[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 5497-5498]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  WESTPORT HARBOR'S NEEDS TO GO UNMET?

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                         Sunday, March 20, 2005

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I recently had to be the 
bearer of bad news to the Town of Westport, Massachusetts. Westport is 
a wonderful place to live, in substantial part because of its natural 
environment, and the great care that the people of the town take to 
preserve the great gift which that environment is. Recently, I met with 
the selectmen of the town to discuss their very reasonable proposal for 
a dredging project, to cost between $500,000 and $600,000. I told them 
at the time that we would have trouble because of what has been, in my 
judgment, excessive tax-cutting leaving us unable to meet basic needs 
of our society in many ways. Not even the most ardent advocates of tax 
cuts have claimed that they are in any way capable of dredging a 
harbor.
  Subsequently, after sharing with the selectmen the fact that this 
would be tough, I received a copy of a letter from the Army Corps of 
Engineers, making clear that it would be even tougher because of 
cutbacks in their already inadequate funds imposed upon them by the 
Bush Administration.
  The newspaper Westport Shorelines initially editorialized in a very 
eloquent way about this very regrettable decision, and I ask that the 
Westport Shorelines' excellent analysis be printed here so that Members 
can get a fuller understanding of the implications of some of the 
budget cuts that are being imposed.

               [From Westport Shorelines, March 10, 2005]

          Our Little Harbor Doesn't Fit Into Feds' Big Picture

       Al Qaeda doesn't much care about Westport Harbor so neither 
     do we.
       That is the gist of the federal message to Westport this 
     week. In a brief note out of the blue, the feds notified 
     Westport that they won't help dredge the harbor channel after 
     all.
       Federal money, the note states, is ``now being allocated to 
     those ports and harbors of greatest national significance . . 
     . Future funding for small harbors such as Westport is 
     unlikely at this time.''
       In those few words, the Army Corps of Engineers cedes 
     victory to the sand. Without dredging soon, the main channel 
     will inevitably choke with sand--in places that has already 
     happened. The fate of the fishermen, boatyard and ecosystems 
     that rely on a free-flowing river rank low on the federal 
     priority list.
       Don't blame the Army Corps for this one--the decision comes 
     from much higher places. The Army Corps recognized the need 
     and was an enthusiastic participant in the $600,000 project, 
     assisting with expertise, studies and the lion's share of the 
     funding. After years of

[[Page 5498]]

     effort by the Army Corps and Westport dredge committee, the 
     long awaited job was about to happen. The feasibility study 
     was complete (the project passed with flying colors), and 
     final permitting was nearly set.
       Stopping it now amounts to much more than inconvenience and 
     delay. All those costly studies have short shelf lives. If 
     allowed to expire,they must be done anew from scratch.
       It really amounts to one more instance of a fiscal federal 
     priority system overwhelmed by Iraq, tax cuts and all things 
     anti-terrorism. Although the Iraq/terror link remains murky, 
     the war continues to cost by some estimates $177 million a 
     day, $7.4 million per hour (the Westport dredge project 
     equals about five minutes on the Iraq clock), leaving 
     precious little for much else.
       And while there is no denying the need to keep the homeland 
     secure, throwing money at terrorists won't make them go away. 
     Lawmakers trip over themselves to obtain ``anti-terror'' 
     grants by the boatload for local police and fire departments, 
     never mind that the ``terror'' link can be sketchy (last week 
     it was $90,000 to the Portsmouth Fire Department for 
     sprinklers). If we allow our nation terror obsession to drive 
     this nation to financial ruin, the terrorists win anyway.
       We already pay dearly, and loss of this dredge project is 
     but one small example. The Westport Harbor channel may not be 
     of ``great national significance'' but it is no less than a 
     lifeline for people here.

                          ____________________