Sina+&+Kal

=**1AC**=


 * Plan:**


 * The United States federal government should substantially increase its investment in expedited port deepening projects in the United States.**

=Inherency=


 * Contention 1 is Inherency:**


 * The Panama Canal expansion will fundamentally change seaborne commerce – US ports require __new harbor deepening__ or they won’t be able to compete for post-Panamax ships**
 * Bridges 2011 –** Chairman of the Board of the American Association of Port Authorities and Executive Director of Virginia Port Authority (Jerry A., “Testimony of Jerry A. Bridges Chairman of the Board of the American Association of Port Authorities and Executive Director of Virginia Port Authority before the United States House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Hearing: the Economic importance of Seaports: Is the United States Prepared for 21st Century Trade Realities?”, October 26, 2011, [|http://republicans.transportation.house.gov/Media/file/TestimonyWater/2011-10-26%20Bridges.pdf)//MM]

Since the birth of our nation, U.S. seaports and waterways that connect them have served as a vital economic lifeline by bringing goods and services to people around the world and by delivering prosperity to our nation. U.S. seaports are responsible for moving more than 99 percent of our country’s overseas cargo. Today, international trade accounts for more than a quarter of Americas Gross Domestic Product. Americas seaports support the employment of 13.3 million U.S. workers, and seaport- related jobs account for $649 billion in annual personal income. For every $1 billion in exports shipped through seaports, 15,000 U.S. jobs are created. Seaports facilitate trade and commerce, create jobs, help secure our borders, support our military and serve as stewards of valuable coastal environmental resources. Ports are dynamic, vibrant centers of trade and commerce, but what is most important to understand is that seaports rely on partnerships. Seaports invest more than $2.5 billion every year to maintain and improve their infrastructure. In recent years, however, this commitment has not been adequately matched by the federal government. Federal funding for dredging federal navigation channels has slowed and decreased, //especially for new construction //. Further, maintenance dredging is sorely underfunded, despite a more than $6 billion and growing surplus in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Landside improvements have also been too low a priority, with little of the highway funds going to freight transportation projects. The only bright light has been the newly created TIGER grants, although not enough of this funding benefited ports. Virginia Port Authority received a TIGER grant for its heartland project. As we look to the future, we do know that there are challenges and opportunities. As we recover from this economic downturn, we must make investments today to address the trade realities of the future. Here are some the challenges and we have to ask: are we ready? So are we ready? While ports are planning for the future, the federal government has not kept pace with the industry or our international competitors. The federal government has a unique Constitutional responsibility to maintain and improve the infrastructure that enables the flow of commerce, and much of that infrastructure in and around seaports have been neglected for too long. Many of our land and water connections are insufficient and outdated, affecting the ports' ability to move cargo efficiently into and out of the U.S. This hurts U.S. business, hurts U.S. workers and hurts our national economy. Port projects take decades to plan and build and we cannot wait. Federal investments in seaports are an essential and effective utilization of limited resources, paying dividends through increased trade and commerce, long-term job creation, secure borders, military support, environmental stewardship, and more than $200 billion in federal, state and local tax revenue. Earlier this month, the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness made an urgent plea for improvements in the nation's transportation infrastructure, including landside and waterside access to seaports. We cannot wait.
 * The Panama Canal expansion is due to be completed in 2014 and is expected to influence trade patterns. VPA and other ports have been making investments, but federal funding has been slow to match these investments . Ship sizes continue to get larger, requiring on-'going modernization of ports and federal navigation channels, even for ports that will not require 50 feet of depth.
 * Canada and Mexico are making investments which could result in losses of maritime jobs in the U.S. as cargo enters the U.S. through these countries . We have already seen this job loss on the West Coast.
 * The U.S. seeks to double exports; however countries like Brazil and Chile, who we compete against the U.S. in terms of agricultural exports, are making investments that could make their exports more competitive.
 * New trade agreements with Korea, Panama and Colombia have been approved, with other trade agreements under negotiations which should result in increased exports and imports through ports.
 * In addition to these near-term challenges, we know that the U.S. population is forecast to grow by 100 million - a 30 percent increase - before the middle of the 2lst century. And many of the goods used by this population will flow through seaports.

Sza-ko-nyi 12 — associate editor of the Journal of Commerce (Mark, “The Hill Ramping Up Dredging Efforts”, Journal of Commerce, 5/7, ProQuest) EL
 * Federal port infrastructure funding is increasing but not substantially for __new__ harbor deepening – the federal government’s __uncertain commitment__ prevents new projects**

__The push by U.S. ports for more federal dredging dollars is finally beginning to make waves in Congress__. __Language that would require all funds collected through the Harbor Maintenance Tax to be used for navigation projects is likely to be included in the final surface transportation bill__. That's a major breakthrough for maritime advocates who argue it's unfair that roughly one-third of the collected taxes are used to plug other budget gaps. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund collects roughly $1.5 billion annually from importers, who pay a rate of 0.125 percent of the value of their cargo. __The HMTF is expected to have a surplus of nearly $7 billion by the end of fiscal 2013__, according to the Association of American Port Authorities. __The ports' argument that more money needs to be spent on dredging to create jobs and boost trade also is gaining traction on the front line of congressional funding allocations__. Under the latest House energy and water appropriations bill, ports in fiscal 2013 would get $1 billion for maintenance dredging. That's the largest single annual federal award for dredging and about $170 million more than the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers received last time around. "This is a significant development. It wasn't so long ago that (the corps) only received $750 million," said Paul Bea, principal of PHB Public Affairs, a maritime consulting firm. __Ports will actually get //less dredging help //__ __in the next fiscal year than in fiscal 2012, however __ , said Barry Holliday, executive director of Dredging Contractors of America. Funding tied to military project dredging and disaster relief pushed total maintenance dollars to about $1.1 billion in fiscal 2012. __The latest appropriation shows a congressional willingness to spend more, even if the full allocation of HMTF dollars would fall short in tackling port needs__, Holliday said. The Realize America's Maritime Promise Act, or RAMP Act, has been the major driver in convincing Congress the HMTF needs reform and more spending is needed. The legislation was included in the House's 90-day extension, which paved the way for the chamber to begin conferencing with the Senate on the surface transportation bill. The Senate has similar but less forceful language in its two-year, $109 billion plan. This boosts the chances that HMTF reform language will make it in the final version of the transportation bill, but it's just the first step in blocking appropriators from shifting money out of the fund for non-dredging purposes. Even if the RAMP Act language is adopted, it's not a mandate. Supporters would have to call a point of order in appropriation committees to slap the hands of would-be siphoners, Bea said. __Despite the positive signs for ports, they are still stifled in getting authorization and funding for //new //__ __major navigation projects.__ Historically, the Water Resources Development Act has been the vehicle for ports to get authorization for such projects, and funding is granted separately through the annual appropriations process. The last WRDA was in 2007, and there is no new version on the horizon. Even if there were, it's unclear how it would proceed under the House's ban on earmarks and the Senate's similar stance. Not only do the earmarks allow legislators to include language relating to their home ports, but they also provide impetus for representatives and senators to back the bill. __The //federal uncertainty //____hits the East Coast particularly hard, because only a few ports have the funding and approval necessary to deepen their channels.____Ports__ such as Savannah, Ga., and Charleston, S.C, __need deeper harbors to handle larger ships able to pass through the expanded Panama Canal in 2015.__ That supporters of Charleston and Savannah are preparing to take on the deepening expenses themselves reflects just how little optimism there is for federal help. Bea said maritime advocates and legislators are attempting to figure out how they can get projects funded and authorized in new ways. One such approach is by Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., to create a national assessment of which ports should be deepened. Plans to create a program for prioritization in authorization and funding come with their own set of problems, however, Holliday said. "When you start prioritizing ports, you begin picking winners and losers," he said. Aside from skepticism of the government's ability to discern champions from laggards, __prioritization sidesteps the issue that //most, if not all, ports //__ __need funding to maintain their infrastructure and grow.__ Such a prioritization process could dampen efforts to boost overall port spending. That could, unfortunately, fit too well with Congress's history of favoring easy short-term fixes over harder, more meaningful long-term decisions.

//__The White House on Thursday put Port Miami’s long-awaited dredging project on a list of fast-tracked, nationally significant seaport improvement projects, guaranteeing it an expedited permitting process__. ¶ Practically speaking, the designation means little, since the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had already pushed the plan forward after it cleared all regulatory hurdles and survived a legal challenge from environmentalists. ¶ The Army Corps is already expected to put the $180 million project up for bid in August. ¶ Still, in a joint statement, Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez and Port Miami Director Bill Johnson lauded the federal recognition, with Johnson saying __“over the past several years the deep dredge has been a number one priority for Port Miami.”__ ¶ // //Thursday’s announcement by the White House does not mean money is likely to flow from the federal government any time soon////. In March, pushing the much-needed dredging project along, Gov. Rick Scott visited the port and announced the state would advance the county more than $90 million. ¶ Scott’s hope was that the state would be reimbursed. Miami-Dade will cover the remainder of the $180 million cost to deepen the port from 42 to 50 feet, a move the county is undertaking to accommodate the mega-ships that will glide through the newer, deeper Panama Canal. ¶ Because Congress has ordered the Army Corps not to begin any new projects indefinitely, Johnson said, the White House would need to propose funding for Miami-Dade, which then would send the money back to the state. ¶ Asked Johnson: “ __I’ve got a big question mark: Where are the dollars? Is the president putting dollars for Port Miami into his budget next year?” That wasn’t clear Thursday, with one senior administration official saying only, “__////Today’s announcements focus just on expediting all remaining federal reviews////__.”__//
 * Obama has expedited approval for projects, but not allocated funds – aff is still inherent, but DAlinks are non-unique**
 * Morgan and Rabin 7/19** – Miami Herald reporter, environment reporter (Curtis and Charles, “White House Speeds Up Permits, Offers No New Cash For PortMiami Dredge Project”, The Miami Herald, July 21 2012, [])//CB//

//**The XO only provided funds for specific large ports – this forces small ports to close which destroys the economy and exports**// //**Frittelli, 11** - Specialist in Transportation Policy at the Congressional Research Service (John, “Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Expenditures,” 1/10/2011, []) //HK

Because the HMTF provides a national pool of funds for channel dredging rather than a port specific one, naturally deep harbors subsidize shallower ports. Thus, the present funding system levels the playing field among ports with different dredging requirements. Some might contend that it draws traffic away from more efficient ports to less efficient ports, in terms of dredging costs, thereby raising the Nation’s overall cost of moving goods through the marine transportation system. Cross-subsidies among ports would be eliminated if funds generated at a particular port were reserved solely for that port’s local dredging needs rather than becoming part of a nationwide fund. However, a port-specific funding system would favor busy ports over ports that are underutilized. With more ship traffic, larger ports would not have to charge as much per ship or shipment to recover dredging costs as smaller ports (for example, the tremendous difference in dredging costs per ship call between Grays Harbor and SeaTac cited earlier). Some small ports would either have to close or service only small ships. Thus, a national pool of funds provides maintenance funds to smaller ports that otherwise would be economically unviable. However, smaller ports could reduce the overland transport costs for nearby importers or exporters, thereby promoting economic development in the region. There are also river systems that have significant levels of industry along them and the inability to move bulk cargoes out of smaller ports could diminish U.S. exports. Smaller ports can also provide shippers the option of moving cargo through less congested ports. For instance, Chrysler recently announced that it would begin exporting cars to Asia through Grays Harbor in Washington, in part, for this reason. 25 If not handling cargo, smaller ports can still service the maritime industry in other ways. Smaller ports can be strategically located in terms of providing a “harbor of refuge” for vessels in distress, as a base for Coast Guard search and rescue operations, or as a homeport for government research vessels. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently announced that it would be moving its West Coast vessels from Seattle to Yaquina Bay and Harbor in Oregon.

