U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67–286 PDF 2012

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 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington, 

Vice Chair 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

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 

Page

VI 

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 

vii 


Insert offset folio 001 here 67286.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 67286.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 67286.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 67286.004
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 67286.005
xii 


Insert offset folio 6 here 67286.006
xiii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 67286.007
xiv 


Insert offset folio 8 here 67286.008
xv 


Insert offset folio 9 here 67286.009
(1) 

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 

2 

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. 

3 

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 111⁄2 percent, including 

a remarkable cut of 201⁄2 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 auVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:02 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\7-8-11~1\67286.TXT JEAN
4 

thorized 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:] 

5 


Insert offset folio 10 here 67286.010
6 


Insert offset folio 11 here 67286.011
7 


Insert offset folio 12 here 67286.012
8 


Insert offset folio 13 here 67286.013
9 


Insert offset folio 14 here 67286.014
10 


Insert offset folio 15 here 67286.015
11 


Insert offset folio 16 here 67286.016
12 


Insert offset folio 17 here 67286.017
13 


Insert offset folio 18 here 67286.018
14 


Insert offset folio 19 here 67286.019
15 


Insert offset folio 20 here 67286.020
16 


Insert offset folio 21 here 67286.021
17 

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:] 

18 


Insert offset folio 22 here 67286.022
19 


Insert offset folio 23 here 67286.023
20 


Insert offset folio 24 here 67286.024
21 


Insert offset folio 25 here 67286.025
22 


Insert offset folio 26 here 67286.026
23 


Insert offset folio 27 here 67286.027
24 


Insert offset folio 28 here 67286.028
25 


Insert offset folio 29 here 67286.029
26 


Insert offset folio 30 here 67286.030
27 


Insert offset folio 31 here 67286.031
28 


Insert offset folio 32 here 67286.032
29 

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:] 

30 


Insert offset folio 33 here 67286.033
31 


Insert offset folio 34 here 67286.034
32 


Insert offset folio 35 here 67286.035
33 


Insert offset folio 36 here 67286.036
34 

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 

35 

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 

36 

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:] 

37 


Insert offset folio 37 here 67286.037
38 


Insert offset folio 38 here 67286.038
39 

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. 

40 

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 

41 

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. 

42 

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. 

43 

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. 

44 

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. 

45 

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 colVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:02 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\7-8-11~1\67286.TXT JEAN
46 

lected, 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 specifiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:02 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\7-8-11~1\67286.TXT JEAN
47 

cally 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 burVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:02 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\7-8-11~1\67286.TXT JEAN
48 

den 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 

49 

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 

50 

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 viaVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:02 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\7-8-11~1\67286.TXT JEAN
51 

bility 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? 

52 

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. 

53 

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, 

54 

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 

55 

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 301⁄2 feet deep. The authorization 

is for 1,200 feet by 110 feet by 36 feet. Yet we can’t get off center 

with it. 

56 

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. 

57 

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 

58 

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.] 

59 


Insert offset folio 39 here 67286.039
60 


Insert offset folio 40 here 67286.040
61 


Insert offset folio 41 here 67286.041
62 


Insert offset folio 42 here 67286.042
63 


Insert offset folio 43 here 67286.043
64 


Insert offset folio 44 here 67286.044
65 


Insert offset folio 45 here 67286.045
66 


Insert offset folio 46 here 67286.046
67 


Insert offset folio 47 here 67286.047
68 


Insert offset folio 48 here 67286.048
69 


Insert offset folio 49 here 67286.049
70 


Insert offset folio 50 here 67286.050
71 


Insert offset folio 51 here 67286.051
72 


Insert offset folio 52 here 67286.052
73 


Insert offset folio 53 here 67286.053
74 


Insert offset folio 54 here 67286.054
75 


Insert offset folio 55 here 67286.055
76 


Insert offset folio 56 here 67286.056
77 


Insert offset folio 57 here 67286.057
78 


Insert offset folio 58 here 67286.058
79 


Insert offset folio 59 here 67286.059
80 


Insert offset folio 60 here 67286.060
81 


Insert offset folio 61 here 67286.061
82 


Insert offset folio 62 here 67286.062
83 


Insert offset folio 63 here 67286.063
84 


Insert offset folio 64 here 67286.064
85 


Insert offset folio 65 here 67286.065
86 


Insert offset folio 66 here 67286.066
87 


Insert offset folio 67 here 67286.067
88 


Insert offset folio 68 here 67286.068
89 


Insert offset folio 69 here 67286.069
90 


Insert offset folio 70 here 67286.070
91 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 71 here 67286.071