Despite a massive surplus in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund – Port Maintenance is underfunded now
Download 0.78 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- I – No Support Now
- I – Ports Inadequate
- Current ports cannot accommodate Panamax expansion ships
**Inherency**I – Surplus NowThere is a surplus in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund – but poor allocation nowHolliday 8 (Barry, 10/21, chairman of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Fairness Collation, “Realize America's Maritime Promise Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Fairness Coalition”, http://operations.usace.army.mil/nav/08octdredge/33-RAMP HarborMaintenanceTrustFundFairnessC.pdf) The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund ("the Trust Fund") and its Harbor Maintenance Tax ("the Tax") were authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, P.L. 99-662. The purpose of the Tax, a 0.125% ad valorem tax levied on cargo imported or domestically moved through federally maintained channels and harbors, is to pay for Army Corps of Engineers operations and maintenance dredging. The Tax is collected by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and directed to the Trust Fund. However, the monies are not immediately eligible for dredging activities. Those monies can only be spent if the funding is actually appropriated by Congress. The problem with the Trust Fund is that far more money is being collected from shippers under the Tax than is actually being spent on dredging projects. In a typical recent year, for example, the Trust Fund collected $1.3 billion but spent between $700 and $800 million. The under-spending problem is so acute that the Trust Fund now has a surplus of more than $4.7 billion. As such, a significant portion of the Tax revenue is not being used for its intended purpose. Those funds that are collected but not spent on dredging are being held "on the books" for the apparent sole purpose of reducing the size of the Federal debt and deficit. Unfortunately, this under-spending comes at a time when there is a desperate need for additional Federal operations and maintenance dredging. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that world trade, the vast majority of which is transported by ship, will double in the next 20 years. Ships have become bigger, requiring more sustained dredging. Some regions in the United States have maintenance dredging backlogs totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, backlogs that impact both commercial efficiencies and military readiness. One recent publication summarized the situation with the headline, "Waterway Dredging Runs Aground." I – No Support NowDespite the vulnerability of ports – there is little government support for security investments nowKeefe, lead commentator of MaritimeProfessional.com, 10 (Joseph, 12-1-10, New Wave Media, http://maritimeprofessional.com/Blogs/The-Final-Word-with-Joseph-Keefe/December-2010/Port-Security--Good-News,-Bad-News,-No-News-at-All.aspx, accessed 6-27-12, AS) You can agree or disagree with the preceding paragraph, but I think maritime industry security expert Dr. Jim Giermanski, CEO of Powers Global Holdings says it best when he insists, “The greatest potential threat of death, injury and destruction is not by air, but rather by sea, truck, or rail. While no single death as a result of terrorism is tolerable, there is a fundamental and significant difference between airline passengers and vessel, truck, and rail which by their core purpose is the servicing of seaports and land ports-of-entry. Taking out one major seaport port can also lead to the destruction of our economy and ultimately injury to all of us.”Giermanski also asks, “Which is a greater threat – airline passengers or containers and trailers? Are they equal? Are they proportional? It appears that DHS is not quite sure because if it were, it would spend as much time and effort on outbound containers as it does on outbound airline passengers especially when air travelers are merely moving from one domestic location to another. Does a successful terrorist event have to occur before it merits DHS attention?” GAO says that we have work to do. And, while it didn’t take a report that likely costs tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to produce for us to be aware of this metric, it is helpful to get things boiled down once in a while to see where we have gone astray. More than nine years after the tragedy of 9/11, and following hundreds millions of dollars in security enhancements, you now have to ask yourself this: are the ports any safer? Well, are they? – MP. I – Ports InadequatePorts are too shallow and won’t have access to more than half of the goods after the Panamax expansionBynum and Smith 6/21 (Russ and Bruce, press for UT San Diego news, 21 June 2012, “Report: Southeast, Gulf need deeper port harbors, http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jun/21/report-southeast-gulf-need-deeper-port-harbors/ SC) SAVANNAH, Ga. — U.S. seaports in the Southeast likely need up to $5 billion to deepen their shipping channels so they can trade with supersized cargo ships expected to arrive soon through an expanded Panama Canal, a federal agency said Thursday in a report to Congress. Lawmakers asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to examine improvement needs among the nation's ports as local governments scramble for federal funds to deepen their harbors to make room for a growing fleet of giant commercial ships. The East Coast only has three ports - New York, Baltimore and Norfolk, Va. - with waterways deep enough to accept the fully loaded ships regardless of tides. The Southeast, forecast for the nation's heaviest growth in population and trade, remains too shallow from Virginia to south Florida and across the Gulf to Texas. The need for expanding port capacity "is likely to be most critical along the U.S. Southeast and Gulf coasts," the report said. That's because the region has no shipping channels that are at least 50 feet deep, the target depth for the giant ships - mostly from China and other Asian countries - that will begin using the Panama Canal after a major expansion is completed by the end of 2014. The Corps said those so-called post-Panamax ships make up only 16 percent of the world's container fleet, but have nearly half that fleet's carrying capacity. "Those numbers are projected to grow significantly over the next 20 years," Maj. Gen. Michael J. Walsh, the Army Corps' deputy commanding general for civil works, said in statement Thursday. Savannah, Ga., Charleston, S.C., and Miami as well as several ports in the Gulf are already undertaking harbor deepening projects, though none have advanced beyond studies to actual dredging. In April, the Corps completed a 14-year study on the Port of Savannah - the nation's fourth busiest container port - which wants $652 million in taxpayer funds to deepen more than 30 miles of river. Florida port officials hope to have a $150 million deepening of Miami's port finished by 2014. The Corps said 17 such projects are being studied overall, and the cost of harbor expansions across the Southeast would likely be $3 billion to $5 billion. "Strategically, we need to find a bucket of money to fund the projects that need to happen to keep our nation competitive," said Curtis Foltz, executive director of the Georgia Ports Authority, which is seeking final permits and funding to start deepening the Savannah harbor next year. Jim Newsome, CEO of the South Carolina State Ports Authority, said he was pleased that the Corps "recognizes that the Southeast region's ports are of special importance in a national planning strategy." The deepening projects singled out by the Army Corps represent just a fraction of the money U.S. ports are spending to upgrade their docks, ship-to-shore cranes and other infrastructure. The American Association of Port Authorities released a survey last week showing U.S. ports plan to spend at least $46 billion on improvements in the next five years. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund money is not being allocated to helping ports, and most are not ready for the new Panamax shipsHurst 6/16 (Nathan, CQ staff, 16 June 2012, “Dredging Up More Money for Maintenance” http://public.cq.com/docs/weeklyreport/weeklyreport-000004107500.html) For ports along the Eastern Seaboard and Gulf Coast, the $5.3 billion expansion of the Panama Canal to accommodate wider and heavier vessels is an opportunity to grab a bigger share of trans-Pacific cargo shipping. Instead of sending Asian cargo across the country by rail, for instance, it could be shipped directly by sea to major East Coast ports. BIG BUDGETS: Harbor improvements would cost billions for ports such as Newark, N.J. (MEL EVANS / AP ) Seizing that opportunity will be an expensive proposition. The only eastern port completely ready for “New Panamax” ships — those that will fit through the expanded canal, as opposed to “Panamax” ships that can fit through it today — is Norfolk, Va. Navigation channels in most major harbors are too shallow, while the port of New York and New Jersey would have to spend about $1 billion to raise the Bayonne Bridge by about 64 feet so larger ships could pass. Compounding the challenge is an estimated $2.2 billion backlog in current harbor maintenance before new, deeper channels could be dredged. The Army Corps of Engineers reports that the full, authorized channel dimensions at the 59 busiest U.S. ports are available less than 35 percent of the time, increasing the risk of collisions and groundings and raising the cost of shipping because vessels have to carry lighter loads. The good news is that there’s plenty of money available to address the upkeep problem — at least on paper. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, supported by a tax of $1.25 per $1,000 on imported and domestic cargo, boasts a growing surplus that exceeds $7 billion. But the trust fund is not a separate, off-budget account, so expenditures are set by appropriators and subject to Corps of Engineers budget ceilings. That encourages congressional budget writers to hang on to much of the money to mask overall budget deficits. “We don’t fund dredging enough for maritime commerce,” Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, lamented during the opening session of the House-Senate highway bill conference. “We allow that trust to be stolen from, and we really need to stop that.” Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., a Louisiana Republican, included language in the House-passed highway bill extension to require that all trust fund tax receipts and any interest credited to the fund be appropriated annually for dredging and harbor maintenance. Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, has introduced companion legislation in the Senate, and supporters hope the provision will be part of a highway bill conference report. That legislation by itself wouldn’t prepare harbors for the New Panamax shipping, since the law allows Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund money to be spent only on maintenance dredging — not new excavation. The Corps of Engineers is preparing a congressionally mandated report due later this month on strategies for modernizing ports and inland waterways. Raising the fees currently charged shippers and then extending use of the trust fund to pay for dredging deeper channels is among the financing options under review. But a House aide who has worked on the issue says deepening the ports is a waste of time unless the harbor fund is freed up to pay for ongoing maintenance. “The long-term concern is making sure we have the resources to pay for harbor maintenance,” the aide says. “If we’re not doing a good job now, it’s unlikely the corps can keep up without full funding when they need to be deeper.” The Panama Canal expansion has sparked a drive by major Eastern and Gulf Coast ports — often in competition with one another — to deepen their shipping channels. Persuading Congress to authorize and help pay for it in the current fiscal climate is difficult though, and a test of priorities for fiscal conservatives from coastal states. For instance, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican who swore off budget earmarks, has said repeatedly that he would make an exception to pay for deepening the harbor at Savannah, which is about 17 miles upriver from the ocean. Georgia officials have said they need about $461 million in federal aid to complete the project. In the competition for limited federal dollars, Savannah has been at odds with Charleston, S.C., which is looking for about $120 million in federal aid to deepen its harbor channels to the 50-foot depth needed to accommodate New Panamax shipping. Like Norfolk, New York and Baltimore have deep enough channels to handle the bigger ships. But the Bayonne Bridge is currently an obstacle to bringing the bigger container ships into the port of New York/New Jersey, and Baltimore does not have the same capacity as some of the larger ports. Florida is paying to dredge a deeper channel for the port of Miami. Current ports cannot accommodate Panamax expansion ships –Maritime Trades Department 12 (February 9, 2012, Maritime Trades Department, “Port Modernization”, http://maritimetrades.org/issues/allied-trades/port-modernization/, accessed 6/25/12) CGC U.S. ports are important strategic and economic assets, generating as they do millions of jobs and serving as loading platforms for the nation’s military forces. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, ILA members and other unionized stevedores worked around the clock to ensure that the men and women of the U.S. armed forces had the ammunition and equipment that was needed to perform the mission. According to recent estimates, approximately 95 percent of our nation’s trade enters or leaves through 36 of the nation’s largest seaports. With international trade set to double over the next 15 years, America’s ports will play an even greater role in the economic life of the nation. Unfortunately, while the international maritime industry is changing, U.S. ports are finding it hard to keep up. While cargo vessels are getting larger and larger, inadequate federal funding levels and other obstacles are making it harder and harder for U.S. ports to accommodate them. Besides the economic issues involved, there’s the public safety. There have been a number of recent high-profile accidents that have been caused by inadequate channel conditions in several U.S. ports. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.78 Mb. Share with your friends:
|