=Economy=
 * Contention 2 is the Economy:**


 * A federal dredging project is key to maintain seaport competitiveness – it draws in foreign investors and prevents a collapse of the fragile economic recovery**
 * Calhoun 11**-- President of Cargo Carriers (Cargill) and Chairman of Waterways Council, Inc (Rick, “DREDGING FOR PROSPERITY”, Marine Log, August, ProQuest, []”) EL

Just like the nation itself, __our maritime industry is facing a multitude of challenges__ like flooding in the Midwest, silting of our major shipping arteries, and the need for recapitalization for our lock and dam infrastructure, to name a few. But __these challenges and the solutions to them must be viewed as investments in the future of our nation itself because without a strong, reliable marine transportation industry, we simply cannot competitively sell our export products in the world marketplace. //Those countries that buy from America do so because we are a dependable supplier of products at a competitive price //, thanks __ in no small part to the existence of our enviable transportation system. __If that system becomes compromised, those //foreign buyers will simply shop elsewhere // and that will further impact the U__ nited __S__ tates' __precarious economic recovery.__ Witness the dredging situation on the Lower Mississippi River. This year, we have seen unprecedented levels of high water on the Mississippi River carrying millions of tons of silt and debris to the mouth of the River. This silting has resulted in restrictions being imposed for ships and vessels that rely on this passageway to export products to the world market, as well as import goods competitively, via ports in south Louisiana. In the past the Corps of Engineers has been able to manage silting issues with funding for dredging that sometimes required the reprogramming of funds to be sure shortfalls did not occur. __This year the Corps has said it can no longer reprogram funds and that a funding shortfall indeed exists on this vital part of the system.__ Throughout this country's great history __, the federal government's role is in part to ensure that the inland navigation system__, including the Mississippi River, __remains open to transport products such as grain, coal, steel, petroleum and aggregate materials. The federal government now needs to take necessary steps to provide funding for our national transportation asset__ and to allow the Lower Mississippi River __to remain fully open for commerce__. We urge the White House to immediately submit an emergency request for supplemental funds to Congress, and we ask that Congress expeditiously process that request for Emergency Supplemental Appropriations funding. All of us who are responsible for managing money have faced times when cutting costs have become necessary, yet those who are successful rarely focus on reducing costs if it results in an even greater loss in the revenue stream. Again, dredging this critical artery should be viewed as an investment, not a cost, in the future of our inland waterways transportation system.


 * Insufficient dredging sends business overseas and tanks competitiveness**

//__In 2014, two new locks will come into service at the Panama Canal, accommodating ships carrying nearly three times as much cargo as today's canal-transiting ships__. A surprising announcement by Gov. Rick Scott will make the Port of Miami one of the few ports on the eastern seaboard that can accommodate those gigantic ships. __The post-Panamax ships will require deeper harbors - 50 feet rather than 42 - for loading and offloading cargo__. A dredging project already under way at the Port of Virginia will have that port ready to accommodate the ships in 2014. Miami is the only other port on the seaboard that Congress has approved for such a dredge and that can have it finished by 2014. __If ships can't load and unload cargo__ at the Port of Miami, says Port Director Bill Johnson, __they will likely bypass a southern U.S. stop altogether__. Without the port at 50 feet, Johnson says, " __millions of containers will likely go to Freeport, Bahamas, and other ports outside the U.S.,"__ he says. __The project was ready to go, waiting only for the federal government's portion of the funding__ to add to the $137.5 million committed by the county and state. But __funding wasn't included in President Barack Obama's budget this year__. Then in early March, Scott directed the state Department of Transportation to loan the port $77 million for the project. The port, in turn, will forward the money to the Army Corps of Engineers, which is in charge of the project. //
 * Broder Singer 11 — **Publications Consultant, School of Business at University of Miami, Freelance Editor, Splendid magazine at Miami Media LLC, Independent Editor (Rochelle, “Dredging Deeper”, Florida Trend, May, ProQuest, http://proxy.lib.umich.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/866057185?accountid=14667) EL//

//**Boosting economic competitiveness is vital to preventing military retrenchment – risks great power wars**// //**Khalilzad, ’11** – Bush’s ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the UN and former director policy planning at the DOD (Zalmay, “The Economy and National Security”, National Review, 2-8-11, [])//

// Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the U nited S tates’ position as global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great powers. // // The current recession is the result of a deep [|financial crisis], not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy — ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP — and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years. // // Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual [|interest payments] — which already are larger than the defense budget — would crowd out other spending or require substantial [|tax increases] that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a “sudden stop” in credit markets for U.S. debt, the U nited S tates would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations,precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally. // // Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence “east of Suez.” Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. [|debt problem] goes critical, the United States would be compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments. // // We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation.// //The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars.// //American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions.// // As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of great-power competition. Beijing’s economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. China’s strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, China’s expansive territorial claims — and provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea — have roiled its relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression.// // Given the risks, the United States must focus on restoring its economic and fiscal condition while checking and managing the rise of potential adversarial regional powers such as China. While we face significant challenges, the U.S. economy still accounts for over 20 percent of the world’s GDP. American institutions — particularly those providing enforceable rule of law — set it apart from all the rising powers. Social cohesion underwrites political stability. U.S. demographic trends are healthier than those of any other developed country. A culture of innovation, excellent institutions of higher education, and a vital sector of small and medium-sized enterprises propel the U.S. economy in ways difficult to quantify. Historically, Americans have responded pragmatically, and sometimes through trial and error, to work our way through the kind of crisis that we face today. // // The policy question is how to enhance [|__economic growth__] and employment while cutting discretionary spending in the near term and curbing the growth of entitlement spending in the out years. Republican members of Congress have outlined a plan. Several think tanks and commissions, including President Obama’s debt commission, have done so as well. Some consensus exists on measures to pare back the recent increases in domestic spending, restrain future growth in defense spending, and reform the tax code (by reducing tax expenditures while lowering individual and corporate rates). These are promising options. // // The key remaining question is whether the president and leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill have the will to act and the skill to fashion bipartisan solutions. Whether we take the needed actions is a choice, however difficult it might be. It is clearly within our capacity to put our economy on a better trajectory. In garnering political support for cutbacks, the president and members of Congress should point not only to the domestic consequences of inaction — but also to the geopolitical implications. // // As the United States gets its economic and fiscal house in order, it should take steps to prevent a flare-up in Asia. The United States can do so by signaling that its domestic challenges will not impede its intentions to check Chinese expansionism. This can be done in cost-efficient ways. // // While China’s economic rise enables its military modernization and international assertiveness, it also frightens rival powers. The Obama administration has wisely moved to strengthen relations with allies and potential partners in the region but more can be done. // // Some Chinese policies encourage other parties to join with the United States, and the U.S. should not let these opportunities pass. China’s military assertiveness should enable security cooperation with countries on China’s periphery — particularly Japan, India, and Vietnam — in ways that complicate Beijing’s strategic calculus. China’s mercantilist policies and currency manipulation — which harm developing states both in East Asia and elsewhere — should be used to fashion a coalition in favor of a more balanced trade system. Since Beijing’s over-the-top reaction to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese democracy activist alienated European leaders, highlighting human-rights questions would not only draw supporters from nearby countries but also embolden reformers within China. // // Since the end of the Cold War, a stable economic and financial condition at home has enabled America to have an expansive role in the world. Today we can no longer take this for granted. Unless we get our economic house in order, there is a risk that domestic stagnation in combination with the rise of rival powers will undermine our ability to deal with growing international problems. Regional hegemons in Asia could seize the moment, leading the world toward a new, dangerous era of multi-polarity .\ //

//**Seaport competitiveness is the vital internal link to US economic growth – seaports represent a quarter of US GDP and contribute __over 3 trillion__ to the economy**// //**Nagle, 11** --- president and chief executive officer of the American Association of Port Authorities (December 2011, Kurt, Industry Today, “Association: American Association of Port Authorities; Port-Related Infrastructure Investments Can Reap Dividends,” vol. 14, no. 3, [])//

