WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005 -- (Senate - July 18, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To modify a provision relating to Federal hopper dredges)
Strike section 2020 and insert the following:
SEC. 2020. FEDERAL HOPPER DREDGES.
Section 3(c)(7)(B) of the Act of August 11, 1888 (33 U.S.C. 622; 25 Stat. 423), is amended by adding at the end the following: ``This subparagraph shall not apply to the Federal hopper dredges Essayons and Yaquina of the Corps of Engineers.''.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment is to delete a provision in the bill which would prohibit the hopper dredge McFarland from remaining in operation. I submit this bipartisan amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Carper, of Delaware.
It is a little hard to understand why this pending bill seeks to retire this vessel, which does important dredging work, on a bill which is denominated to provide for the consideration of the development of water and related resources and authorizes the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, because this dredger is very important for the specific stated purposes of the bill.
I would start with the important role this dredging vessel, the McFarland, plays with respect to the Nation's military operations. The McFarland is one of only three active dredging vessels owned by the U.S. Government, with one other held in reserve. The other two active vessels are on the west coast. The McFarland is available to respond immediately to emergency blockages at the Department of Defense-designated strategic military seaports.
At a time when terrorism is a major threat in this country, it is hard to understand why we would want to give up the only dredger which is available on the east coast and on the gulf coast. I think there may be many Senators whose States will be adversely affected, as will Pennsylvania and Delaware and New Jersey--the States in our region--when you take a look at the Defense-designated ``Strategic Military Seaports'' within the operating range of the McFarland, which covers New York and New Jersey; Hampton Roads, VA; Morehead City, NC; Wilmington, NC; Charleston, SC, Savannah, GA; Jacksonville, FL; Gulfport, MS; Beaumont, TX; Corpus Christi, TX; the Earle Naval Weapons Station, NJ and Sunny Point, NC.
Senators from those States, beware about what is going to happen to your State if you don't have this dredger available to perform strategic military seaport operations at a time when there is a significant risk of terrorism.
The McFarland has also played a key role in responding to severe weather events and natural disasters. Most recently, the vessel was dispatched to the gulf coast to assist in Hurricane Katrina response efforts. So, Senators of Louisiana and Mississippi and Texas and Alabama, beware if this vessel is not available. There are two on the west coast. They can't get to these areas to perform needed rescue efforts.
There has been no plan put forward to address the void in the Nation's dredging capacity that will be created in the absence of the McFarland. The GAO has been critical of restricting the Federal hopper dredge fleet. It made a finding in a March 2003 report that the decreased utilization of the Federal fleet has imposed additional costs on the Corps and not produced significant benefits. That is because those in the private sector are on notice, with a Federal dredger available they are not in a position to raise their costs without the competition that would be supplied by the Federal dredger.
It isn't exactly a matter of having a great Federal fleet and looking to privatize or looking to help the private sector. You have 15 private dredgers, and they are interested in eliminating competition so they can raise the prices.
There was a report by the Corps of Engineers on June 3, 2005. That report does not provide sufficient support for its recommendation to eliminate the McFarland. You would think, if the committee was going to come forward and wanted to eliminate the McFarland, they would have some Federal report with verified data to rely upon, but they do not. The GAO, in 2003, says we ought not eliminate the limited Federal dredgers. The Corps of Engineers' report of 2005 doesn't give sufficient reasons for what the committee report seeks to accomplish.
[Page: S7734]
There has been some suggestion that the McFarland is in need of repairs. That is contrary to fact. That is a scare tactic. The fact is that the McFarland is capable of operating for the next 10 to 12 years without undergoing any major rehabilitation work. As of March 23 of this year, just a few months ago, it was fully certified by the Coast Guard and the American Bureau of Shipping. The McFarland is able to be dispatched immediately to these areas.
Again, the availability of the McFarland ensures that prices will be reasonable when the Corps of Engineers contracts with private industry to perform dredge work. If the McFarland were to be decommissioned, maintenance dredging costs on the Atlantic and gulf coast will be entirely at the hands of the private dredge industry, and the Corps of Engineers' dredging costs will likely increase during peak work periods, when the availability of private bidders is limited.
The McFarland facilitates the safe and reliable movement of commercial goods. On the Delaware River alone, the McFarland helps maintain a shipping channel which supports 38 million metric tons of cargo per year at a total value of $14 billion--amounts which rank second and eighth in the Nation respectively. It is a big economic blow to my State and a big economic blow to Delaware and a big economic blow to New Jersey and a big economic blow to other States to have this McFarland phased out.
