Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to congratulate the gentleman on his amendment. I can confirm that the Corps of Engineers has said they have no objection to this. I guess just somehow, they couldn't get through the bureaucracy to release the land until the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Vela) brought this amendment to the floor. So the gentleman is doing a public service for his constituents and I believe the Nation, holding onto property unnecessarily. I recommend our colleagues support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the author--I am a bit puzzled, and we have been unable to get an answer expeditiously from the Coast Guard--you are saying the Coast Guard will not recognize the no-wake zone, but the enforcement would fall to the local harbor patrol or the local authorities. So there is a no-wake zone that the local officials can fine or penalize people who violate it, can they not?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am definitively not in opposition.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I am opposed to the bill.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not in opposition.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to congratulate the gentleman on his persistence. This is a very commonsense amendment and it could have tremendous benefits nationwide. It is great policy. I congratulate him for his persistence because this amendment was rejected in committee, but things seem different on the floor, and that is great. I urge our colleagues to support this fully. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's amendment has great merit, and I urge Members to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I am not in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has identified a real and continuing issue, and I suggest that Members support his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I congratulate the two gentlemen on a very sensitive and positive bipartisan amendment which expedites a critical authorized and appropriated project.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentioned in his opening remarks one of the greatest disappointments. This bill did come out of committee unanimously--bipartisan--in a very fiscally responsible manner, which is that we levy a tax on all goods that are imported into this country. Every American pays a little bit more for any imported good he buys under the premise that that money will be used to maintain and construct our harbors and critical port facilities. Unfortunately, every year, the Republicans have seen fit to divert $400 million to $500 million of that tax into something else. They spend it somewhere else. They pretend they are reducing the deficit-- whatever. We do not know. Meanwhile, our harbors are silting in; our jetties are failing; and many major projects are delayed. In fact, we are going to authorize a bunch of new projects here--billions of dollars worth of projects. Unfortunately, the Corps already has authorized--but yet has unconstructed and unfunded--$68 billion worth. They are saying we can't use the tax dollars--that we can't use the dollars which Americans are paying a little bit more of for all of their imported goods--for the purpose for which the law was intended: dredging our harbors. Here are just two examples. We have Savannah--a major project. We have to deal with the post- Panamax ship. Unfortunately, we are going to have a $15 million-a-year deficit in terms of maintaining that project once it is constructed. We also have the Port of Charleston--$5 million a year short. Now, if that $400 million were not being diverted by the Republican majority to other purposes, those projects and others around the country could be fully funded. I have been working on this provision for 20 years, starting with Bud Shuster, the dad of the current chair of the committee. It came out of committee unanimously with support on the Republican and Democratic sides; yet the Rules Committee stripped it out. They stripped it out because they want to keep playing with that money and diverting it away from critical needs. Then one other thing. We are talking about critical infrastructure and the huge backlog. There is an earmark in this. Earmarks are banned. Technically, they kind of get around that. There is a $520 million earmark for a project that has had no cost-benefit analysis, that has not been approved by the Corps of Engineers but that, in fact, will include such critical infrastructure as a splash park, a swimming pool, ball fields, et cetera. Harbor maintenance tax dollars will be spent on these projects in a $520 million boondoggle that has never had a cost- benefit analysis because one member of the Appropriations Committee managed to slip it into an appropriations bill years ago. Then, with a little sleight of hand, he said: ``Oh, well. Yeah. It was never authorized, never evaluated; but if we tweak it a little bit and say, `Well, we are modifying it,' then we can say, `Oh, it is okay.''' This is not exactly on the up-and-up here today, folks. We are diverting precious tax dollars away from critical infrastructure to whatever kind of special things the Republicans have somewhere else that they want to fund, and we are funding boondoggles and earmarks to the tune of a half a billion dollars.