//It seems the U nited S tates willingly allows infrastructure to crumble as other countries – particularly the BRICs – bolster the physical support systems that foster economic growth. The American Association of Port Authorities is concerned over the state of America’s aged transportation infrastructure so it’s urging investments in both landside and waterside connections with ports.// // The burning question on the mind of many US lawmakers, administration officials and others is how best to stimulate the economy and spur job creation. The answer lies in focusing scarce federal resources in areas that will have the greatest impact on economic growth, immediate and long-term job creation, national security, and our current and future competitiveness in the global economy. Enhancements in seaport-related infrastructure should be a high priority among the limited investment options.// //For centuries, US seaports – and the connecting waterways – have served as a vital economic lifeline, bringing goods and services to people around the world and delivering prosperity to our nation. They facilitate trade and commerce, create jobs, secure our borders, support our military and serve as stewards of valuable coastal environmental resources.// // Seaports are the primary gateway for overseas trade. They’re essential to economic security. As such, federal funding for infrastructure in and around ports pays dividends. Deep-draft coastal and Great Lakes ports are the nexus of critical transportation infrastructure that connects America’s exporters with markets overseas, and they provide access for imports of raw materials, components and consumer goods that are a key part of US manufacturing and help define our standard of living.// //Investments in America’s port infrastructure and the intermodal connections that serve seaports – both land and waterside – foster prosperity and provide an opportunity to bolster the country’s economic and employment recovery.// //ECONOMIC IMPACT: HUGE// //Currently, international trade accounts for more than a quarter of America’s GDP (gross domestic product). Oceangoing vessels that load and unload cargo at US seaports move 99.4 percent of the nation’s overseas trade by volume and 65.5 percent by value. Further, customs collections from seaport cargo provide tens of billions of dollars a year to the federal government, including $23.2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2007, $24.1 billion in FY 2008, $20.3 billion in FY 2009 and $22.5 billion in FY 2010.// //The latest economic impacts analyses conducted in 2007 indicated that US seaport activities generated $3.15 trillion in annual economic output, with $3.8 billion worth of goods moving in and out of seaports every day. Impact extends far beyond seaport communities. On average, any given state uses the services of 15 different ports around the country to handle its imports and exports. Also, seaports are a proven job creator.// //In addition to handling international trade, US seaports – and the waterways that serve them – represent important transportation modes for the movement of domestic freight. Greater utilization of America’s coastal and inland water routes for freight transportation complements other surface transportation modes – providing a safe and secure alternative for cargo while offering significant energy savings and traffic congestion relief.// //VIEW FROM WATERSIDE// //As US investment in its waterways infrastructure is trending downward, countries like India, Brazil and the U nited K ingdom commit the equivalent of billions of US dollars to port and channel modernization. The expansion of the Panama Canal slated for completion in 2014 – the first major expansion in more than a century – is driving ports around the world to deepen navigation channels and improve harbor facilities. Look at what’s happening:// //India plans to invest $60 billion – including both public and private funds – to create seven new major ports by 2020. Expect this to have a substantial impact: It will handle the anticipated rapid expansion of merchandise exports, forecasted to triple by 2017.// //Brazil expects tonnage at its coastal ports to more than double (to 1.7 billion tons) by 2022. In response, the nation is committing $17 billion to port improvements (including $14 billion from the private sector).// //In Great Britain, DP World (the world’s fourth-largest marine terminal operator) plans to spend $2.5 billion on London’s Deep-Water Gateway, the country’s first such development in the last 20 years.// //Meanwhile, in the U nited S tates, public funding for new navigation channel improvements has all but dried up. Lawmakers focus on reducing the deficit and eliminating appropriation “earmarks” that have traditionally funded federal navigation deepening projects. At the same time, funding for projects already approved and underway is slow, incremental and insufficient .// // Insufficient appropriations make it impossible to maintain most federal navigation channels at their authorized and required dimensions. The US Army Corps of Engineers has been commissioned with the responsibility of improving and maintaining the nation’s water access to ports. But while this charge comes from the US government, the federal government is less than supportive. It spends only about half of the tax that it collects specifically directed toward deep-draft channel maintenance. The rest – more than $6 billion since 1986 – has essentially been “disappeared” into the US Treasury while serious dredging needs remain neglected.// // This is unfortunate at a crucial juncture. Projects to maintain these critical waterways would create jobs immediately and would provide transportation savings to benefit US businesses. With decreases in the cost of freight transportation, these sectors can enhance their global competitiveness and create more jobs. The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) has continually and strongly urged Congress to take action to ensure that 100-percent of the annual amount collected from the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) is utilized to maintain federal navigation channels.//

//**The plan results in a net exports increase – lack of dredging forces __light loading__ which destroys US shipping**// //**Weakley 8** – Realize America’s Maritime promise, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Fairness Coalition, testimony of James Weakley the president of the Lake Carriers’ Association (James, “Realize America’s Maritime Promise”, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Fairness Coalition, 4/30/08, [])//MM

//Port-related jobs are critical to // augment //our economy //. Direct and indirect jobs generated by ports result in the employment of more than 8 million Americans who earned and spent $314.5 billion in 2006. Every $1 billion in exports alone creates an estimated 15, 000 new jobs. In Texas alone one in every four jobs is linked to trade. America´s deep-draft navigation system is at a crossroads, with a future that can be bright or bleak. Our waterways ´ ability to support the Nation?s continuing growth in trade and in the defense of our Nation, hinges on much-needed Federal attention to unresolved funding needs that are derailing critical channel maintenance and deep-draft construction projects of the water highways to our ports. Because most ports do not have naturally deep harbors, they must be regularly dredged to allow ships to move safely through Federal navigation channels. Also, as modern vessels increase in size, navigation channel depths must increase accordingly, if we are to continue to be a player on the international marketplace. A recent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study reports that almost 30 percent of the 95, 550 vessel calls at U.S. ports are constrained due to inadequate channel depths. Ladies and gentlemen, these are the things that cause port directors nightmares. Without a channel dredged to its authorized depth //, nothing else comes into play//. Attracting new customers, dealing with labor issues, environmental concerns, and the public - all go away - because without a properly-dredged channel, business goes away. Public ports are at a critical state in keeping their channels open for business. We are losing existing business and potential new business to ports outside of the U nited S tates ? and once lost, it is rarely regained. //Dredging can literally make or break our industry //, and a lack of dredging is an issue throughout the U nited S tates. In fact, it is not an overstatement to say that in many parts of the United States, we face a dredging crisis. On the Great Lakes, as Chairman James L. Oberstar of this Committee and Chairman David R. Obey of the Appropriations Committee well know, decades of inadequate funding for dredging have left a backlog of 18 million cubic yards of sediment. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates removing the backlog will cost more than $230 million on the Great Lakes alone. In some cases, ports on the Great Lakes have actually shutdown due to inadequate dredging. There are similar examples of dredging problems in ports and harbors on all coasts of our Nation. In many cases, vessels must ? //load light// ? because of dredging shortfalls. The economic implications of light loading are enormous. On the Great Lakes, for example, vessels lose between 50 to 270 tons of cargo for each inch they must reduce their draft a nd, in some areas, the lost draft is measured in feet, not inches. Light loading because of inadequate dredging impacts everyone. A ship that is light-loaded reduces its efficiencies in the same way that a commercial airplane that is required to set aside seats with no passengers would quickly lose its efficiencies. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund The Harbor Maintenance Tax and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund were established in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986. The Trust Fund (HMTF) applies a 0.125 percent ad valorem tax on the value of commercial cargo loaded or unloaded on vessels using Federally-maintained channels. The tax is only assessed on imports and domestic cargo, as it was ruled as an unconstitutional assessment on exports in a 1998 Supreme Court ruling. This Fund - that you, members of Congress - established, was authorized to be utilized to recover 100 percent of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers eligible Operations and Maintenance (O&M) expenditures for commercial navigation, along with 100 percent of the O&M cost of the St. Lawrence Seaway, certain costs of NOAA, and the costs to Customs to collect the tax. Fixing the Problem Ladies and gentleman - would it surprise you to know that this utilization has not been honored? HMTF revenues exceed transfers for authorized activities by an increasing margin. Yet, our Federal channels are not being maintained at authorized depths. The Fund is being held hostage to paper balance the budget - interestingly, not one of its legal uses. In 2007, the HMTF began with a $3.3 billion surplus and collected an additional $1.4 billion - resulting in a $4.7 billion surplus, while only $751 million was utilized for maintenance dredging. That is incredible. I would ask that you consider this analogy offered by my colleague in a Gulf Coast port: "What would you say to a toll booth operator who took your money to use the toll road only to then tell you that the road was unusable?"? That is what is happening to shippers who pay this tax every day. We must solve this problem. We must draft legislation that mandates that the Fund be utilized for its intended purpose - the maintenance dredging of Federal ports and harbors. There are a number of ways to address this problem. As you know, other modes of transportation - surface transportation and aviation ? have faced similar problems in the past decade. Although we are in the early stages of addressing this problem, our Coalition believes Congress should consider an approach similar to that taken with the Highway Trust Fund in 1998 and with the Airport and Airway Trust Fund in 2000. In those cases, Congress legislatively enacted "firewalls" around the Trust Funds ? essentially guaranteeing minimum levels of spending that could only be used to support eligible projects. Although there are some variations between the Highway, Aviation, and Harbor Maintenance Trust, the point of a firewall in each case is the same - ensuring that monies from a tax would be used for their intended purpose and not merely for deficit reduction.

) //NK//
 * Increasing exports is a prerequisite to sustainable economic growth – prevents investment bubbles and solves the trade deficit**
 * Istrate et al, 10** -- senior research analyst and associate fellow with the Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative (Emilia, "Export Nation: How U.S. Metros Lead National Export Growth and Boost Competitiveness", July, Brookings, [|http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2010/7/26%20mountain%20exports%20muro/0726_exports_istrate_rothwell_katz.pdf]

// Exports Could Contribute to the Rebalancing of the U.S. Economy and a Lower Trade Deficit // // For the most of the last 20 years, the United States has witnessed strong economic growth and low unemployment in comparison with other developed countries.18 Yet, the U.S. economy was affected by the wide fluctuations at the end of two business cycles, the so called IT bubble of the late 1990s and the housing bubble that ended between sometime during 2006 and 2007. Meanwhile, in 2006 household income inequality reached its post-World War II peak.19 Real median income in 2008 fell below 1999 levels.20 These three conditions—a tepid rise in living standards, increasing inequality, and bubble economies—are embedded in the consumption driven American economy. // // In 1982, U.S. residents spent 86 cents of every dollar of after-tax income, but the intensity of consumption grew steadily such that by 2005, that share had reached 95 cents of every dollar.21 All this spending depleted savings, which dropped precipitously over the time period from over 10 percent in the early 1980s to just 1.7 percent in 2005.22 At the same time, an increasing share of consumption involved the purchase of imports. While the value of U.S. total imports was eight percent higher than the value of U.S. total exports in 1982, by 2005, the difference was 36 percent, the highest gap since 1960.23 // // With minimal household savings, domestic investment declined over the last two decades relative to the size of the economy. The United States invested about 7.3 percent of GDP in the 2000s, much less than the 9.4 percent rate of the 1970s.24 Moreover, from 2000 to 2007, private manufacturing investment as a share of GDP was just 0.26 percent per year compared to 0.37 percent during the 1990s. At the same time, foreign investment compensated to some extent, though more in the real estate sector. For example, Chinese holdings represented 6 percent of all federal agency debt and 29 percent of foreign-held agency debt in 2007, making China the largest foreign holder of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt.25 // // The externalization of risk is another major problem with trade deficits. A large portion of the dollars spent on imports end up being re-invested back into the U nited S tates and that process increases the risk of bubbles. No sector can sustain limitless growth, and as the safest and most valuable investments become saturated with funding, the excess liquidity begins to seep into riskier and riskier propositions like no-income-no-asset subprime mortgage derivatives. The economists Joshua Aizenman and Yothin Jinjarak have shown that current account deficits have coincided with and contributed to rapid housing price appreciation across OECD countries between 1990 and 2005.26 // // While the United States based its growth on private consumption over the last three decades, the other developed countries exploited foreign demand. Over the last 30 years, private consumption, as a share of GDP, increased by seven percentage points in the U nited S tates, while total exports grew by only two percentage points. The other large developed countries, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom, maintained an almost constant share of private spending, but increased their share of total exports in GDP by seven percentage points.28 In 2008, the U.S. total exports were only 12.7 of domestic production, in comparison with 29.7 percent in the other large developed countries. Moreover, as a recent Brookings report shows, this underperformance is not entirely explained by the size of the U.S. economy and its distance from trading partners. // // There are a number of potential explanations for why the United States under-exports. First, the dollar is over-valued relative to the currencies of a number of important U.S. trading partners.29 In addition, U.S. companies have been focused on catering to the large and growing U.S market. About one percent of U.S. companies exported in 2008.30 It seems that many small and medium companies lack information regarding exports and perceive exporting as a risky endeavor.31 Finally, many countries still put up significant trade barriers against U.S. companies. In the absence of free trade agreements with emerging countries, U.S. companies had additional incentives to locate production abroad in order to take advantage of these foreign markets. For example, while nominal total exports grew by 10 percent annually between 1994 and 2007, nominal sales of U.S. affiliates located in foreign countries increased by almost 18 percent a year during the same period.32 // // Whatever the reasons why the United States is less export-oriented than other countries, increasing // // exports relative to imports can be part of the solution to many long-standing difficulties. //