I am at a loss to see the motivation for the committee to come forward with this recommendation and in effect to pick a fight with half the States in the country. I will be anxious to see what the committee has by way of argument to justify eliminating the McFarland.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my printed remarks be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce an amendment to the pending bill, along with my colleagues, the Senators from Delaware, regarding the Federal Hopper Dredge McFarland. This amendment would strike language included in the bill to decommission the McFarland within 2 years of enactment. The McFarland is a 300 foot-long, oceangoing hopper dredge crewed by approximately 80 employees of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District. The Federal Government operates a total of four dredges--two on the West Coast and one in ``Ready Reserve'' status on the Gulf Coast. The McFarland is the only ``active'' Federal hopper dredge available to perform critical emergency and maintenance dredging work along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. I am advised that nearly 80 percent of the national hopper dredging workload occurs along these shores, and that no viable plan has been put forth to fill the void in our Nation's dredge capacity if the McFarland were to be decommissioned. Accordingly, I believe that reducing the Federal hopper dredge fleet at this time would be unwise considering its importance to both our national dredging capacity and a maritime industry that relies on prompt, reliable and cost-effective dredge service.
I am advised that the recommendation to decommission the McFarland was based on two contentious assertions: that $20 million in major rehabilitation work is required to support the McFarland's continued operation; and that the private dredge industry can perform comparable dredge work at a lower rate than the McFarland. It is my understanding, however, that the McFarland is capable of operating for the next 10-12 years without undergoing any major rehabilitation work. The McFarland has benefitted from routine scheduled servicing and both major and minor overhauls over the past 6 years. The vessel maintains a full oceangoing certification from both the United States Coast Guard as well as the American Bureau of Shipping. I am advised that these inspections are performed on a yearly basis and that the McFarland passed both as recently as March 23, 2006. It is my understanding that no extraordinary funding source nor direct appropriation is required to keep the McFarland operational and available to perform emergency and maintenance dredging along the Atlantic and gulf coasts. Rather, the McFarland can perform dredge work for the remainder of its useful life supported only by a portion of the overall cost of the project on which it is working and routine maintenance.
The assertion that private industry can provide comparable dredge service at a lower rate than the McFarland is also questionable. The Corps of Engineers' June 3, 2005 Report to Congress does not sufficiently verify private industry data used to recommend the McFarland's retirement, and there are no assurances that private industry will be able to fill the void created by decommissioning the McFarland. For one, private industry may also not have the capability to respond to dredging requirements in as timely a fashion as the McFarland. Being a Federal dredge, the McFarland is able to be dispatched immediately to respond to emergency situations that occur within its operating range. By contrast, it is my understanding that the bid solicitation and contract award process necessary to dispatch a private dredge typically requires a minimum of 2 weeks. If the McFarland is decommissioned, our national ability to respond to emergency dredging requirements in a timely manner will be jeopardized.
Additionally, the cost of dredging contracts could actually increase if the McFarland were decommissioned. I am advised that the mere availability of the McFarland to perform dredging work ensures that costs will be reasonable in times of high demand or when there are limited bids for dredging projects. The McFarland's presence serves as a check to keep private industry pricing in-line on non-Federal dredging contracts. The GAO recognized this in a March 2003 report noting that the decreased utilization of the Federal fleet has imposed additional costs on the Corps and not produced significant benefits. If the McFarland is decommissioned, maintenance dredging costs on the Atlantic and gulf coast will be entirely at the hands of the private dredge industry, and costs will likely increase during peak work periods when limited bidders are available.
Further, the McFarland dredges areas that private industry has historically avoided, such as environmental restoration projects which require strict adherence to potentially burdensome guidelines. The McFarland is also available to respond to small jobs which may not be attractive to private industry. Costly shipping delays could occur if private industry declined a dredge job that was economically unattractive, and a Federal fleet must be maintained to ensure the availability of dredge services in such situations.
The availability of prompt, cost-effective dredge services on both profitable and non-profitable projects helps ensure the safe and reliable movement of goods coming to and from Atlantic and gulf coast ports. The reliable movement of maritime cargo is vital to the economy and preserving our current dredging capacity is indispensable to maintaining the authorized water depths necessary to support the Nation's commercial navigation activity. Port stakeholders are deeply concerned that costly shipping disruptions could occur if our national dredging capacity is reduced.
