Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from California is one of the best friends I have in this Congress, and I certainly have great admiration and respect for him, and I sympathize with everything that he has just said; but I must regretfully state the position of the committee at this point, which is in opposition to this amendment. The civil works program of the Army Corps of Engineers provides Federal assistance for dredging entrance channels and harbors and the Department of Homeland Security now offers grants for security projects. But, generally, capital improvements to port infrastructure are a non-Federal responsibility. The gentleman's amendment would permit a non-Federal interest, which could be the port authority or the State generally, to collect a fee per container that moves through the harbor and to use those funds for security purposes or for infrastructure projects within the port or any transportation infrastructure outside the harbor. First, if the goal is to help ports, this amendment is unnecessary. Ports can already charge fees for services under the authority of section 208 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, which they can use to help them with the cost of security and port infrastructure. Second, this amendment goes too far by allowing the collected funds to be used for transportation projects outside the port. This could mean potentially a State fee paid by shippers of containers at ports being used to pay for highway and rail projects elsewhere in the State. This is why the American Association of Port Authorities and even the gentleman's home port of LA/Long Beach oppose this amendment. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing on this bill in November 2003. The American Association of Port Authorities, the Waterfront Coalition, and the World Shipping Council all testified in opposition to this proposal. This amendment is the same as the amendment the gentleman from California brought to the House floor last Congress. It was defeated by a vote of 359-65. The committee believes that the ports can and should charge whatever fees they believe are necessary to cover their security needs and infrastructure projects. They have the authority to do that now, and Congress should not dictate how they make this business decision. I can assure the gentleman that I would like to work with him on some of the broader section 208 issues to see if we can better address his very legitimate concerns. We certainly sympathize with the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment is well-intentioned, but at this point the committee position is to urge our colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will not oppose the amendment. I will simply say, the gentleman's amendment relates to the project for navigation improvements and ecosystem restoration on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System. This framework for what will be multiple projects is authorized in title VIII of the reported bill. Section 8005 of H.R. 2864, as reported, requires that the Secretary make a determination whether or not the projects are being carried out at comparable rates. This amendment directs the Secretary to submit an annual report to Congress on this determination that is already required by the reported bill. I have no objection to the Secretary's reporting to Congress on this issue, and therefore, I have no objection to this amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think everyone here knows that I am one of the most fiscally conservative Members of this Congress, but this is a very fiscally conservative bill. It is not fiscally conservative to let a very important asset to deteriorate, and so I urge passage of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), a former member of the committee. (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would authorize an environmental restoration project in New Jersey contingent upon the Chief of Engineers completing a final report not later than December 31, 2005. The chief's report is the final technical document submitted by the Corps of Engineers for a project. It describes the analysis done, the alternatives considered, and the recommended plan. In putting this bill together, the committee included those projects that had favorable chief's reports. With passage of the manager's amendment, we have added additional projects that the corps tells us will soon have completed chief's reports. These projects are authorized contingent on there being a completed chief's report by December 31, 2005. Although the Liberty State Park project was not on the list of nearly completed studies provided earlier by the Corps, we now understand that this report is expected to be completed by the end of this year. Therefore, I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment to include his project as a contingent authorization. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the administration has issued performance-based budgeting criteria based on tonnage being moved. That method places a very low priority on maintaining small ports. This process ignores the fact that two-thirds of all cargo on major waterways either start or finish at small ports. If we abandon our small harbors, we adversely affect the entire waterway system that is already plagued with deferred maintenance and crumbling infrastructure. The gentleman's amendment would ask the Corps to prepare its budget using its previous criteria that were based on maintaining an acceptable level of service at least cost for a commercial port. It is not primarily based on the tonnage in transit. Using this previous method would not ignore the contributions of our small harbors to the Nation's commercial transportation system. I believe the administration's current method of budgeting could adversely affect commercial navigation. Therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this en bloc amendment makes technical and conforming changes to project-related provisions in the bill and authorizes or modifies additional projects brought to the committee's attention following committee action. Specifically, the Corps of Engineers has informed the committee that six additional chief's reports recommending that Congress authorize a water resources project will be completed by December 31, 2005. The amendment also directs the Corps of Engineers to carry out a number of small projects under existing corps authority to provide flood damage reduction and emergency streambank protection. For other projects that have not been studied, the amendment authorizes for new Corps of Engineers' projects. The amendment authorizes one land transfer for a navigation project. Finally, the amendment authorizes a number of activities or programs for water resources management. This amendment, like the underlying bill, has been developed in a bipartisan fashion. All projects must be in the Federal interest and must comply with cost-sharing rules. This means not every project could be addressed, but within these constraints we did the best to meet the needs of all communities. I urge all Members to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not intend to speak in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not intend to speak in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2864.