//**Strong US growth is key to promoting an American economic model – the alternative is mercantilism, which destroys economic cooperation and risks protectionism**// //**Posen 9** – Deputy director and senior fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics (Adam, “Economic leadership beyond the crisis,” http://clients.squareeye.com/uploads/foresight/documents/PN%20USA_FINAL_LR_1.pdf)//

// In the postwar period, US power and prestige, beyond the nation's military might, have been based largely on American relative economic size and success __. These facts enabled the US to promote economic openness and buy-in to a set of economic institutions, formal and informal, that resulted in increasing international economic integration __. With the exception of the immediate post-Bretton Woods oil-shock period (1974-85), this combination produced generally growing prosperity at home and abroad, and underpinned the idea that there were benefits to other countries of following the American model and playing by American rules. Initially this system was most influential and successful in those countries in tight military alliance with the US, such as Canada, West Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. With the collapse of Soviet communism in 1989, and the concomitant switch of important emerging economies, notably Brazil, China, India, and Mexico, to increasingly free-market capitalism, global integration on American terms through American leadership has been increasingly dominant for the last two decades. The global financial crisis of 2008-09, however, represents a challenge to that world order. While overt financial panic has been averted, and most economic forecasts are for recovery to begin in the US and the major emerging markets well before end of 2009 (a belief I share), there remain significant risks for the US and its leadership. The global financial system, including but not limited to US-based entities, has not yet been sustainably reformed. In fact, financial stability will come under strain again when the current government financial guarantees and public ownership of financial firms and assets are unwound over the next couple of years. The growth rate of the US economy and the ability of the US government to finance responses to future crises, both military and economic, will be meaningfully curtailed for several years to come. Furthermore, the crisis will accelerate at least temporarily two related long-term trends eroding the viability of the current international economic arrangements. First, perhaps inevitably, the economic size and importance of China, India, Brazil, and other emerging markets (including oil-exporters like Russia) has been catching up with the US, and even more so with demographically and productivity challenged Europe and northeast Asia. Second, pressure has been building over the past fifteen years or so of these developing countries' economic rise to give their governments more voice and weight in international economic decision-making. Again, this implies a transfer of relative voting share from the US, but an even greater one from over-represented Western Europe. The near certainty that Brazil, China, and India, are to be less harmed in real economic terms by the current crisis than either the US or most other advanced economies will only emphasise their growing strength, and their ability to claim a role in leadership. The need for capital transfers from China and oil-exporters to fund deficits and bank recapitalisation throughout the West, not just in the US, increases these rising countries' leverage and legitimacy in international economic discussions. One aspect of this particular crisis is that American economic policymakers, both Democratic and Republican, became increasingly infatuated with financial services and innovation beginning in the mid-1990s. This reflected a number of factors, some ideological, some institutional, and some interest group driven. The key point here is that export of financial services and promotion of financial liberalisation on the US securitised model abroad came to dominate the US international economic policy agenda, and thus that of the IMF, the OECD, and the G8 as well. This came to be embodied by American multinational commercial and investment banks, in perception and in practice. That particular version of the American economic model has been widely discredited, because of the crisis' apparent origins in US lax regulation and over-consumption, as well as in excessive faith in American-style financial markets. Thus, American global economic leadership has been eroded over the long-term by the rise of major emerging market economies, disrupted in the short-term by the nature and scope of the financial crisis, and partially discredited by the excessive reliance upon and overselling of US-led financial capitalism. This crisis therefore presents the possibility of the US model for economic development being displaced, not only deservedly tarnished, and the US having limited resources in the near-term to try to respond to that challenge. Additionally, the US' traditional allies and co-capitalists in Western Europe and Northeast Asia have been at least as damaged economically by the crisis (though less damaged reputationally). Is there an alternative economic model? The preceding description would seem to confirm the rise of the Rest over the West. That would be premature. The empirical record is that economic recovery from financial crises, while painful, is doable even by the poorest countries , and in advanced countries rarely leads to significant political dislocation. Even large fiscal debt burdens can be reined in over a few years where political will and institutions allow, and the US has historically fit in that category. A few years of slower growth will be costly, but also may put the US back on a sustainable growth path in terms of savings versus consumption. __Though the relative rise of the major emerging markets will be accelerated by the crisis, that acceleration will be insufficient to rapidly close the gap with the US in size, let alone in technology and well-being. None of those countries, except perhaps for China, can think in terms of rivaling the US in all the aspects of national power.__ These would include: a large, dynamic and open economy; favorable demographic dynamics; monetary stability and a currency with a global role; an ability to project hard power abroad; and an attractive economic model to export for wide emulation. __This last point is key. In the area of alternative economic models, one cannot beat something with nothing - communism fell not just because of its internal contradictions, or the costly military build-up, but because capitalism presented a clearly superior alternative. The Chinese model is in part __ the American capitalist (albeit not high church financial liberalisation) model, and is in part mercantilism. There has been concern that some developing or small countries could take the lesson from China that building up lots of hard currency reserves through undervaluation and export orientation is smart. That would erode globalisation, and lead to greater conflict with and criticism of the US-led system. While in the abstract that is a concern, most emerging markets - and notably Brazil, India, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea - are not pursuing that extreme line. The recent victory of the incumbent Congress Party in India is one indication, and the statements about openness of Brazilian President Lula is another. Mexico's continued orientation towards NAFTA while seeking other investment flows (outside petroleum sector, admittedly) to and from abroad is a particularly brave example. Germany's and Japan's obvious crisis-prompted difficulties emerging from their very high export dependence, despite their being wealthy, serve as cautionary examples on the other side. So unlike in the1970s, the last time that the US economic performance and leadership were seriously compromised, we will not see leading developing economies like Brazil and India going down the import substitution or other self-destructive and uncooperative paths. If this assessment is correct, the policy challenge is to deal with relative US economic decline, but not outright hostility to the US model or displacement of the current international economic system. That is reassuring, for it leaves us in the realm of normal economic diplomacy, perhaps to be pursued more multilaterally and less high-handedly than the US has done over the past 20 years. It also suggests that adjustment of current international economic institutions is all that is required, rather than desperately defending economic globalisation itself. For all of that reassurance, however, the need to get buy-in from the rising new players to the current system is more pressing on the economic front than it ever has been before. Due to the crisis, the ability of the US and the other advanced industrial democracies to put up money and markets for rewards and side-payments to those new players is also more limited than it has been in the past, and will remain so for at least the next few years. The need for the US to avoid excessive domestic self-absorption is a real concern as well, given the combination of foreign policy fatigue from the Bush foreign policy agenda and economic insecurity from the financial crisis. Managing the post-crisis global economy Thus, the US faces a challenging but not truly threatening global economic situation as a result of the crisis and longer-term financial trends. Failure to act affirmatively to manage the situation, however, bears two significant and related risks: first, that China and perhaps some other rising economic powers will opportunistically divert countries in US-oriented integrated relationships to their economic sphere(s); second, that a leadership vacuum will arise in international financial affairs and in multilateral trade efforts, which will over time erode support for a globally integrated economy. Both of these risks if realised would diminish US foreign policy influence, make the economic system less resilient in response to future shocks (to every country's detriment), reduce economic growth and thus the rate of reduction in global poverty, and conflict with other foreign policy goals like controlling climate change or managing migration and demographic shifts. If the US is to rise to the challenge, it should concentrate on the following priority measures. //

//**Protectionism will cause terrorism and global wars – risks extinction**// //**Panzner 8** – faculty at the New York Institute of Finance, 25-year veteran of the global stock, bond, and currency markets who has worked in New York and London for HSBC, Soros Funds, ABN Amro, Dresdner Bank, and JPMorgan Chase (Michael, “Financial Armageddon: Protect Your Future from Economic Collapse,” p. 136-138)//

// Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will inspire the U nited S tates and other nations to spew forth protectionist legislation like the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great Depression, it triggered a series of tit-for-tat economic responses, which many commentators believe helped turn a serious economic downturn into a prolonged and devastating global disaster. But if history is any guide, those lessons will have been long forgotten during the next collapse. Eventually, fed by a mood of desperation and growing public anger, restrictions on trade, finance, investment, and immigration will almost certainly intensify. Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border movement of Americans and outsiders alike, and lawmakers may even call for a general crackdown on nonessential travel. Meanwhile, many nations will make transporting or sending funds to other countries exceedingly difficult. As desperate officials try to limit the fallout from decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and reckless policies, they will introduce controls on foreign exchange. Foreign individuals and companies seeking to acquire certain American infrastructure assets, or trying to buy property and other assets on the cheap thanks to a rapidly depreciating dollar, will be stymied by limits on investment by noncitizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to ripple across economies and markets, disrupting global payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this will, of course, continue to undermine business confidence and consumer spending. In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link that transmits systemic financial pressures across markets through arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management, or that allows diseases to be easily spread from one country to the next by tourists and wildlife, or that otherwise facilitates unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly. The rise in isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and dangerous confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as factors of production that must, out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly nations. Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities such as food, water, and energy, efforts to secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand seems constantly out of kilter with supply. Disputes over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment and natural resources will become more commonplace. Around the world, such tensions will give rise to //full-scale military encounters, // often with minimal provocation. In some instances, economic conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for conflicts that stem from cultural and religious differences. Alternatively, nations may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by channeling frustration and populist sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap technology and the waning threat of American retribution, terrorist groups will likely boost the frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks, bringing the threat of random violence to a whole new level. Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will also take on a new, more heated sense of urgency. China will likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark on overt coloniz ation of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel, for its part, may look to draw a dwindling list of allies from around the world into a growing number of conflicts. Some observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even speculated that an “intense confrontation” between the United States and China is “inevitable” at some point. More than a few disputes will turn out to be almost wholly ideological. Growing cultural and religious differences will be transformed from wars of words to battles //soaked in blood //. Long-simmering resentments could also degenerate quickly, spurring the basest of human instincts and triggering genocidal acts. Terrorists employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret stepped-up conflicts between Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world war. //