Reliable, cost-effective dredge service is also very important to the continued success of our Nation's military. The McFarland is available to respond immediately to emergency blockages at Department of Defense-designated ``Strategic Military Seaports'' within its operating range, including Philadelphia, New York/New Jersey, Hampton Roads, Morehead City, Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, Jacksonville, Gulfport, Beaumont, Corpus Christi, Earle Naval Weapons Station and Sunny Point. Thousands of pieces of military equipment and cargo are shipped to Iraq and depots throughout the Nation from these ports and retaining the existing hopper dredge fleet is essential to ensuring that military cargo arrives at its destination on time.
In addition to supporting commercial and military navigation activities, the McFarland plays an important role in responding to severe weather events and natural disasters, including being dispatched to the gulf coast to assist in the Hurricane Katrina response efforts. Seasonal events and natural disasters place great demands on our Nation's already limited dredging capacity. Given the number of weather-related events experienced annually along the Atlantic and gulf coasts, all available dredge resources, including the McFarland, are essential and must be retained. Our Nation's ability to respond to natural disasters and weather-related events will be even more limited if the McFarland is decommissioned.
In conclusion, no plan has been put forth to address the void that will be created in the McFarland's absence. Absent a viable plan to replace her dredging capacity, decommissioning the McFarland is dangerously premature and could have devastating impacts on our Nation's commercial, military and emergency response capabilities. The ability of the private dredge industry to replace the services provided by the McFarland at a reasonable rate has not been proved. The continued operation of the McFarland will ensure that emergency and maintenance dredging work on both the Atlantic and gulf coasts remains responsive, reliable and cost-effective. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am reserving 10 minutes for Senator Carper, but I am waiting with interest to see what the chairman of this committee has to say.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will be glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from Missouri if I may ask one question that was raised by what the Senator from Oklahoma has just said. He has made the assertion that it would cost $20 million to bring the McFarland up to shape. I ask him, what is the source for that and how does that square with the fact that on March 23 of this year, just a few months ago, the McFarland was fully certified by the Coast Guard and the American Bureau of Shipping, so that it is in good shape and would require no funding to keep it in operation?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it doesn't need the $20 million to bring it up to standard for it to compete. The Corps of Engineers has stated that its operational costs are almost double that of the private sector dredging that has been taking place. This has been agreed to by the Seafarers International Union of North America. So it is the Corps of Engineers that is making that assertion, and it is agreed to by both the Seafarers International Union and the Transportation Institute.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may make one statement before yielding to the Senator from Missouri, that is in direct variance with a report of the Corps of Engineers on June 3 that did not sufficiently justify its recommendation to retire the McFarland. And they found further that there are no assurances that private industry will be able to fill the void created by the decommissioning of McFarland.
I yield now to the Senator from Missouri.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, by way of brief reply to the comments of the Senator from Missouri, the Corps of Engineers has put a $20 million figure for putting the McFarland into Ready Reserve. But that doesn't deal with having the McFarland operational. That estimate was disputed by the Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and others presenting factual information.
I have just checked to find out if there was any hearing held on this matter. But I am advised that there was not. The rest of the Corps of Engineers report did not provide assurances that private industry would be able to fill the void created by decommissioning the McFarland. When you come to the issue as to whether it is capable of proceeding operationally, no one has disputed the facts that the McFarland is capable of functioning for 10 to 12 years without undergoing any major rehabilitation work being fully certified by the Coast Guard and the American Bureau of Shipping as of March 23 of this year, an undisputed fact.
How much time remains on my side, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 19 minutes remaining.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the argument that the Senator from Oklahoma makes about a 2005 report by the Corps of Engineers is flatly contradicted by the certification by the Coast Guard and the American Bureau of Shipping as of March 23, 2006, after the 2005 report referred to by the Senator from Oklahoma, that the McFarland requires no rehabilitation and remains operational and available to perform dredge work.
I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont, the ranking member of the committee, for those comments.
I think he puts his finger on the critical spot. That is, if the McFarland is decommissioned, we may well have a need which will not be fulfilled. That was a big hole in the report of the Corps of Engineers that there were no assurances that the private sector would be able to handle the workload.
