Port Maintenance Aff Classic bt file completed by the following hard working students
Download 0.92 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Southeast dredging is cheap- Costs 3 to 5 Billion Dollars
- Port Dredging with HMTF is key- Using HMTF Can Double US Exports
- Seaports are an integral part of the transportation system
- Ports are a vital part of Infrastructure
- Investment means investment in time
- Interpretation of Infrastructure
- 2AC Extra-Topicality Legit
- 2) Only impact is severence
- 3) Extra-T inevitable
- 4) Extra-topicality standards exclude plan provisions
A2: SpendingUS Ports Are Failing- surplus of $5.65 Billion in HMTFBeacon 11 – Maritime Exchange newspaper services serving Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (The Beacon, “Ramping up RAMP”, Maritime Exchange, 12/11, http://www.maritimedelriv.com/Publications/Beacon/issues/Winter2011/Winter_2011_Beacon.pdf)//JH There is a maintenance dredging crisis in this country, and a coalition of maritime companies and organizations has been hard at work to find a solu- tion. While the road has been a long one, the RAMP (Realize America’s Maritime Promise) Coalition has achieved a measure of success. At issue is the backlog of maintenance dredging work not being completed. Amazingly, there is money to pay for it. So why isn’t the work being done? The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) was established specifically as a vehicle to collect the 0.125% ad valoremHarbor Maintenance tax levied on cargo imported or domestically moved through federally maintained waterways. Established in 1986, the trust fund grows based on the value of cargo moving through the nation’s ports. “However, the revenues collected are not automatically available for dredging activities,” said Exchange President Dennis Rochford. “The money can only be spent if the funding is actually appropriated by Congress. This just isn’t happening.” Army Corps of Engineers expenditures from the trust fund for maintenance dredging, dredged material disposal areas, jetties, and breakwaters have lagged behind revenues into the fund for several years, resulting in a surplus of approximately $5.65 billion at the end of FY10. This surplus continues to grow by hundreds of millions of dollars each year – in 2010, it grew by $1.3 billion. Yet only $828.5 million was spent, and the balance was diverted to the federal operating budget. “As a result, many of the country’s most valuable navigation channels are under maintained, reducing the cost effectiveness, global competitiveness, and efficiency of maritime trade,” said Barry Holliday, Chairman, HMTF Fairness Coalition, and Executive Director, Dredging Contractors of America. The problem is clear: due to inadequate appropriations from the trust fund, navigation channels are getting narrower and shallower because of sediment accumulation. The Corps of Engineers recently reported that almost 30% of commercial vessel calls at U.S. ports are constrained due to inadequate channel depths. Consequently, ships with cargoes destined for the U.S. market cannot be fully loaded because they cannot get through inadequately maintained channels. The ramifications hit both economically in the form of increased costs to move cargos and on the safety front, with the increase in potential for vessel groundings. The RAMP Coalition is working to correct this injustice. It has garnered significant support among members of Congress to ensure that the tax revenue is spent for its intended purpose. Southeast dredging is cheap- Costs 3 to 5 Billion DollarsChapman 12- a journalist for The Atlanta Journal- Constitution (Dan, “Federal Study: Southern Posts Need Money to deepen”, The Atlanta Journal- Constitution, 6/21, http://www.ajc.com/business/federal-study-southern-ports-1462299.html)//JH Savannah and other southern ports have "the most critical" need for money to deepen harbors for super-sized cargo ships expected to ply the world's oceans by late 2014, according to a federal maritime agency report released Thursday. But the study, done for Congress by the research arm of the Army Corps of Engineers, doesn't conclude which ports deserve federal dollars to handle the huge container ships. Nor did the Institute of Water Resources say where the money should come from -- the federal government, states, port authorities or shipping lines. Savannah expects final federal approval this fall to deepen 38 miles of river and harbor so that bigger ships can reach its docks and warehouses. Georgia has committed $180 million of the proposed $652 million cost. Washington, theoretically, would pay the rest. Charleston also wants to deepen its port, and South Carolina has set aside $180 million to deepen the harbor there to 50 feet. Savannah's project would likely go to 47 feet , a depth that could restrict larger, fully laden vessels from calling on the port. "The Southeast is projected to be the fastest growing demographic region in the U.S. (so) the country's most urgent need in support of the canal expansion lies here in the Southeast," said Curtis Foltz, executive director of the Georgia Ports Authority. "Southeastern ports, collectively, including both Savannah and Charleston, need greater capacity, expanded harbor ways and road and rail improvements." U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked the Corps six months ago to help determine which ports should