//**Dredging our US ports is vital to US global economic leadership**// //**Kiefer et al, 2k** – principal investigator for Planning and Management Consultants– study authorized by Section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, report to the US Army Corps of Engineers (Jack, Planning and Management Consultants, “The National Dredging Needs Study of Ports and Harbors Implications to Cost-Sharing of Federal Deep Draft Navigation Projects Due to Changes in the Maritime Industry”, May 2000, [])// CB

2.2.2 Other Tangible Benefits Indirect benefits of Corps projects include gains associated with international trade.Historical expenditures for harbor improvements facilitate international trade by providing ships more efficient access to the Nation's ports. International trade in turn creates and sustains jobs and generates Federal tax revenues. The exact method of computing income and employment associated with international trade is debatable, but one of the best techniques is to calculate the value added by U.S. businesses and households to imports and exports. 5 Computations reveal that nearly 20 percent of all U.S. jobs are directly associated with international trade. A slightly higher percentage of personal income would be associated with international trade because such jobs pay somewhat more than the U.S. average. In addition, about $553 million were collected for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund in 1999. Some benefits of harbor improvements are difficult or impossible to quantify. For individual projects these are given little attention. Policy decisions concerning project authorizations and appropriations should consider intangible benefits as well as tangible direct and secondary benefits. This idea is particularly applicable to international trade and specifically container trade. For example, America is such a big market, **__international trade gives the U.S. considerable leverage when dealing with foreign governments__**__. Thus, **international trade can enhance the U**nited **S**tates’ **role as a world leader. National harbors are**__ also **__a vital part of our military’s power projection platform.__** __Economists believe in the law of comparative advantage, which states that nations benefit when they specialize in producing certain goods and services and then trade with each other rather than producing everything themselves__. For example, most people perceive that the majority of foreign trade consists of consumer goods such as clothing and televisions. However, as shown in Table 2-2, a significant portion of __U.S. foreign trade consists of semi-manufactured commodities and raw materials such as iron and steel or crude petroleum. These products are used to produce other goods, or are further processed in the importing country. For example, in the United States imported car parts are often used to produce exports of finished automobiles. Machinery and electrical equipment are often used the same way. Thus, efficient flow of international commodities is important for all nations including the United States.__ __Global trade is very competitive and profit margins are thin. This is particularly true for maritime transportation including the container shipping industry__. . Growth in U.S. foreign trade, even though it is substantial, is not as high as growth in total international trade, particularly with respect to containerships. __It is quite possible for__ some __U.S. trade to be diverted__ or to be serviced __by less efficient ships____. This may occur if American ports and the Federal government are not able to meet__ current __challenges__ posed by developments in international trade. 2.2.4 Lost Benefits There are lost benefits associated with delays in the construction of harbor improvement projects. Costs increase with delays, not only because of inflation but because the construction process becomes distorted by available funds. Costs associated with delays can and have been estimated. Typically, a year’s delay in schedule leads to a penalty of more than 10 percent of project cost. This is sizable and should be considered when making cost-sharing policies. Cost-sharing policies should seek to insure that both public ports and the Federal government fund projects in a timely manner. There are also benefits foregone due to lost transportation cost savings with project delays. Project delays affect the Nation in another way. Although these benefits are difficult to quantify, such effects are perhaps more important than those that can be measured. Delays create an uncertain atmosphere that can impact decisions to develop infrastructure elsewhere. Container ports are very capital intensive and require long term planning. Massive containerships are rapidly being put into service at ports throughout the world. Without a clear signal of intent to accommodate these vessels in the United States, necessary ports and facilities may be built elsewhere. Once major investments are made elsewhere, the full efficiencies of large containerships in the form of lower transportation costs for general cargo may be lost to the Nation for a long time to come. 2.3 Geographical Incidence of International Trade Public ports generally have a regional or local economic development mandate along with authorizations to improve harbor facilities. This does not mean, however, that local economies near ports capture all or most of the benefits associated with international trade. For example, when a port unloads crude petroleum from a ship, it charges a fee that generates revenues for the port and the local community. But imported oil also fuels cars and homes throughout the Nation. Likewise, when a port loads grain or coal onto a ship for export, farmers in the U.S. heartland benefit as do coal miners in the hills of West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky. Container trade benefits all regions of the country as well. As shown in Table 2-3, fifteen __U.S. ports account for about 80 percent of international maritime trade in terms of value__. These ports represent only ten states, however much of the cargo they handle flows to other regions. Table 2-4 shows the origin and destination of international cargo for each U.S. state measured in terms of value. On average, any given state uses the services of 15 different ports around the country. For example, the California ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland collectively handle about $187 billion worth of cargo, but the state of California is the origin or destination of only $106 billion. While most container trade flows in and out of ports on the East and West Coasts, it is distributed throughout the Nation as shown in Tables 2-5 and 2-6. For instance, the Port of Charleston, S.C. handled about 800 thousand TEUs in 1996, but the state of South Carolina was the origin or destination of only 160 thousand of these TEUs. Similarly, the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland handled five million TEUs but only 2.5 million originated or were destined to sites within California. [table omitted] 2.4 Conclusion __The benefits of harbor improvements are numerous. Expenditures for harbor improvements have facilitated international trade by providing ships more efficient access to the Nation's ports. International trade in turn creates and sustains jobs and generates Federal tax revenues. Foreign commerce has become crucial to the economic well-being of the U__ nited __S__ tates. In 1946, U.S. international trade represented a relatively small portion of the U.S. economy, but __today foreign trade accounts for 27 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Harbor improvements also affect prices of U.S. imports and exports. With deeper channels vessel operators can load more cargo onto a ship and sail deeper, or they can use larger more efficient vessels.__ Unit transportation costs decline and lower transportation costs are reflected in commodity prices. Intangible benefits are also important. __Free trade promotes international relations and stability and bolsters the United States’ position as a world leader.__ Lastly, it is important to stress that the economic benefits of international trade are widespread and are not limited to a handful of coastal states.

[Michael, The Case for Goliath: How America Acts As the World’s Government in the Twenty-First Century, p. 192-195]
 * Economic leadership prevents economic collapse—leadership key to resilience**
 * Mandelbaum**, **5** – Professor and Director of the American Foreign Policy Program at Johns Hopkins – 2005

Although the spread of nuclear weapons, with the corresponding increase in the likelihood that a nuclear shot would be fired in anger somewhere in the world, counted as the most serious potential consequence of the abandonment by the United States of its role as the world's government, it was not the only one. __In the previous period of American international reticence, the 1920s and 1930s, the global economy suffered serious damage that a more active American role might have mitigated__. __A twenty-first-century American retreat could have similarly adverse international economic consequences.__ __The economic collapse of the 1930s caused extensive hardship throughout the world and led indirectly to World War II__ __by paving the way for the people who started it to gain power in Germany and Japan__. In retrospect, the Great Depression is widely believed to have been caused by a series of errors in public policy that made an economic downturn far worse than it would have been had governments responded to it in appropriate fashion. Since the 1930s, acting on the lessons drawn from that experience by professional economists, governments have taken steps that have helped to prevent a recurrence of the disasters of that decade.' In the face of reduced demand, for example, governments have increased rather than cut spending. Fiscal and monetary crises have evoked rescue efforts rather than a studied indifference based on the assumption that market forces will readily reestablish a desirable economic equilibrium. In contrast to the widespread practice of the 1930s, political authorities now understand that putting up barriers to imports in an attempt to revive domestic production will in fact worsen economic conditions everywhere. Still, __a serious, prolonged failure of the international economy, inflicting the kind of hardship the world experienced in the 1930s__ (which some Asian countries also suffered as a result of their fiscal crises in the 1990s) __does not lie beyond the realm of possibility. Market economies remain subject to cyclical downturns, which public policy can limit but has not found a way to eliminate entirely__. __Markets also have an inherent tendency to form bubbles, excessive values for particular assets,__ whether seventeenth century Dutch tulips or twentieth century Japanese real estate and Thai currency, __that cause economic harm when the bubble bursts and prices plunge__. __In responding to these events, governments can make errors__. They can act too slowly, or fail to implement the proper policies, or implement improper ones. Moreover, the global economy and the national economies that comprise it, like a living organism, change constantly and sometimes rapidly: Capital flows across sovereign borders, for instance, far more rapidly and in much greater volume in the early twenty-first century than ever before. This means that measures that successfully address economic malfunctions at one time may have less effect at another, just as medical science must cope with the appearance of new strains of influenza against which existing vaccines are not effective. Most importantly, __since the Great Depression, an active American international economic role has been crucial both in fortifying the conditions for global economic well-being and in coping with the problems that have occurred, especially periodic recessions and currency crises, by applying the lessons of the past. The absence of such a role could weaken those conditions and aggravate those problems.__ The overall American role in the world since World War II therefore has something in common with the theme of the Frank Capra film It's a Wonderful Life, in which the angel Clarence, played by Henry Travers, shows James Stewart, playing the bank clerk George Bailey, who believes his existence to have been worthless, how life in his small town of Bedford Falls would have unfolded had he never been born. George Bailey learns that people he knows and loves turn out to be far worse off without him. So it is with the United States and its role as the world's government. Without that role, the world very likely would have been in the past, and would become in the future, a less secure and less prosperous place. The abdication by the United States of some or all of the responsibilities for international security that it had come to bear in the first decade of the twenty-first century would deprive the international system of one of its principal safety features, __which keeps countries from smashing into each other, as they are historically prone to do__. __In this sense, a world without America would be the equivalent of a freeway full of cars without brakes__. Similarly, should the American government abandon some or all of the ways in which it had, at the dawn of the new century, come to support global economic activity__,__ __the world economy would function less effectively and might even suffer a severe and costly breakdown.__ A __world without the United States would in this way resemble a fleet of cars without gasoline.__


 * Economic and trade decline triggers global nuclear war**
 * Royal 10** - Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, (Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215)

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict . Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modclski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 9.33333px;">. As such, <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 9.33333px;"> (see also Gilpin, 1981) <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 9.33333px;"> (Fearon. 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996. 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states __<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">. __<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 9.33333px;"> He argues that <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 9.33333px;"> as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 9.33333px;"> (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg. Hess. & Weerapana. 2004). which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">'Diversionary theory' suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 9.33333px;">. Wang (1990, DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">DeRouen <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 9.33333px;"> (2000 __<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">) <span class="Underline" style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the U __<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 9.33333px;">nited <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">S <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 9.33333px;">tates, and thus weak Presidential popularity, <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 9.33333px;">In summary <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">, recent <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 9.33333px;">economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels __<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">. __<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 9.33333px;">' This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those views.