The fact is, as outlined in the report by the Corps of Engineers, the Corps' hopper dredges serve to ensure that costs will be reasonable, but with a limited number of vessels in the fleet and during peak workload periods when only one bidder may be available, there is a tendency to exercise the principles of supply and demand and costs will rise.
The Corps' presence will serve as a deterrent for potential cost increases. That means we need to keep the McFarland in operation.
The report goes on to say that a current example is the Wheeler being called out in February to perform work in the Mississippi River when a single industry bid exceeded the award amount. The Corps report further points out during the peak workload scenario, the largest industry hopper dredge, the Stuyvesant, experienced engine trouble and had to stop work, creating a capability shortfall. Subsequent to this event, increased shoaling in the Mobile Harbor created the need for an additional hopper dredge resulting in calling out the Wheeler, as the McFarland was also fully engaged.
When there has been talk about the daily rate of the McFarland, it is unsupported by the fine print. The McFarland's estimated daily rate includes a payment the Corps has to make into a ``dredge replacement fund'' even though the Corps has no intention of replacing the McFarland with another federal dredge. Therefore, the daily rate which has been cited is inflated, unrealistic, and does not support decommissioning the McFarland.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 1/2 minutes remaining.
Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this effort to retain the McFarland is not being undertaken for historical reasons. To talk about placing the McFarland in a museum is making light of an issue which is very, very serious for my State. It is potentially serious for about two-thirds of the other States in the United States which are affected by hurricanes and which have very important national security areas.
This amendment is being pursued at the request of the Governor of Pennsylvania and the Maritime Exchange. They are deadly serious about the adverse impact of retiring the McFarland.
On the Delaware River alone the McFarland helps maintain a shipping channel that supports 38 million metric tons of cargo per year, a total value of $14 million. That ranks second and eighth in the Nation.
We are not talking about a museum piece. We are talking about a dredge which is vital for jobs and the economy of the region. We are talking about the McFarland's availability to respond to emergency blockades at the Department of Defense designated strategic military seaports. You are not talking about an antique. You are talking about an era where terrorism is an ongoing threat; where, within the past 2 weeks, we had a threat by terrorists to blow up the Holland Tunnel; where the President has a terrorist surveillance program which has superseded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and is viewed under the President's article II powers as a wartime precedent because of the threat of terrorism.
We are talking about Department of Defense interests in New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, and Texas. We are talking about a dredge which played a key role in responding to severe weather events and natural disasters and was dispatched to the gulf coast to assist in Hurricane Katrina.
We have a report by the Corps of Engineers which relies upon industry data. The Corps report concedes that ``to verify the industry data would require extensive auditing and is beyond the scope or need of this report.''
Beyond the scope of the report; we ought to rely on a Corps of Engineers report that relies upon industry data where the industry has a vested interest in having the McFarland retired so they can make more money, and you have a national defense interest?
There has been no case made by the committee to replace the McFarland.
How much time remains on my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The Senator has 2 1/2 minutes remaining.
Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I did not refer to San Francisco and I did not refer to San Diego. The long list of States affected were on the east coast and on the gulf. There are two other Federal dredgers on the west coast.
I have great respect for the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma and his 20 years of service on the Armed Services Committee. But I have been, for 26 years, on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and have some familiarity with these issues. I was on the Intelligence Committee for 8 years and chaired it in the 104th Congress and have some appreciation of the problems of terrorism. And I have served on the Judiciary Committee for 26 years, now chair it, and have been very deeply involved in the President's electronics surveillance program which has superseded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because of the threat of terrorism.
We are talking here about having the McFarland available in many, many ports and in many, many States--not the State of California and San Francisco or San Diego, but in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, and others; and the gulf coast States affected by the hurricane, again, Texas and Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama and Florida.
We are dealing here with a very flimsy Corps of Engineers report which is based on industry data which is not verified--a concession they make in this report. And it is provided by industry sources which have a vested interest and a bias in eliminating the McFarland as a competitor.
Mr. President, I think it is fair to say that if the committee's point on decommissioning the McFarland is to stand, they have a burden of proof. And they have not established it. There has not been a hearing on this subject. There has not been reliable evidence. And I would say that in the face of the threat of terrorism, and the work that the McFarland does in that area, and the work that the McFarland did in Hurricane Katrina, that their burden of proof is more than a preponderance of the evidence; it ought to be clear and convincing. And it has not been either clear or convincing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
http://thomas.loc.gov/