deepened. We
    have heavy lifts that we do in New Orleans that go into Tulsa
    Catoosa and also Muskogee, which are suffering right now. We
    can't get the degree of cargo that we should get there because
    of a lack of your water depth, not to mention the water depth
    at the mouth of the river.
        But at the end of the day, I just think that the system,
    the inland waterway system, has got to be funded. We have an
    Inner Harbor Lock on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway which
    connects Texas, the Texas border, with Mexico to Florida and up
    the Atlantic seaboard. This lock was authorized when I was
    playing Little League baseball in 1954. That tells you
    something. It has yet to really get under way. It is
    restricted. It is only 650 feet in length, 75 feet in width,
    and it is only 30\1/2\ feet deep. The authorization is for
    1,200 feet by 110 feet by 36 feet. Yet we can't get off center
    with it.
        So I remember, as a young port director, coming up here for
    the very first time back in the late 1970s and early 1980s and
    testifying for the Olmsted Locks and Dam on the Ohio and then
    later the Chickamauga. The system--we are so far behind the
    eight ball that, unless this plan is implemented, we are going
    to have some really serious problems in getting the ones that
    are under way now--inflation is outweighing the appropriations.
    So we can't keep up with the game, so to speak.
        And, of course, the program that I allude to is the one
    that I mentioned a little bit earlier, and that is the capital
    development plan for the inland waterway system. If that is not
    developed, then it does us absolutely no good to clear the plug
    in the bathtub at the mouth of Mississippi River because we are
    all out of business.
        Mr. Lankford. Right. And when I talked specifically to the
    Army Corps leadership about this, their response is, well, we
    can either choose to dredge it or choose to fix the locks and
    the dams, but we can't do both. And so we will work on the
    locks and dams because those have got to work at any depth. And
    then we will come back and do the dredging at some other point,
    at some other time.
        The issue is, we really have to have both. If we end up
    with one and not the other, then we have lighter-weight ships
    that are coming in, we have less cargo that is moving, and we
    have a backup at the port or we don't have economic
    development.
        Mr. LaGrange. Absolutely.
        Mr. Lankford. I mean, there are a lot of companies lining
    up to do economic development in Oklahoma based around the
    depth of that port.
        Mr. LaGrange. Yeah. We have turned business away for
    Muskogee and Tulsa Catoosa because of the lack of water depth
    on the McClellan-Kerr.
        Mr. Lankford. OK. This is just going to be a general
    statement. Ms. Brady, when you talk to people that are paying
    to dredge the harbor, as they pay the excise fee, but they know
    full well this is being skimmed off and not used, is there a
    general comment that comes back about the Federal Government
    and our efficiency that you can actually quote on the
    microphone?
        Ms. Brady. You want to see how quickly I can think on my
    feet, huh?
        I just find it very surprising. I mean, obviously, Montauk
    is a small port. We are 3,300 people during the summertime and
    maybe about 2,100 in the winter. We would love a larger port. I
    am sure we could then bring in more----
        Mr. Lankford. But they are paying for the dredging that is
    not occurring. I mean, that becomes the issue.
        Ms. Brady. Yeah, I mean, I just don't understand the
    purpose as to why things have to get to the point where we wind
    up losing our economic base and/or someone gets hurt. I mean, I
    literally was a reporter 15 years ago in Montauk when one of
    the boats, because of inadequate dredging, was turned sideways
    in January. And, luckily, they got the guys off.
        I just don't see the reason for not doing what they have
    been legislated to do.
        Mr. Lankford. What has to be done. Thank you very much.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Ribble, go ahead.
        Mr. Ribble. Well, good afternoon. I know it is getting a
    little bit long here, but I do have a couple questions, and I
    would like to start with Ms. Brady.
        Thank you for being here.
        You used the word ``shoaling.'' I am not familiar. Can you
    tell the committee a little bit about shoaling?
        Ms. Brady. Shoaling is, as a result of--and I am not quite
    as versed as some of these gentlemen--but shoaling is a result
    of wind and tide, so that our inlet in Montauk, which is
    supposed to be 150 feet wide and 12 feet deep, over time, with
    storms and tide, sand is forced into the inlet. And right now
    the Montauk inlet has almost, from underwater, an hourglass
    shape, where sand has gathered on both sides of the inlet. So
    the actual path that the boats can, as you said, thread through
    the eye of the needle through is very small.
        And in the summertime, because of this issue, I mean, they
    have some buoys out there. Army Corps has been there.