=Hegemony=


 * Contention 3 is Hegemony:**

**Kagan 12** [Robert Kagan, //Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, B.A., Yale University, M.P.P., John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Ph.D., American University//, January 17, 2012, “Not Fade Away: Against the Myth of American Decline”, Brookings Institute, [], DMintz] __ The challenges today... __ will matter a great deal, both to Americans and to the nature of the world they live in.
 * Hegemony is inevitable – assumes all their warrants**


 * Intervention is inevitable – it’s only a question of effectiveness**


 * Kagan 11** [ Robert Kagan, //a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard and a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution.// “The Price of Power”. The Weekly Standard, Jan 24, 2011, Vol. 16, No. 18. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/price-power_533696.html?page=3 ]

of international system that American power has built and defended.
 * __ Although the idea of eliminating... __**


 * We will always pursue hegemony, even if it’s uneffective**


 * Mearsheimer 11** John J. Mearsheimer, the “R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago” Jan/Feb 2011 “Imperial By Design” http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0059.pdf

__ The downward spiral the United States... __ would see the United States as a benign hegemon serving their own interests.


 * Dredging ports is a prerequisite to sustainable national defense and military power projection**
 * Phernambucq 93** – District Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer (Stanley G, “DREDGING: KEY LINK IN THE STRATEGIC NATIONAL DEFENSE”, 15 April 1993, []) //CB//

//__The United States is a seafaring nation and our ports play an important role in our Nation's trade, economy and defense. Since the founding of the country, the United States has been dependent upon water transportation for its trade__. Every major metropolitan region of the United States centers around a port or is linked directly by rail or canal to a port facility. The end result has been the creation of a network of ocean, Great Lakes and river ports, which link our nation's centers of commerce, trade, industry, distribution, education, and culture.' This paper will examine the strategic importance of __dredging,- a key link in maintaining access to these ports, and describe why upgrading of water transportation infrastructure in the United States and maintenance of these facilities is in jeopardy. **Dredging**__ is seen by most people as innocuous, uncomplicated and merely a "housekeeping activity", however, it is just the opposite. 2 It is technically complex, legally difficult and **__is essential to__** __the future vision of our leadership to **revitalize the Nation's economy**. Dredging__ is inconsequential to most people because it is not a commonly observed event, but it __has become an environmental, economic, and political battle ground for competing interests. Today's economic threat does not come from another nation's navy or some terrorist organization, but stems from our inability to efficiently accomplish the mundane task of dredging to allow ships access to our nation's centers of commerce.__ DEFINITION A simple definition of dredging is the underwater excavation of soils and rock. This process consists of excavation, transportation, and disposal or reuse of the dredged material. Disposal of dredged material has become the real problem. The environmental and legal problems have become extremely difficult and seemingly impossible to resolve with the present bureaucratic institutions.' HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE __Ports, harbors and inland waterways have been of strategic importance throughout history. Geographers, historians and military leaders have recognized that it is critical to have these facilities clear of silt and debris. A country with outlets to the sea has a major economic advantage over land locked countries__ : comparatively speaking, sea transportation is cheap and reliable. __Navigable rivers serve as economic lifelines, tying a country together and boosting international trade.__ Examples include the Rhine, Danube, and the Yangtze which have extensive inland waterways systems.' __To demonstrate the importance of dredging, one can look at historical examples. During biblical times, the largest city in the Roman province of Asia was Ephesus. This city was a thriving seaport, but silt brought down the mountain by the Cayster River gradually filled the harbor__. A few channels were kept open by dredging, but the port gradually lost its importance. Today, Ephesus is eight miles from the coast, separated by marsh. 5 Peter the Great battled for years to obtain Russian outlets on the Baltic and Black Sea. 6 The strategic importance of access to the seas has been seen in a much more recent example. In his book, General Schwarzkopf discusses a visit he had to Kuwait in 1989, as he was taking command of Central Command. As he talked to General al-Sanii about the Iraqi threat, the Kuwaiti general noted that the Shatt al-Arab waterway had not been dredged for the entire course of the Iran war, and was so full of silt, sunken ships, and unexploded artillery shells, that it would be unusable for years. He felt that Saddam Hussein was very likely to try and seize the port area near the Kuwait City of Babiyin Island to insure his access to the Persian Gulf. Dredging of the other channel would have allowed ample access to the sea and might have made the strategic objectives of Kuwait less necessary for Saddam Hussein. 7 __The strategic importance of ports and access to ports is recognized by leadership because **economic chaos occurs when the infrastructure of a developed region fails to keep pace with the demands placed on it by rapid economic growth and necessity**__. 8 __The need to move commerce cheaply and efficiently becomes critical to a nation's survival. The United States, too, has seen a need to transport people, equipment, materials, and commodities by water. Dredging became necessary to increase the channel depths of many of our own waterways to provide access to certain ports and harbors. As ships grew, so did the need for dredging deeper channels, turning basins, and berthing areas.__ Regular maintenance dredging became necessary to keep these facilities at the required depth. In earlier days, the difficult part of dredging was the engineering and transport of the material. Often times the material was simply cast to the side of the channel, or moved a short distance for disposal. Environmental considerations were unheard of, and the most inexpensive engineering solution was used. This __dredging process played a vital role in maintaining the economic well-being of the United States and its development and allowed low cost transportation__ .9 Dredging and maintaining access to our waterways has historically been the responsibility of __the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers__. They __have the responsibility to dredge for the Federal Government, to contract its accomplishment, and to regulate all private elements during dredging operations.__ The question is often asked, why the Army is interested in waterways and how does this task relate to the national defense? The reason has evolved over the past century and its significance to our strategic defense is taking center stage as our economy moves to the top of the governmental interest list. It was not until after the Civil War that the Federal Government's role in maintaining waterways was officially codified. __Before 1790, states had the power to collect tolls from interstate commerce in order to recover project costs__ .' 0 In 1808, the first comprehensive study was done to recommend an elaborate system of canals and waterways to develop the nation and to strengthen its union. __The Army had experienced great transportation and logistic problems during the War of 1812, and the Army Corps of Engineers was tasked to evaluate these problems following that war. The Corps study__, completed in 1816, __clearly indicated the need for improvements to the water transportation system for economic and military reasons. The study concluded that the national defense should rest upon four pillars: a strong Naval force, a highly mobile regular Army supported by reserves and National Guard, invincible defenses on the seacoast, and **improved** rivers, **harbors** and transportation systems that **could permit rapid movement to meet the enemy and swifter** more **economical logistical lines**__ ." In the wake of that study, Congress recognized the strategic importance of these waterways and the responsibility of the federal government to pay for the development of our system.1 2 In 1819, Secretary John C. __Calhoun, called for a federal effort to improve specific critical waterways for strategic military reasons and economic development.__ Calhoun stated, "... __government realizes its security in the beneficial effects from a people made prosperous and happy by a wise direction of its resources in peace__ ."'" It was not until 1824, when the first waterway act was passed which involved the removal of vairious problem areas and, ultimately, became the beginning of federal dredging projects. This act afforded President Monroe the opportunity to specify the federal engineering agency to supervise the project. Since the Corps of Engineers had done the study, it was chosen to be the lead agency and the effort was rationalized as a national defense issue. During the Civil War, both Union and Confederate troops made use of inland waterways to transport troops and supplies. After the war, the aspect of __dredging__, as a means to keep waterways open ° __was realized as a strategic national defense issue. Postwar planning to rebuild__ the South included development of __waterways__ to help the recovery of the devastated Southern economy. These projects __were designed to provide new employment, restore commercial activity, strengthen national bonds, and assist in the rebuilding process.__ The waterways continued to evolve through World War I and World War II. Money was put into building and maintaining more reliable waterways throughout the nation for defense and economic prosperity. These routes became extremely important when sea lanes were threatened during periods of global war. __Today, the United States has the most extensive domestic water transportation system in the world__. 1 4 __The strategic importance of our channels and waterways has not decreased; rather, dredging as a strategic necessity has increased as the call to revitalize the infrastructure__ surfaced during the last election. In the years ahead, the economic investment to keep vital channels open will continue to increase in importance. Dredging remains the solution to keep this system in operation. PRESENT DAY The economic well-being of the nation has now taken center stage. As Calhoun spoke of economic prosperity as a national security issue, so did all of the presidential candidates in the 1992 election. Foreign policy and defense issues took a back seat, and the campaign was seemingly won on economic issues. President Clinton stated that "foreign and domestic policy are inseparable in today's world.''15 He further stated that we must restructure our military force and reestablish America's economic leadership at home and abroad. He also makes reference to our export of a half-trillion dollars in 1991; almost 99% of that export was through our port system.' 6 __America is physically located at the global crossroads. It serves to link Asia and Europe. In the next century, we will be afforded the opportunity to transform the United States into the logistic center for world trading.1 7 This type of commitment would require an upgrade to our transportation system, and integral in this upgrade would be the deepening of our channels and waterways to accommodate deeper draft ships.__ Today's ships have increased greatly in size and draft: deeper draft, more efficient ships, are common throughout the world (see appendix I). Our channels must keep pace with this technology and we must dredge adequately to allow safe passage of these new types of ships. __Key to that upgrade would be dredging and the need to dispose of the dredged material__. It would facilitate the boom to our export and import business envisioned by our new president. **__An essential link in the economic strategy of the nation is dredging__**__.__ In the next decade, trade predictions indicate increases of 200% by volume and 50% by amount of critical raw materials delivered by sea.'s __The Navy's primary purpose will be to keep the sea lines of communication open, but this job is counterproductive if ships cannot get into port. Access to the seas, free trade and economic importance are inseparably linked to the ability to dredge and keep our channels open.__ U.S. Transcom is the agency tasked specifically with the maintenance of a strong defense transportation system and has cited maintenance of our merchant marine as the single biggest issue. It is the contention of this author that the mundane problem of dredging goes hand in hand with the success of the maritime industry.' 9 Further, __access to present day ports will cease if disposal of dredged material is not addressed.__ The Navy has recognized the extreme importance of dredging in its evaluation of base closures and home port options. To invest a great deal in a port facility when dredging could be curtailed or the price of dredging significantly increased becomes a major planning factor. For example, in San Francisco, the Navy recognizes the possibility of an increase in cost by as much as ten times over that now paid for routine dredging services. Shrinking budgets will not allow for that and alternate locations muut be considered as cost effective porting alternatives. 20 //

//**Dredged Ports are key military readiness**// //**Weakley 8** – Realize America’s Maritime promise, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Fairness Coalition, testimony of James Weakley the president of the Lake Carriers’ Association (James, “Realize America’s Maritime Promise”, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Fairness Coalition, 4/30/08, [])//MM

