Bump and RAMP doesn’t sound like a sophisticated legislative strategy. It certainly isn’t a complicated one. But when one is talking about the world of dredging one must do what one can to make it sound interesting.
As I’ve discussed previously the RAMP Act is an attempt to remedy a failing of current law. A tax is collected on some of the beneficiaries of port infrastructure–specifically channels, turning basins, anchorages–in order to cover the cost of maintaining–specifically dredging–that Federal navigation infrastructure.
You can read about the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) by going to previous postings: RAMP Gets Its Chance and The Seven Billion Dollar Clue. (Hmm…those like a lot like Hardy Boys titles. Who?…oh, never mind.)
The procedural (point-of-order) solution in the RAMP legislation is not a complete solution. There is nothing to mandate full funding of channel maintenance.
Absent an automatic funding mechanism that effectively bypasses congressional appropriations–which ain’t happening–the president will have to budget for channel maintenance every year and Congress will retain the prerogative to decide how much to spend.
Yesterday, today and tomorrow ports and other stakeholders have to make the case to Congress in support of the Corps of Engineers channel maintenance program. While the RAMP lobbying effort, led by the dredging industry, has proceeded so has the routine effort to increase the level of appropriations for channel maintenance. Bumping up the annual funding has been the persistent and particular point of emphasis for the American Association of Port Authorities along with others. And the effort has seen success.
Since FY 2009 the appropriation from HMTF funds has progressively grown from $773 million to $833 million in FY 2012. The FY 2013 budget, now subject to appropriations committee attention, estimates $839 million will be used from the fund.
Most, but not all, of the appropriated amounts apply to port O&M costs. Some goes to dredged material management facility construction, offsets for St. Lawrence Seaway tolls on the U.S. side, and for administrative overhead costs. If we look at the HMTF allocation to O&M the growth over that same timeline has been from $737 million to $767 million, in actual spending, and $779 million budgeted for FY 2013.
That’s modest growth, especially considering the fact that over the same period HMTF annual revenue (HMT receipts + interest) grew from $1.253 billion to an estimated $1.864 billion in FY 2013.
But it is growth in a time when Federal spending isn’t exactly growing like gangbusters.
One might attribute the growth to the RAMP effort, which commenced in 2008, and to AAPA’s bump-up strategy. Those complementary and not exclusive efforts have shone a bright light on the inconvenient fact that the infrastructure maintenance buying power of dedicated user-taxes has been capped while Federal-managed channels are allowed to shoal.
As of this writing, 44 percent of the House Members have cosponsored Rep. Boustany’s RAMP Act (HR 104) and over one-third of the Senate has signed on to Sen. Levin’s S. 412. Those numbers reflect a bipartisan sensitivity to taxes collected but not used-as-promised as well as a greater awareness of the correlation between full-depth channels and the ability of U.S. exports to compete successfully on the global market.
That increased appreciation on Capitol Hill for the muddy, mundane world of maintenance dredging explain the two most recent and significant developments to date.
First, the House of Representatives voted, by voice, in support of full funding of Federal channel maintenance. The vote was an easy one. It doesn’t have an enforcement provision, so there is nothing in the approved amendment to ensure full funding in future appropriations. That explains why the amendment–a watered down HR 104, also sponsored by Rep. Boustany–didn’t have the opposition of committees that object to the RAMP Act as well as any other proposals for mandatory spending from trust funds.
That said, it is slightly stronger language than the “sense of Congress” provisions contained in the House and Senate transportation bills and which simply say what the Administration and Congress should do. So, for the first time, the full House is associated with the view that the total spending from the HMTF should equal HMTF revenue.
Second, and quantifiably more significant, the House Appropriations Committee this week approved a record level of funding from the HMTF for FY 2013. It is a handsome, marvelously round number of $1 billion. It is over $150 million more than in the president’s budget, which itself represents an increase.
We don’t know as yet what is the comparable HMTF allocation on Senate side but the draft committee report is quotable:
The Committee understands that the O&M budget fluctuates from year to year due to periodic maintenance dredging requirements, however, the general trend should be for this budget to increase.
Yes, indeed…all the way to the annual level of user-taxes being paid to keep the channels fully maintained. So far, the trend is in the right direction. Pbea