get federal deepening dollars. By 2014, at the earliest, the Panama Canal will have expanded its passageways so that "super post-Panamax" ships sailing from Asia can more readily reach East Coast ports. Graham's request followed Congress' public disavowal of earmarks, the legislative practice of financing pet projects outside the full appropriations process. Graham, who couldn't be reached Thursday, enlisted the Corps to help lay the groundwork for a national port strategy that would pick winners and losers. At the time, Graham told the AJC: "We're trying to create a merit-based system where ports can make their case for funding that's not based on the politics of the Obama administration or parochial politics." The Corps' report noted that 17 ports nationwide are in various stages of harbor deepening studies. The ideal depth, according to the Corps, is 50 feet. West coast ports naturally reach that depth. On the East Coast, only Norfolk and New York are that deep, while Baltimore will soon get there. "There is currently a lack of post-Panamax capacity at U.S. Gulf and South Atlantic ports – the very regions geographically positioned to potentially be most impacted by the expected changes in the world fleet," wrote Robert Pietrowsky, director of the Institute for Water Resources. The Corps, which is determining whether the 17 ports should be deepened, pegs the cost of expansions in the Southeast alone -- mainly Charleston, Savannah, Miami and Jacksonville -- at $3 billion to $5 billion. Port Dredging with HMTF is key- Using HMTF Can Double US ExportsWall Street Journal 11 – ( “Legislative Hearing on H.R. 104, the Realize America's Maritime Promise (RAMP) Act”, ProQuest Congressional, July 5th) 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 im- plication. 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 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. A2: TopicalityTransportationSeaports are an integral part of the transportation systemAllen, 12 - Judson Falknor Professor of Law, University of Washington; Visiting Professor, Yale Law School and Distinguished Visiting Professor of Maritime Studies, U.S. Coast Guard Academy (Craig, “ Future Ports Scenarios for 21ST Century Port Strategic Planning”, JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION LAW, LOGISTICS & POLICY, 89-91, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2066661_code334079.pdf?abstractid=1967856&mirid=2)//RM Seaports are an integral component of the marine transportation system; one that provides the vital link between producers and consumers, importers and exporters and military logisticians and deployed forces. Ports are often a leading catalyst and engine for regional economic growth and prosperity. The health of the region’s and even the nation’s economy can therefore turn on the care, skill and vision that public port commissioners, managers and planners bring to the strategic planning process. Despite the best of intentions, government attention to and support for the nation’s public ports in the United States has generally lagged behind the demands imposed by the growth in maritime trade and transportation. The neglect is all the more apparent when the U.S. approach is compared to that of our two NAFTA partners, Canada and Mexico, and to Panama, which is in the middle of a major lock expansion project that has the potential Judson Falknor Professor of Law, University of Washington; Visiting Professor, Yale Law School and Distinguished Visiting Professor of Maritime Studies, U.S. Coast Guard Academy (2011-2012). The views expressed are the author’s alone. Canada’s Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative will reportedly increase Canada’s container capacity at the deep water ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert by 3.6 million twenty-foot equivalent container units (TEUs) and speed delivery via a high speed transit corridor to Midwest and eastern cargo destinations in Canada and the U.S. See Canada’s Asia Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative, available at. To the south, Mexico’s planned Punta Colonet and Lázaro Cárdenas container ports would reportedly accommodate the largest container ships and boost Mexico’s container capacity by some 8 million TEUs. Planners foresee much of that traffic servicing U.S. cargo traders. By comparison, container traffic through all U.S. ports in 2009 was just under 25 million TEUs via some 18,000 vessel calls. U.S. Department of Transportation, RITA, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, America’s Container Ports: Linking Markets at Home and Abroad (Jan. 2011), at 6, available at to dramatically affect U.S. traffic and port volumes. The persistent global financial and economic crisis of the early 21st century, long neglected port infrastructure and waterway maintenance projects, existing and forecasted effects of climate change, legal constraints on port development or operations and shifts in trading and shipping patterns will present port authorities with a growing list of challenges in the coming decades.4 Those challenges are compounded by a series of recent natural disasters and mounting port and vessel security costs in the wake of resurgent piracy and terrestrial terrorist attacks in India, Indonesia, the United Kingdom, Spain and the United States and on shipping in the Gulf of Aden. For some, those challenges warrant