Our ports and harbors are gateways to domestic and international trade, connecting the U nited S tates to the world. Because of the Nation´s port system, food grown by Iowa farmers reaches tables in Japan and Russia. Manufacturers in Texas can sell goods and services profitably to foreign countries and supply food for peace. Appalachian and Midwest coal moves through coastal ports to power plants domestically and around the world, providing the fuel to heat and light homes, businesses, and cities. Whether products are arriving at our shores or departing for foreign sale, trade relies on an efficiently operating U.S. port system. Without exception, ports are critical to every State in the Nation. On average, each of our 50 States relies on 13 to 15 ports to handle its imports and exports, which add up to more than $5.5 billion worth of goods moving in and out of U.S. ports every day. Responsible for moving more than 99 percent of the country´s overseas cargo, U.S. ports and waterways handle more than 2.5 billion tons of domestic and international trade annually, and that volume is projected to double within the next 15 years - particularly after the expansion of the Panama Canal. International trade is responsible for 25 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product ( GDP ). Along with meeting the demands of international trade, ports are busy with a sustained surge in cruise travel. Cruises depart from 43 ports in North America with a positive economic impact in all 50 States, since over 79 percent of cruise industry expenditures are made with U.S. businesses, including airlines, travel agents, food and beverage, and ship maintenance and refurbishing. On the Great Lakes, enormous quantities of raw materials that move by vessel are used to power major cities, make steel, and build roads. Equally, or more important is the National Defense support that our Nation´s ports provide. The U.S. military depends on numerous ports that have agreements with the Federal Government to serve as bases of operation and to deploy troops and equipment during national emergencies. Today __this role is more evident__ than ever and more important than ever, given the current climate of persistent threats around the globe coupled with the closure in recent years of U.S. military ports.

Spencer 2k – Senior Research Fellow on Nuclear Energy Policy from the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (Jack, “The Facts about Military Readiness”, The Heritage Foundation, 9/15/2000, [|http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2000/09/bg1394-the-facts-about-military-readiness)//MM]
 * Military Readiness key to hegemony and credible deterrence**

The evidence indicates that the U.S. armed forces are not ready to support America's national security requirements. Moreover, regarding the broader capability to defeat groups of enemies, military readiness has been declining. The National Security Strategy, the U.S. official statement of national security objectives,3 concludes that the United States "must have the capability to deter and, if deterrence fails, defeat large-scale, cross-border aggression in two distant theaters in overlapping time frames."4 According to some of the military's highest-ranking officials, however, the United States cannot achieve this goal. Commandant of the Marine Corps General James Jones, former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay Johnson, and Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Ryan have all expressed serious concerns about their respective services' ability to carry out a two major theater war strategy.5 Recently retired Generals Anthony Zinni of the U.S. Marine Corps and George Joulwan of the U.S. Army have even questioned America's ability to conduct one major theater war the size of the 1991 Gulf War.6 //Military readiness is vital because declines in America's military readiness signal to the rest of the world that the U// nited //S// tates //is not prepared to defend its interests//. Therefore, potentially hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests, inevitably leading to U.S. involvement in combat. //A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest, thereby preserving peace.//

(1973), Burroughs: professor, Department of Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (1975) (Lawrence Juda and Richard Burroughs, “Dredging Navigational Channels in a Changing Scientific and Regulatory Environment” 34 Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce 174-179) //CB//
 * Dredging is also critical to enabling more effective forward deployment of military forces which is key to maintaining hegemony**
 * Juda and Burroughs 04** – Juda: professor, Department of Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island, Ph.D., Columbia University

// But **__port facilities and maritime transportation are__** __also **important from another perspective, that of national security. They enable the supply of U**nited **S**tates **military forces deployed abroad.** For example, DOT points out that **ninety per cent of all supplies used in Operation Desert Storm were shipped from U.S. ports**__. 6 // // According to DOT, water transportation is environmentally sound, since ships and barges, when compared to other means of transportation, have the smallest number of accidental spills or collisions. 7 Further, water transportation is more fuel efficient per ton of cargo moved than other modes of transportation. 8 But these assessments focus only on the actual operation of transportation systems and do not consider, for example, potential environmental problems associated with dredging, an activity essential for contemporary maritime transportation // // While the movement of goods in trade is shaped fundamentally by factors of supply and demand, it is also affected by the ability to transport goods from where they are found or manufactured to where they are desired, as well as the ability to do so in a dependable and efficient manner and on cost competitive terms. 9 __Containerization 10 and the use of ever larger ships, tankers and bulk ships as well as container ships, represent responses by the shipping industry to these transportation influences.__// // Simply put __, larger ships benefit from economies of scale, so that a larger container vessel has lower costs per container and a larger tanker lower costs per unit of crude oil or other cargo__. 11 __DOT has noted the trend toward the use of mega-container ships, that is ships designed to carry over 4,500 boxes measured in terms of twenty foot equivalent units__ (TEUs). 12 The Regina Maersk, the first 6,000+ TEU containership, was delivered in early 1996, // // [table omitted] // // and in the period of 1997-1999 some thirty five new vessels were ordered with a TEU capacity ranging from 4,500 to 9,000 TEUs. 13 Ships on order now include what will be the two largest containerships in the world, with a capacity of 9,800 TEUs (for the China Shipping Group to be operated between Hong Kong and Los Angeles). 14 Industry sources suggest that in the near future ships with up to 12,000 TEU capacity will enter into service, 15 and DOT expects that, by 2010, almost one third of all general cargo tonnage will be transported on ships with more than 4,000 TEUs. 16 // //__But if larger vessels offer cost efficiencies for ship operators, they present new problems for port managers. As ships have become larger, they have acquired deeper drafts, demanding deeper water to accommodate their hulls.__ At the start of the twentieth century, navigational channels of thirty 30 feet in depth were sufficient to allow safe movement of almost all ships, 17 but this is no longer the case. Since the introduction of container carrying ships in the 1950s, six generations of such ships have evolved, with successively deeper drafts (Figure 1). 18 It is believed that the drafts of the mega-containerships // // [table omitted] // // that will be coming online will not be greater than 14.5 meters, a figure that does not exceed the draft of the largest containerships now in service. 19 __Mega container ship operations require a water depth of at least fifty feet in ship channels, turning basins, and ship berths__. 20 According to the Maritime Administration, in 1997 only four of the ten major U.S. container ports that collectively loaded and unloaded almost eighty per cent of container traffic had channel and berthing areas deep enough in draft for fully laden megacontainerships. 21 (Table 2). // //__It is not ship draft alone that must be considered in navigational dredging. Other factors, such as increased beam and windage, create maneuverability problems in narrow channels.__ 22 // // A particular port’s lack of the clearances needed by these larger, deeper draft vessels undercuts its potential for commercial success. To maximize their attraction for very large containerships, __ports must be able to offer easy entrance and departure, the capacity to entertain such vessels even with full loads__ (high load factors), __efficient loading and unloading, and ready access to other forms of transportation as part of the desired seamless network of intermodal carriage__. For ship operators, fast turnaround time is essential, as any time lost at ports lessens the time that ships can move cargoes and generate revenues, frustrates the expectations of shippers regarding delivery, and generally raises questions about the reliability of service. // // In this market, ports with channels or berthing facilities that do not provide needed clearance for these newer and larger vessels may be avoided altogether. Otherwise, they may be left to served only by smaller ships or those that are not fully loaded. In the port of Oakland, for example, deep draft vessels have had to key their arrival times to tidal schedules, and delays in unloading might then cost an additional 10.5-14 hours of waiting for the next high tide. 23 Such scenarios have serious implications for the port, for businesses dependent on maritime transportation, and, ultimately, for the consumer. // //__The needs of ports to accommodate larger vessels with deeper drafts, taken together with the natural process of sedimentation, create demands for the dredging of shipping lanes__. As noted by a former DOT official, for ports “ __the competition to capture markets by having the deep channels required for mega-ships translates simply and inescapably into millions of tons of dredged materials__ .” 24 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that the Corps of Engineers annually dredges and disposes of some 300 million cubic yards of material from navigation maintenance and improvement projects. To this figure must be added some 100 million cubic yards of material dredged by port authorities, terminal owners, marinas, and private individuals. 25 // // In connection with maritime transportation, dredging is needed in three types of situations: to maintain present widths and depths by counteracting the natural redistribution of coastal sediments, to widen and deepen existing channels for access by new, larger vessels, and to create new port facilities where they have not existed before. //

// Port Dredging is key to wartime shipments // //**AAPA Seaports Magazine, 3 ("**The Impact of War and Terrorism", Fall, [|www.aapaseaports.com/pdf_issues/AAPASeaports_Fall2003.pdf])// NK

Vital national efforts such as military cargo moves for Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom would not be possible without U.S. seaports and the people who keep them working. As important as they are in times of peace, ports take on an added significance in wartime, when they provide the conduits for everything from armored vehicles to ammunition to get to battlefield locations on the other side of the planet. Military and civilian leaders agree that a network of multiple ports – each with sufficient rail capabilities and other intermodal infrastructure – is essential to war efforts. But, without proper funding for improvements to rail capacity and other facilities, ports are not able to maximize their ability to handle influxes of thousands of railcars loaded with military cargoes “ Ports are absolutely critical,” said Bill Lucas , the top civilian in the U.S. military transportation arena. “ We couldn’t do it without them. “We are very, very dependent upon U.S. ports, ” added Lucas, who for the past 13 years has served as deputy to the commander of the Alexandria, Va.-based Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC). Lucas noted that ports played an essential role as military loadouts in support of this year’s Iraq conflict moved with much greater efficiency than those associated with Operation Desert Storm in 1991.