    Congressman Bishop has secured funds to do a dredging. We are
    all just basically holding our breath because we have
    recreational boats, we have guys that come from the city and
    rent a boat, you know, with an outboard. It is just--you know,
    we are just hoping nothing happens.
        Mr. Ribble. So when you talk about hoping something doesn't
    happen, you're talking about a safety concern; is that correct?
        Ms. Brady. Oh, absolutely.
        Mr. Ribble. Because the pathway is too narrow?
        Ms. Brady. Absolutely. And it has been--you know, if we had
    the ability to have a proper maintenance schedule on a, you
    know, yearly, biyearly basis so that the shoaling can at least
    be blown out, you know, it would be a huge help to us. I mean,
    when you can't bring your catch into port because of the
    shoaling, everyone hurts as a result.
        And for Shinnecock, it definitely hurts. For Shinnecock,
    which--and Hampton Bays--is probably a town of maybe 4,000,
    5,000 people, to drop the amount of fish from 9 million to 5.3
    million across the dock, that is huge, economically, to the
    area.
        Mr. Ribble. OK. Very good. Thank you.
        And I was just wondering if I could bring up a slide of Mr.
    Weakley's. Could you find the slide with the picture of the
    Great Lakes for me?
        There we go. Thank you.
        Mr. Weakley, as you look at this slide, you see a lot of
    different depths there. Like, Erie is at minus-12 inches. Grand
    Haven, like, minus-54. Green Bay, where I am from, minus-24.
        Does the problem change, necessarily? In other words, could
    a 12-inch problem in Erie be as bad as a 54-inch problem in
    Grand Haven? Is there a direct connection? And I am going
    someplace with this question.
        Mr. Weakley. Well, mathematically, the concept is tons per
    inch immersion. So a 12-inch reduction in depth for the exact
    same vessel has the exact same reduction in cargo.
        However, the local economic impact is significantly
    different. If you look at the power plants, perhaps, in
    Holland, Michigan, that will be shut down in 2 years if we
    don't dredge that entrance, it is catastrophic because some of
    those power plants don't have the ability to receive cargo by
    rail. It is preventing that power plant and that local
    community from attracting new business because they can't
    supply the power grid. Perhaps one of the most egregious is
    Indiana Harbor, which hasn't been dredged in 30 years. You are
    giving up feet.
        So, mathematically, the cargos are the same; the economic
    impact, significantly different, depending on the community and
    the cargo.
        Mr. Ribble. And that was my assumption. But, not knowing
    the business that well, I was curious.
        But given that information, how does the Corps of Engineers
    prioritize these ports? And are they doing it efficiently?
        Mr. Weakley. Well, I am going to choose my words carefully
    and say that, no, they are not. To their credit, they are doing
    the best they can in a system of scarcity. But it all depends
    on which side of the equation you are on. The Great Lakes is a
    system, so if they don't maintain the St. Mary's River, it is a
    controlling depth and we are not going to get cargo into Green
    Bay.
        Now, there are other trades that, if you are just on Lake
    Michigan, the St. Mary's River isn't as critical. But at the
    end of the day, we are all talking about American jobs and we
    are all talking about American efficiency. And we are all
    getting beat by foreign manufacturers and, in some cases, even
    foreign farmers. We need an efficient system, and the Corps is
    just not doing that.
        H.R. 104 potentially doubles the amount of money. In my
    opinion, it is enough money to take care of everybody. And we
    do away with the small port, large port, Great Lakes, gulf,
    east coast, west coast perceived competition. Because at the
    end of the day, I think it is a national program, it is a
    national problem, and it needs a national solution.
        Mr. Ribble. Would you call these shovel-ready jobs?
        Mr. Weakley. Absolutely. We had a $105 million project
    ready to go at the Soo Locks that was just cut by the stimulus.
        So if you look at--the Army Corps of Engineers spent less
    than 2 percent of their stimulus money on the Great Lakes. The
    heart of North American manufacturing continues to hemorrhage
    jobs.
        Mr. Ribble. Thank you, Mr. Weakley.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Weakley, I just want to emphasize, in the
    Soo Locks up there, that was shovel-ready, wasn't it, and
    didn't get funding?
        Mr. Weakley. Absolutely. They had a $105 million ready to
    go. Could have cut contracts within 60 days. They had an $85
    million package ready to go. And we got nothing.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you to the panelists for coming. It has
    been very helpful.
        And we have to postpone the markup to a later date, so this
    concludes the hearing.
        And everybody have a good weekend.
        [Whereupon, at 1:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]