Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chair, I will try to address some of the concerns of the gentlelady from Ohio. I think everyone who supports this amendment is willing to work with the administration if the administration wants to work with us to start to dredge our ports, to make sure that we can actually have more flow of commerce through the American ports that haven't been serviced well.

If the administration wants to tap into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and use those resources for other purposes, I think you would see a strong objection from those who support this amendment because those of us who especially live in the Great Lakes--Mr. Nolan and I, the gentleman from Minnesota and I, have the great honor of sharing the Duluth-Superior port. We understand how important dredging is to making sure that port functions.

When we don't have enough resources going in to service our port, it gives us great pause because these are jobs in our community. It is economic growth in our community, and if we don't have that, we're concerned. So if the administration is willing to work with us, we are willing to work with the administration, no doubt.

But, again, if they want to take those resources and use them for another purpose, we would have great pause and pushback because what you've seen with the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is that it is funded by the shippers. They pay taxes, they pay fees in the anticipation that those dollars, those revenues, are going to be used to service our ports. The problem is it hasn't been used to service our ports. So they're paying money into a fund that over the last 15 years has run a surplus, and now there's $7 billion in the fund. And they sit back and they scratch their heads and they wonder why isn't this money being used for its intended purpose, which is to make sure American ports work. We've paid for it. We've agreed to pay the taxes; now do, government, what you've promised us to do, use it to make sure that we can actually have commerce in our industry.

I think it's important, the gentleman from Pennsylvania also talked about the Corps of Engineers doing studies and talking about our shippers having to light-load, talking about the Great Lakes ports, talking about Duluth-Superior, the twin ports, where they're unable to load at full capacity because we haven't effectively dredged that port. And that is loss of revenue for our shippers. Not only that, it's driving up the cost of the goods that we're shipping on the Great Lakes, which means the end consumer is paying more for those goods. This doesn't make a lot of economic sense, especially when we have $7 billion of surplus in that fund.

This is one of those issues where I think government can do a better job serving the people. Putting money into a fund, paying taxes to specifically go into a fund for a specific purpose and then have that fund raided and robbed and used for a different purpose is unconscionable, and it is unacceptable; and that is not the agreement that Americans here in the shipping industry had with their government. It's unfair, at best.

To make one last point, this is a jobs amendment. This amendment will again make sure that we can have a growing, effective, efficient economy in shipping in ports across the country; but it also makes sure that we have lower-cost goods because we are effectively using our ports and our shippers across the country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source