The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT
______
HON. JACK KINGSTON
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Friday, January 2, 2015
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule today. The underlying bill holds the line on spending, reducing it below the level of the past two years. Furthermore, this bill provides short term funding for the Department of Homeland Security and sets up an opportunity for the new Congress and Senate to repeal President Obama's unconstitutional executive order on immigration. It also holds the line on Obamacare and prohibits taxpayer bailouts of insurance companies. In addition to these things, there are a number of conservative measures I support and I want to focus on one in particular of local importance.
This bill clarifies that the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project is an ongoing construction, not a new start. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget can and should fully support the project in the President's Budget. We can almost immediately begin dredging.
In 1997, through the Energy and Water Appropriations Committee, we allocated funds to support a study by the Georgia Ports Authority. That same year, the Georgia Ports Authority began a feasibility study of the project.
In 1998, the Harbor Expansion Feasibility Study Report was released, underscoring the importance of the project. Senator Cleland, Senator Coverdell and I worked with House and Senate Members and Conferees to be sure SHEP was included in WRDA. The bill became known as the WRDA bill of 1999 after it was signed into law by President Clinton. WRDA of 1999 included authorization for SHEP allowing the United States Army Corps of Engineers to release the record of decision, formally beginning the project.
The victory in WRDA never assured smooth sailing. Amidst growing competition from neighboring Charleston, Representative Floyd Spence, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he would ``sink'' the project [AP, March 2000]. This began an ongoing battle with our neighbors from South Carolina about the port. Meanwhile, many environmentalists and other groups began to raise objections. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service threatened to step away from negotiations. As objections came up, meetings required by WRDA with stakeholders including local Judy Jennings, economic development interests and federal agencies became an important forum to defuse concerns among all parties and resolve problems. Even with continued discussions, Congress worked with the Clinton Administration to secure additional funding for the project.
In 2001, the Georgia Ports Authority and the United States Army Corps of Engineers issued a Memorandum of Understanding and announced that the Port of Savannah was a top ranked port and one of the fastest growing U.S. container ports. Funding was again increased that year, with additional funding secured over the President's budget request.
In 2002, the SHEP Project Management plan was released and the United States Army Corps of Engineers expressed their intent to draft another Environmental Impact Study.
In 2004, the major commitment by Georgia, both financially and politically, unified our message in Washington and was instrumental in moving the project up the priority list.
Further advancing the importance of this project was the approval of the Panama Canal expansion referendum in 2006. For example, in 2007, the Georgia House of Representatives passed H.R. 56 urging the Corps and the U.S. Congress to begin a study of the costs and effects of adding to the storage capacities of all Corps reservoirs in Georgia. Additionally, business groups, led by the Savannah Chamber of Commerce, ran efforts to push the project forward.
In 2008, as new WRDA legislation was debated in Congress, we again kept the project in WRDA and made sure that no amendments were allowed to adversely impact the project.
In 2009, we worked through the appropriations process to ensure funding for the Savannah Harbor Expansion Study in fiscal year 2010. Unfortunately, because so much time had lapsed and costs had increased, the project had to be reauthorized and adjusted each year.
In 2010, President Obama came to Savannah. Congressman Barrow and I had the opportunity to fly in Air Force One with him to discuss the project and followed up with a letter. He acted favorably but did not include it in the budget.
In 2011, even though the President's 2012 budget did not include an allotted budget for SHEP, the Director of the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget expressed the President's willingness to consider the project. That same year, the U.S. Transportation Secretary noted the economic importance of the port and the need to provide funding. SHEP faced a hurdle when the Corps' Water Qualification Certification was denied by South Carolina's Department of Health and Environmental Control. However, by the end of the year, construction funds were secured for the project.
In 2012, Senator Isakson, Senator Chambliss and I met with Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Darcy and presented a letter asking for supportive language. This led to President Obama listing the Port of Savannah as a ``We Can't Wait'' port and a legislative fix to a procedural hurdle to the beginning of the project through the appropriations process.
In 2013, we again asked for supportive legislative language, held delegation wide meetings and secured a provision in WRDA to reauthorize the project at updated funding levels, removing any question that the project would move forward.
This year, through work with WRDA Conferees and the Appropriations Committee, SHEP finally received the final budgetary and legislative actions necessary to move forward after all of these years in the WRRDA of 2014 and the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2015.
These actions, in addition to many others, were completed to support SHEP because it is crucial to the State of Georgia and the Port of Savannah is key to maintaining our nation's international competitiveness. The Port of Savannah's return on investment is approximately an impressive 5.5:1. As the nation's fourth largest container port, it is critically important that the harbor is deepened to ensure it continues to act as a gateway for business to Georgia and to the nation. Beyond the trade benefits, the Port of Savannah supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and contributes billions in revenue and state and local taxes each year. Serving companies located in all 50 states, Georgia's deep-water ports are strong economic engines for the entire United States.
This has been a long fight that I am proud to have been a part of. I am hopeful with the current status of the project. Again, it was a major team effort where the entire delegation, the business community, the state legislature and several governors supported the project.
____________________
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 160, No. 156(1), Congressional Record Vol. 160, No. 156(2)
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
House Representatives' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
Alerts Sign-up