The Administration says that they would fully offset this paygo cost through mandatory savings elsewhere in the President s FY 2000 budget. The Administration s proposal would also bring both the collection and expenditure of the new fees to the discretionary side of the budget, subject to action by the Appropriations Committees. In general, port, shipping, cargo and labor interests are strongly opposed to the Administration s current proposal and many are suggesting instead that Congress authorize the use of general revenues for operations and maintenance of navigation projects. HSUF critics claim it may also result in international and domestic cargo diversions to other countries and other modes of transportation, which would be economically and environmentally damaging. If the HSUF is passed on to the cargo owner as higher transportation costs, this fee has the potential to impact the competitiveness of certain U.S. exports.
Critics claim that imposition of a new fee is premature.
Reps. Borski and Oberstar introduced H.R. 1260, the Support for Harbor Investment Program Act, on March 24, 1999. Others have expressed an interest in replacing the HMT with a different dedicated revenue stream rather than relying on general revenues. The report is anticipated by August 1999.