Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Act.

However, while I support the underlying legislation, I have serious concerns that this bipartisan-supported bill is combined with the Commercial Vessel Discharges Act.

The Commercial Vessel Discharges Act sets a single nationwide standard for the treatment of ballast water by commercial vessels. This would prevent states, such as California from enacting more stringent ballast water standards.

California has stronger ballast water standards than what is found in the Commercial Vessel Discharges Act. This legislation will cause more invasive species to infiltrate the waters in California and the Great Lakes. This will also increase costs associated with combating invasive species.

Mr. Chair, the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Act would have been further improved had the Rules Committee made my three amendments in order. Let me briefly explain what my amendments would have done.

My first amendment would have simply allowed grants provided under the Port Security Grant Program to be used to pay a portion of personnel costs.

The Maritime Transportation Security Act and the SAFE Port Act authorize funds to identify vulnerabilities in port security and in order to ensure compliance with mandated port security plans.

The grant funding is provided to port authorities, facility operators, and state and local government agencies so they can provide security services to our ports.

However, currently Port Security Grant Program funds cannot be used to fund statutorily-mandated security personnel costs.

My amendment simply would have corrected this inconsistency between the Port Security Grant Program and other grant funding programs.

Our American ports should not have to bear the burden of protecting our most vital stream of commerce and source of American jobs on their own.

Instead, ports should be allowed to utilize Port Security Grant Program funds to hire and pay security personnel who are used to staff fusion center, emergency operations, and counterterrorism posts.

Also, in order to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, my amendment would have placed a cap on the amount of Port Security Grant Program funding that can be used to pay security personnel costs.

Payments would have been limited to 50% of the total amount awarded to grant recipients in any fiscal year.

This is consistent with other grant programs, such as the Urban Area Security Initiative.

Last month, I had a similar amendment adopted by unanimous consent by the Homeland Security Committee during the markup of the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

My amendment would have allowed grant recipients the flexibility to use a portion of their funds to pay for security personnel expenses.

In short, my amendment would have provided a simple, common-sense change to what has become a complex funding issue for our American ports.

My second amendment would simply have allowed grant funds under the Port Security Grant Program to be used to replace defective security equipment.

Currently, the Port Security Grant Program allows grant funds to be used for maintenance of security equipment, but not the replacement of security equipment.

My amendment would have given grant recipients the flexibility in determining whether it is more cost-effective to replace or repair security equipment.

It doesn't make any sense to require grant recipients to fix security equipment when it may be cheaper to replace it with newer, improved technology.

My amendment didn't increase spending, but would have given Port Security Grant Program recipients the flexibility in determining the best use of their funds.

My third amendment would have ensured that when the Marine Transportation System Assessment and Strategy was drafted it included a plan to identify maritime projects of national significance; the steps taken to implement 100 percent container screening at ports, which was recommended by the 9/11 Commission; and develop a plan for fully utilizing the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.

The Committee on the Marine Transportation System is tasked with assessing the adequacy of the marine transportation system including ports, waterways, channels, and their intermodal connections.

Part of this Committee's job is to draft the Marine Transportation System Assessment and Strategy one year after this bill's enactment. This assessment will evaluate the condition of the marine transportation system and the challenges the system faces.

My amendment would have asked the committee to take into consideration three things when drafting its assessment.

First, to identify maritime projects of national significance. I believe identifying these corridors are essential to the goods movement process in this country. Too often we fund projects because of political reasons and not because it is right for the country. Under the advisement of the Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council, interested parties, the public, and the Committee should put forth a list of maritime projects of national significance so that the country can make smart investments that increase the flow of goods, the flow of trade, and create jobs.

Second, to report what steps are being taken to keep our nation safe by ensuring that our ports are secure and not a weak point for terrorists to exploit. Millions of containers are shipped into our country every year and the smallest percentage are thoroughly checked for potential threats against the United States. My amendment would have simply asked the committee to report what is being done to secure our ports as recommended by the 9/11 commission.

Finally my amendment asked the committee to make recommendations that would make the delivery of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund more efficient to the users who pay into it. Recently in a T&I subcommittee, members of the port committee expressed their displeasure with the lack of return on the Harbor Maintenance Tax. There are too many projects essential to our nation's goods movement infrastructure going under or unfunded by the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. I along with the entire witness panel agreed it is time for reform.

Rest assured, I will continue to be an advocate for our ports, including the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles. As a Member of both the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, ensuring the safety of our nation's ports is one of my top priorities.

Again, Mr. Chair while I support the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Act, I do not support prohibiting states, like California from enacting more stringent ballast water protections. I also feel that had my amendments been made in order, the safety of our ports would have been improved.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source