careful reconsideration of the port’s very identity, as reflected in its mission and vision statements. One tool that might prove useful to port authorities in the coming years as they approach those planning efforts is Future Ports Scenarios (FPS). The FPS approach seeks to construct an array of possible “futures” for the port, which when taken together provide port policymakers and strategic planners with a comprehensive and coherent inventory of factors to be considered in decisions regarding their ports’ desired future direction. A FPS exercise can therefore be an invaluable preparatory step for initial or recurrent strategic planning for ports. U.S. PORTS AND THEIR STRATEGIC PLANNING ENVIRONMENT Although U.S. ports are administered at the state and local level, as a vital element of the nation’s overall transportation system and its interstate and foreign commerce, they make a significant contribution to the nation’s economic well-being, security and our quality of life. Therefore, it is in the national interest to make U.S. ports safe, efficient, secure, globally competitive and environmentally responsible. Unfortunately, as parts 3 and 4 of this paper demonstrate, the port operating environment in the U.S. suffers from progressive institutional fragmentation and a lack of operationally-specific national goals and objectives. The U.S. Marine Transportation System5 The U.S. marine transportation system has been thoroughly catalogued and studied over the past two decades. According to the Committee on the Marine Transportation System (CMTS),6 the U.S. has more than 95,000 miles of coastline. Its domestic marine transportation system consists of some 25,320 miles of navigable waterways, including rivers, bays and channels and many thousands of additional miles on the Great Lakes-Saint Panama is adding a third set of locks that will double the canal’s overall capacity while also accommodating ships of up to 13,000 TEUs, with drafts up to 60 feet (existing locks limit container vessels to 5,000 TEUs and 39.5 feet drafts). The third lock is expected to open in 2014. In 2011, two key thresholds were crossed. First, the world’s human population went over 7 billion, most of whom compete with ports for space in an already congested coastal zone. Second, the national debt of the United States broke the $15 trillion mark, severely limiting the federal government’s public works programs. Note: to promote consistency with the 2008 National Strategy for the Marine Transportation System, this section incorporates and integrates materials from that strategy document, particularly those describing the MTS. InfrastructurePorts are a vital part of InfrastructureKenya Port Security 06 (“PORTS VITAL IN IMPROVING REGIONAL TRADE “http://www.kpa.co.ke/INFOCENTER/NEWS/Pages/PORTSVITALINIMPROVINGREGIONALTRADE.aspx)//RM
2AC Extra-Topicality LegitExtra-T legitimate -1) Extra-T justified - Absent a resolutional mandate aff has the right to chooseRowland, 86-Director of Forensics at Baylor University (Robert C., JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN FORENSICASSOCIATION, Winter, 1986, P. 130, http://www.scribd.com/doc/50983055/136/EXTRA-TOPICAL-PLAN-PROVISIONS-ARE-LEGITIMATE)//RM The affirmative might be unreasonable about claiming advantages from the means through which the resolution is implemented, but the negative might be unreasonable in claiming that those means are not strictly part of the topic. This argument is unreasonable because any resolution is necessarily silent on some points. A resolution that requires the affirmative to guarantee water quality is silent on the means by which the guarantee is established. So long as the means of implementing the plan are not specified by the resolution, the affirmative has the right to select the method of plan implementation. 2) Only impact is severenceRowland, 86-Director of Forensics at Baylor University (Robert C., JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOCIATION, Winter, 1986, p. 127, http://www.scribd.com/doc/50983055/136/EXTRA-TOPICAL-PLAN-PROVISIONS-ARE-LEGITIMATE)//RM In addition, it is unclear what happens to extra-topical plan provisions. Some theorists say that, because the affirmative is limited to the resolution, extra-topical plan provisions simply drop out of the debate or are severed from the remainder of the plan. This view is consistent with realistic legislative rules. Congressional committees cannot consider legislation outside of their jurisdiction. 3) Extra-T inevitable –The affirmative should be allowed to include anything in their plan. Therefore, the affirmative is allowed try and take out the possible disadvantages, although, most plans always open up a potential disadvantages. And, because the aff can include a provision in the plan, they should be allowed to claim the advantages from those parts of the plan that are in the resolution. 4) Extra-topicality standards exclude plan provisions -such as “funding” or “enforcement through normal means” or “affirmative speeches will clarify intent” - These can be necessary for proper implementation of the plan. 5) Infinitely regressive –There is no briteline for determining what is extra-topical. It is unclear when a plan provision is necessary to the resolution as opposed to a plan spike that is illegitimate to the resolution. 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 0.92 Mb. Share with your friends:
|