March 24, 1982 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 5419 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS PORT USER-FEE PLANS REQUIRE harbor would be 1.7 cents, Duluth-Su­ Kudrna, chairman of the commission, MORE STUDY perior's 1.4 cents, Toledo's 3.2 cents, testified: and New York-New Jersey 2.7 cents. We do not believe that the impacts of the That type of disparity raises serious proposed deepdraft fees have been studied HON.HENRYJ.NOWAK questions about the potential impact in sufficient detail. Without better impact OF NEW YORK on traffic diversion from port to port information it seems to the GLC that we IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES or to other modes of transport. Even are sailing into a storm without a navigation system. Wednesday, March 24, 1982 'more basic is the question of the po­ tential adverse impact any port user e Mr. NOWAK. Mr. Speaker, among Following are 13 areas the GLC sug­ fee would have on ports like Buffalo's, gested for detailed analysis: the administration's proposals for re­ which deal heavily in bulk cargo for ducing Federal expenditures is a plan the hard-pressed auto, steel, and grain THE 13 AREAs SUGGESTED BY GLC to establish a system of user fees that would shift the financial responsibility milling industries. 1. DOUBLE CHARGES FOR DOMUTIC FREIGHT for harbor maintenance and improve­ The seriousness of those questions Application of charges directly by each ments from the Federal Government are compounded when one considers port may cause domestic freight to incur a to the deepwater ports. that the administation is also propos­ double charge-one at the origin and one at ing a separate user-fee plan to recoup the destination ports. This would be par­ This would cover both ongoing ticularly true when connecting channel ex­ annual maintenance dredging and con­ the cost of services the Coast Guard provides commericial-as well as recre­ penditures are allocated to ports for collec­ struction dredging for the deepening tion. This double charge may cause a price or widening, for example, of existing ational-vessels. shift sufficient to make it more economical navigation channels. The U.S. Army A large question is what impact will to import certain commodities than to use Corps of Engineers has had this re­ this have on the Great Lakes area, or own domestic sources. The example I sponsibility since 1824. which is served by the St. Lawrence have given earlier was for taconite pellets or The House Public Works Subcom­ Seaway which already charges user iron ore. mittee on Water Resources, on which I fees? What impact would double 2. PORT LEGISLATION CHANGES charges have on our interlake ship­ have the privilege of serving, has had Port authorities are generally established several days of hearings in recent ping, where a vessel would be charged under State and municipal law, and they op­ weeks on the deepwater port user-fee to leave one port and charged to enter erate with limited authority. The collection concept. I have become convinced that another on the Great Lakes? of fees for the federal government in a cost this is an idea whose time has not yet These are the kinds of questions we recovery /user charge system could require come. must explore and get hard answers to amending legislation to permit ports to per­ From the strictly bookkeeping point before we precipitately enter into any form this function. Prior to any implemen­ of view of the Office of Management user-fee arrangements. tation, whether staged or total, the current Another serious concern is the re­ enabling statutes for the various port com­ and Budget, the user-fee concept may missions and port operating agencies should be a quick, simplistic way to reduce quirement in either the Senate bill or be reviewed to determine the overall impact the Federal deficit. Yet, the testimony the administration's proposal leaving on governmental structure. It would also be on this issue I have heard thus far in­ future financing of new port develop­ helpful if this Committee was able to ascer­ dicates this is a very complex matter, ments or improvements entirely to tain the probability of the ports' enabling whose full economic implications and local authorities. The Corps of Engi­ legislation being changed in sufficient time regional impacts have yet to be fully neers currently is in the third year of to permit uniform implementation of a new studied and fully understood. a $2 million study of potential Buffalo federal policy. The administration's proposal calls Harbor navigational improvements, re­ 3. PRIVATE PORTS for 100 percent cost recovery of all viewing the feasibility of deepening Some ports have been constructed solely harbor maintenance and improvement the Buffalo River and Ship Canal or essentially with permits under the Corps costs. The Senate Environment and