[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 144 (Thursday, October 6, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 6, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1994

                                 ______


                               speech of

                         HON. NORMAN Y. MINETA

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, October 3, 1994

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, The Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation and the House recently completed work on the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1994 (H.R. 4460). I wish to offer some 
additional explanatory comments concerning two provisions in the bill 
as it passed the House. These comments will aid the public in 
understanding the bill, and will aid the Secretary of the Army and the 
Corps of Engineers in implementing the bill.
  The first provision is section 345, Hopper dredge McFarland. This 
section directs the Secretary of the Army to make modernization and 
efficiency improvements to the McFarland at the Philadelphia Naval 
Shipyard.
  This section is not intended to delay the closing date of the 
Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. Instead, the improvements to the McFarland 
would be performed by private companies under contract.
  The Secretary is also directed to establish minimum standards of 
dredging service to be met during the period in which the McFarland is 
undergoing repairs. At the conclusion of the repairs, the Secretary 
shall determine whether the McFarland should be returned to active 
service or should be placed in ready-reserve status.
  At the conclusion of the repairs, the Secretary may return the 
McFarland to full active service as long as necessary to determine the 
efficacy of the repairs. Any determination to maintain the McFarland in 
full active operation should include not only cost and efficiency data 
on the McFarland itself but the following performance criteria to 
measure the effectiveness of the private dredging industry:
  1. A demonstration that private industry has sufficient capacity to 
perform the required dredging operations and that there is effective 
and full competition within the industry. Sufficient capacity could be 
demonstrated through the submission of at least three responsive bids 
by responsible bidders per solicitation of hopper dredge work.
  2. A demonstration that the private industry has the capability and 
flexibility to respond to emergency and routine dredging requirements 
in a timely manner. A timely manner for routine dredging could be 
demonstrated by commencing work at the site within 10 days after Notice 
to Proceed is given. Timely response for shoaling and other priority-
expedited or emergency work could be demonstrated by commencing work in 
72 hours or less.
  3. A review of the instances of delays in awarding or commencement of 
dredging contracts, including the following: Contractor protests of 
contract plans and specifications which delay the opening of bids; 
Contractor protests of government estimates; No bids or no responsive 
bids being received; Excessively high bids being received which result 
in the need for rejection of the bids and readvertisement of the work; 
The low responsive bidder experiencing significant delays in acquiring 
the bonds required for contract notice to proceed; The willingness of 
the private dredging industry to divert equipment from other, more 
productive operations to respond to priority-expedited or emergency 
conditions; The ability of the industry to perform unique, specialized 
dredging tasks which it has not traditionally undertaken; The impact 
that the presence of an active McFarland would have on the 
competitiveness of the market as compared to the competitiveness when 
no government hopper dredge is available.

  Any determination by the Secretary should be made in comparison to 
the efficiency, resources and flexibility provided by a modernized 
McFarland.
  I also want to clarify the Committee's intent in Section 221 of the 
bill, regarding changes to cost sharing for dredged material disposal 
areas for navigation projects.
  Section 221 of the bill amends section 101(b) of Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 to clarify that the Federal Government will 
share in the cost of project features that are necessary for the 
creation of dredged material disposal areas, including capping, 
retaining dikes, bulkheads, embankments, and associated structures. 
This amendment applies to cost-sharing for the construction of new 
projects as provided in section 101(a), as well as cost-sharing for 
maintenance of projects as provided in section 101(b). There has been 
some confusion over this and I wish to have the record made clear. This 
amendment is very important to previously authorized projects such as 
Boston Harbor. When Congress authorized funding in 1990 for the Boston 
Harbor dredging project, the Corps of Engineers assumed the use of 
ocean disposal for dredged material, but it now appears this option may 
not be acceptable. Instead, the Corps and the non-Federal sponsor may 
need to use in-channel, near-shore, or upland sites. Under current law, 
the Corps would not share in the cost of providing disposal areas at 
these sites. This amendment would make such costs of construction 
associated with dredged material disposal subject to Federal 
participation.

                          ____________________