Bart Stupak: “In fiscal year 2006, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Office of Management and Budget set new guidelines for…”

“In fiscal year 2006, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Office of Management and Budget set new guidelines for maintenance dredging of commercial harbors in their budget for fiscal year 2006. The Corps excluded harbors that move less than 1 million tons of cargo each year. The House is on record that the Corps' neglect of these harbors is unwise and unreasonable. With Members' help during consideration of WRDA, the Stupak-Hoekstra-Delahunt amendment to prohibit the Corps from using a tonnage-based standard was included in the House bill by voice vote. Now the Corps is back with a similar tonnage-based formula. This formula essentially credits $2 for maintenance dredging for every ton of product moved. The harbor is then provided only the amount from the formula, regardless of the actual cost to dredge a harbor. This policy not only discriminates against rural America by significantly limiting dredging of harbors in smaller communities, but it is pound wise and penny foolish. For example, under the Corps proposal, my harbor in Ontonogan, Michigan, will move just over 300,000 tons of material, so the Corps will provide $643,000 worth of maintenance dredging, even though its dredging cost is more than $1 million. Again, there are almost 300 harbors across this country that face the same problem. Our small harbors will never be able to adequately dredge, but will silt in with each passing year. Thus, pound wise, penny foolish.”