Mr. DeFAZIO. To just get back to the core of this, other than that, it is a pretty good bill. It is critical that we maintain our ports and our infrastructure, and it is critical for our competition--the world economy; but we need to stop hoodwinking the American people. If you are not going to spend the tax for the purpose for which it was collected--harbor maintenance and construction--then lower the tax, because every American is paying a little bit more for every imported good. Besides that, they are paying a lot more because the ships are way out to sea, in line, because they can't access our ports, again, because of deferred maintenance at portside facilities. We have got that money. We are collecting the tax. Let's spend the tax in the way in which it is authorized under the law of the United States of America, and let's stop playing games.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The committee does have a great tradition of bipartisanship. It is hard to get partisan about our crumbling infrastructure and the needs for enhanced investment, but one of the keys toward enhancing the investment and dealing with the $68 billion--B, billion--backlog of authorized Corps projects--$68 billion--is to use a tax which is collected from shippers and passed on to the American people. Every day you buy a good from a foreign country, you are paying a little bit more for that under an agreement that the money collected will be used to maintain our harbors, our ports, keep them from silting in, and construct critical infrastructure. Unfortunately, for years Congress has been diverting part of that money every year. Today there is a theoretical balance of over $9 billion in the nonexistent harbor maintenance trust fund. Look through the entire budget of the United States. You won't find that money anywhere on deposit. But they are saying: oh, don't worry, don't worry, we will get around to spending it some day. I have been working on this issue for 20 years, starting with Bud Shuster in 1996. It was in the bill, and it passed out of committee unanimously with a number of Republicans and Democrats supporting it, obviously a majority of Republicans on the bill. The chairman and I had an agreement that would bring this bill forward under a suspension of the rules. His leadership objected to that. And then instead, they dictated there should be a rule so that they could strip out the harbor maintenance trust fund. Now, what kind of rule is it that says we passed a law, we are collecting money from the American people, every day they are paying a little bit more for stuff, but the rules say we can't spend that money for its lawful purpose, we are going to spend it on some other part of government or disappear it into a lose-or-eat deficit reduction. We need that money. We need those investments. If this continues--right now it is about $400 million a year that is being collected that isn't being spent, yet we have harbors shoaled in, we have jetties that are failing all across America--it will grow up to $20 billion in 10 years. Now tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow we are going to fix this problem. No, this was the time to fix it. It was in the bill. It was bipartisan. It was unanimous, and it was stripped out. That is very, very unfortunate. There are many good things in this bill. There are many projects that are essential. But, again, the Corps of Engineers has a $68 billion backlog. So all we are doing is putting people in an endless line--$68 billion backlog. We are collecting about $1.6 billion a year to make those projects a reality except that $400-, $500 million of it is being diverted over into other parts of the government. That is not a good way to run the government like a business. I have a letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America concerned that this money is revenue from American business that is not being used for its intended purpose in a timely manner, and they will continue to advocate for this provision, among others. I am very, very saddened that this was removed from the bill. It is not in the Senate bill, so it becomes nonconferenceable, which means it will be at least 2 years. That is another $800 million or $1 billion that won't be spent, but taxes will still be collected from the American people. Secondly, we have made a big deal around here about not having any earmarks. Big deal. Well, there are some ancient earmarks out there still lingering in the darkness. One was for a $220 million project which was earmarked in 2004 by the Committee on Appropriations, and that would have required the Federal Government to spend $110 million. This bill authorizes that project at a price of $526.5 million to the U.S. taxpayers. It has gone from $220 million earmarked, $110 million to the Feds, to a total project cost of $800 million. Now, associated with that--and I am being told: don't worry, this isn't Federal money. Well, whenever you enter into a project, you have to have a local cost share. And they are saying: well, it will only be local money. Except it is included in the project, meaning the local entity isn't meeting its cost share for the authorized project which is in this bill. In fact, they are diverting money locally from their cost share into recreation projects. Now, we have harbors silting in and jetties that are falling apart all across the country. We are diverting money from the trust fund, and yet somehow we are going to find $500 million for this project up from a price tag of $110 million when it was first earmarked. It isn't earmarked by any other name except that it is covered by the rule, and it is in this bill. I regret that this bill does not meet the high standards of the committee and the historical standards of the committee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Back to the harbor maintenance trust fund issues and the allocations to the Corps, the bill sets targets, which I fully agree with, that a higher percentage of the harbor maintenance tax should be allocated every year to O&M programs. As I mentioned earlier, there is already a $2.5 billion backlog for operations and maintenance, so we are dealing with that by mandating that a higher percentage be spent every year. Unfortunately, if we don't free up the harbor maintenance trust fund, there is only one place that money can come from: new construction. So I am all for the O&M, and I am all for these increases. But by stripping the harbor maintenance trust fund provision out of the bill and continuing to divert $400 to $500 million a year of the tax to the maw of the Federal Government, they are creating an untenable position for the Corps. They are already saddled with a $64 billion backlog on construction. They are saddled with a $2.5 billion backlog on operations and maintenance. We are telling them you have to spend more on operations and maintenance. Well, with the discretionary budget caps, that can come out of only one place, and that is the construction projects. Whether it is going to come out of Port Everglades or Charleston Harbor or Brazos Island Harbor, I don't know; but the Corps is going to have to make those decisions because they aren't going to be getting these additional funds that they would have gotten had we freed up this money and created a real trust fund. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).