from 22 to 27 feet and making outer of Engineers' authorities. The construction, Public Works Committee has approved harbor improvements for 1,000-foot dredging, maintenance, operations of these a bill that would require local authori­ vessel operation. port facilities is undertaken by private in­ ties to pay the full cost of new port I believe we need additional study of dustry. There would appear to be no vehicle through which users of these ports could be improvements and up to 25 percent or whether or not port authorities would charged a fee for use of the connecting the equivalent of 6.9 cents per ton of be able to finance such development channels. commercial cargo shipped through the projects. The Senate report lists gen­ port. Under either of these proposals, eral obligation bonds, revenue bonds, 4. EXISTING LEGISLATION there would be no national, uniform and industrial development bonds as The locks at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, port fee charge. The charges would the type of financing options port au­ were originally constructed under a grant vary from port to port, varying on the thorities might consider using. from the State of Michigan. The State oper­ ated these facilities for a number of years cost of annual dredging and the I think we ought to know more until, under the authority of the Rivers and volume of commercial traffic. about how viable those options are Harbors Act of 1880, the Secretary of War Thus, even with the scenario of the before we cut off port development was authorized to accept on behalf of the Senate committee bill it is apparent from direct Federal asistance. United States from the State of Michigan, that small- and medium-sized ports In summary, we need to look more "the St. Mary's Canal and the public works with a need for regular, extensive exhaustively at the ramifications of thereon, provided that the transfer should dredging would be at a disadvantage the proposed switch to user fees on be made leaving the U.S. free from any and compared to larger ports which could our port system. all debts, claims and liability, and that the Canal after the transfer should remain free charge smaller user fees. According to We need to answer a variety of ques­ for public use." While laws are made to be the Senate report on S. 1692, for ex­ tions, many of them raised in testimo­ changed, this type of legislation and other ample, using 1978 tonnage figures, ny by the Great Lakes Commission similar legislation must be fully reviewed Buffalo's non-Federal cost per ton last week before the House Water Re­ prior to implementation of a new user would be 5.8 cents, while Baltimore's sources Subcommittee. As Frank charge. e This .. bullet" symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by the Member on the floor. 89-059 0 - 85 - 43 Part 4 5420 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS March 24, 1982 5. NORTHWEST ORDINANCE OF 1787 sels not effectively served by the improve­ ONE-MINUTE SERIES: THE LAW The Northwest Ordinance which estab­ ment they would likely be driven out of the OF THE SEA lished the territories northwest of the Ohio port or possibly out of the trade. River included Article 4 relating to naviga­ 10. MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING PROJECTS ble waters: "The navigable water's leading Into the Mississippi and the St. Lawrence, Both the "Committee blll" and H.R. 3977 HON. JACK FIELDS and the carrying places between the same call for the Corps of Engineers to establish OF TEXAS shall be common highways, and forever a five year program for maintenance of IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES free, as well as to the inhabitants of said ports and related facilities. The Congres­ territory, as to the citizens of the U.S., and sional review process appears to provide a Wednesday, March 24, 1982 those of any other states that may be ad­ veto over the Administration in terms of e Mr. FIELDS. Mr. Speaker, the mitted to the Confederacy." Clearly, the maintaining or not maintaining an existing banner under which the Law of the drafters of the Northwest Ordinance ex­ project, but it does not set priorities for Sea Treaty supporters march is the so­ pected that these waterways and any devel­ maintenance. Priorities are currently estab­ called new international economic opments in the "carrying places" between lished <finally) through the appropriations the waters would be open to free passage. I order. The NIEO is neither new nor process. Some mechanism for establishing economic-it is old and political. am not sure what the process of amending priorities should be created so that commu­ the Northwest Ordinance is, or whether it nities may be assured maintenance to be ac­ It is an ideology that holds out the governs our activities, but a review should complished in order of national need.