 * Lack of dredging undermines the steel industry by collapsing exports**
 * __ Petry 4/2 __** - correspondent at American Metal Market (Corinna, “US shippers urge feds to use funds for dredging”, Metal Bulletin Weekly, ProQuest, []) //EL//

//__Insufficient federal funding for dredging US waterways is developing into a burgeoning crisis that could translate into lower productivity for both iron ore mines and steel mills__, according to the Lake Carriers Association (LCA), which represents the US-flag fleet of vessels carrying iron ore, coal and other commodities on the Great Lakes.// //"Years of insufficient federal funding for dredging have left more than 17 million cubic yards of sediment clogging ports and waterways," the LCA said. "It appears this year will hold more of the same."// //__The federal government has levied a tax on waterborne cargoes to pay for dredging for the past 25 years. Revenues are deposited in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which takes in roughly $1.6 billion per year. But the government generally spends only half of that amount, and uses the rest to "paper balance" the budget,__ the LCA said, and the trust fund will have an actual surplus of nearly $7 billion by Sept. 30, the end of fiscal 2012.// //Legislation introduced last year would require the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to spend what it takes in each year for dredging on dredging, and the Senate's version of the transportation reauthorization bill also includes a provision that requires trust fund revenues to be fully spent.// //Lake __vessels collectively forfeit more than 8,100 tons of cargo for each inch of reduced draft__, the LCA said. When cargo is left on the dock__, the vessel owner isn't the only one who loses money: roughly 8,100 tons of iron ore represents eight hours of production at a large mine__, enough ore to make steel for 10,000 cars and enough work to keep an auto plant running for 14 days.//

//**Steel is key to military power**// //**American Iron and steel institute, 7,** American iron and steel institute, specialty steel industry of North America, steel manufacturers association, and united steelworkers (“STEEL AND THE NATIONAL DEFENSE” Jan. 2007) //AK

The U.S. carbon/alloy and specialty steel industries are vital partners to American defense contractors and to the DOD. Domestic and specialty metals are found in virtually every military platform. Whether it is missiles, jet aircraft, submarines, helicopters, Humvees® or munitions, American-made steels and specialty metals are crucial components of U.S. military strength. A few examples follow: 1. The Joint Strike fighter F135 engine, the gears, bearings, and the body itself, will use high performance specialty steels and superalloys produced by U.S. specialty steel companies. 2 . Land based vehicles such as the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Abrams Tank, and the family of Light Armored Vehicles use significant tonnage of steel plate per vehicle. 3. Steel plate is used in the bodies and propulsion systems of the naval fleet. 4. The control cables on virtually all military aircraft, including fighter jets and military transport planes, are produced from steel wire rope. Numerous additional examples illustrating how steel and specialty metals directly support the U.S. defense industrial base are provided in Appendices 1 and 2. These materials are an integral part of many diversified military applications and, as such, are in a continuing state of technological development. Steel’s importance to the military must also be looked at in a broader context to include both direct and indirect steel shipments to the military infrastructure that are needed to support our defense efforts, both at home and overseas -- e.g., all of the steel that goes into the rails, rail cars, ground vehicles, tanks, ships, military barracks, fences and bases, which are not classified as shipments to ordinance, aircraft, shipbuilding or other military uses .The September 11 attacks on the United States made it clear that (1) steel will be needed to “harden” existing U.S. infrastructure and installations and (2 ) a strong and viable domestic steel industry will be needed to provide immediate steel deliveries when and where required. Consider the potential difficulties the U.S. would face in defending, maintaining and rebuilding infrastructure in an environment where our nation is largely dependent upon foreign steel. By 4 becoming even more dangerously dependent upon offshore sources of steel, the United States would experience sharply reduced security preparedness in the face of: • Highly variable, and certainly higher, costs; • Uncertain supply, impacted by unsettled foreign economies and politics; • Quality, design and performance problems; • Inventory problems, long lead times and extended construction schedules.


 * Heg solves Great power war**
 * Barnett, 11** [Thomas P.M. Former Senior Strategic Researcher and Professor in the Warfare Analysis & Research Department, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, U.S. Naval War College American military geostrategist and Chief Analyst at Wikistrat., worked as the Assistant for Strategic Futures in the Office of Force Transformation in the Department of Defense, “The New Rules: Leadership Fatigue Puts U.S., and Globalization, at Crossroads,” March 7 http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8099/the-new-rules-leadership-fatigue-puts-u-s-and-globalization-at-crossroads]

Events in Libya are a further reminder for Americans that we stand at a crossroads in our continuing evolution as the world's sole full-service superpower. Unfortunately, we are increasingly seeking change without cost, and shirking from risk becausewe are tired of the responsibility. We don't know who we are anymore, and our president is a big part of that problem. Instead of leading us, he explains to us. Barack Obama would have us believe that he is practicing strategic patience. But many experts and ordinary citizens alike have concluded that he is actually beset bystrategic incoherence-- in effect, a man overmatched by the job.It is worth first examining the larger picture: We live in a time of arguably the greatest structural change in the global order yet endured, with this historical moment's most amazing feature being its relative and absolute lack of mass violence. That is something to consider when Americans contemplate military intervention in Libya, because if we do take the step to prevent larger-scale killing by engaging in some killing of our own, we will not be adding to some fantastically imagined global death count stemming from the ongoing "megalomania" and "evil" of American "empire." We'll be engaging in the same sort of system-administering activity that has marked our stunningly successful stewardship of global order since World War II. Let me be more blunt: As the guardian of globalization, the U.S. military has been the greatest force for peace the world hasever known. Had America been removed from the global dynamics that governed the 20th century, the mass murder neverwould have ended. Indeed, it's entirely conceivable there would now be **no identifiable human civilization left**, once nuclear weapons entered the killing **equation**. But the world did not keep sliding down that path of **perpetual war**. Instead, America stepped up and changed everything by ushering in our now-**perpetual great-power peace**. We introduced the international liberal trade order known as globalization and played loyal Leviathan over its spread. What resulted was the collapse of empires, an explosion of democracy, thepersistent spread of human rights, the liberation of women, the doubling of life expectancy, a roughly 10-fold increase in adjusted global GDPand a profound and persistent reduction in battle deaths from state-based conflicts. That is what American "hubris" actually delivered. Please remember that the next time some TV pundit sells you the image of "unbridled" American military power as the cause of global disorder instead of its cure.With self-deprecation bordering on self-loathing, we now imagine a post-American world that is anything but. Just watch who scatters and who steps up asthe Facebook revolutionserupt across the Arab world. While we might imagine ourselves the status quo power, we remain the world's most vigorously revisionist force. As for the sheer "evil" that is our military-industrial complex, again, let's examine what the world looked like before that establishment reared its ugly head. The last great period of global structural change was the first half of the 20th century, a period that saw a death toll of about100 million across **two world wars**. That comes to an average of 2 million deaths a year in a world of approximately 2 billion souls. Today, with far more comprehensive worldwide reporting, researchers report an average of less than 100,000 battle deaths annually in a world fast approaching 7 billion people. Though admittedly crude, these calculations suggest a 90 percent absolute drop and a 99 percent relative drop in deaths due to war .We are clearly headed for a world order characterized by multipolarity, something the American-birthed system was designed to both encourage and accommodate. But given how things turned out the last time we collectively faced such a fluid structure, we would do well to keep U.S. power, in all of its forms, deeply embedded in the geometry to come. To continue the historical survey, after salvaging Western Europe from its half-century of civil war, the U.S. emerged as the progenitor of a new, far more just form of globalization -- one based on actual free trade rather than colonialism. America then successfully replicated globalization further in East Asia over the second half of the 20th century, setting the stage for the Pacific Century now unfolding.As a result, the vector of structure-building connectivity shifted from trans-Atlantic to trans-Pacific. But if the connectivity push of the past several decades has been from West to East, with little connectivity extended to the South outside of the narrow trade of energy and raw materials, the current connectivity dynamic is dramatically different. Now, the dominant trends are: first, the East cross-connecting back to the West via financial and investment flows as well as Asian companies "going global"; and second, the East creating vast new connectivity networks with the South through South-South trade and investment. The challenge here is how to adjust great-power politics to these profound forces of structural change. Because of the West's connectivity to the East, we are by extension becoming more deeply connected to the unstable South, with China as the primary conduit. Meanwhile, America's self-exhausting post-Sept. 11 unilateralist bender triggered the illusion -- all the rage these days -- of a G-Zero, post-American world. The result, predictably enough for manic-depressive America, is that we've sworn off any overall responsibility for the South, even as we retain the right to go anywhere and kill any individuals -- preferably with flying robots -- that we deem immediately threatening to our narrowly defined national security interests. The problem with this approach is thatChina has neither the intention nor the abilityto step up and play anything resembling a responsible Leviathan over the restive South, where globalization's advance -- again, with a Chinese face -- produces a lot of near-term instability even as it builds the basis for longer-term stability. Libya is a perfect example of where the world is now stuck: America is very reticent to get involved militarily, while China, for the first time in its history, engages in long-range military operations to evacuate its workforce there. Meanwhile, the expanding civil war rages on, to everyone's moral and economic distress.The point is not that America must invade Libya pronto to keep the world as we know it from coming to an end. But if the United States and the West sit by while the Rest, risers that they are, manage nothing more than pious warnings about needlessly butting in, then we all run the risk of collectively making the post-American, G-Zero, do-nothing storyline a self-fulfilling prophecy. While that alone won't stop the world from spinning, if it persists as a pattern, globalization will slide downanother path: one of regionalism, spheres of influence and neocolonial burdens that are intuitively hoarded by great powers grown increasingly suspicious of one another. And if you know your history, that should make you nervous.

=Solvency=
 * Contention 4 is Solvency:**


 * Federal regulations __prevent__ other actors from solving – only federal action to streamline the process and increase funding solves**
 * Anderson, 11** – Chief Executive Officer of the Jacksonville Port Authority (JAXPORT) (A. Paul, “testimony of A. Paul Anderson Chief Executive Officer of the Jacksonville Port Authority (JAXPORT) for the Record of the united States House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment Hearing: “The Economic Importance of Seaports: Is the United States Prepared for 21st Century Trade Realities?””, October 26, 2011, [|http://republicans.transportation.house.gov/Media/file/TestimonyWater/2011-10-26%20Anderson.pdf][|)//MM]

With increasingly larger ships calling the East Coast, it is now more crucial than ever for the United States to invest in its gateway infrastructure. This call for federal investment should come as no surprise. Improving our nation’s waterways for navigation and security harkens back to the birth of our country, when General George Washington assigned such missions to the Continental Army. [7] In the U.S. Constitution, Congress is charged with the task of regulating commerce in Article I, Section 8. Yet, the full authorized depths and widths of U.S. waterway navigation channels are available only 35 percent of the time. [8] Harbor projects take an average of 12 years to complete. The Corps’ cumbersome review procedures are not consistent with the President’s initiative to reduce red tape and streamline preconstruction federal review procedures for major infrastructure “jobs creating” projects. The President’s Aug. 31 directive to five federal agencies <span style="font-family: 'Cambria Math','serif';">‐ Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Interior and Transportation <span style="font-family: 'Cambria Math','serif';">‐ called for identification of high priority infrastructure projects for expedited review. This expedited review initiative should be extended to the Army Corps. Additionally, Independent Peer Review – a procedure required by Sec. 2034 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 – should not be applied to Corps studies begun prior to the two year period preceding enactment of the law, as expressly stated in Sec. 2034 (h). //<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">Because of procedural delay, // most East Coast ports //<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">are not authorized // to dredge to deep<span style="font-family: 'Cambria Math','serif';">‐ draftrequirements. Harbor project sponsors attempt to wade through the muddied and shifting approval, authorization and appropriation process, and changing requirements are making it increasingly difficult to move forward with these critical projects. In Jacksonville, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recently added an additional level of review by requiring “Harbor Sym modeling” for our city’s deep draft navigation project. This new requirement has not been applied to previous deep draft projects, will increase costs to the federal government and the Jacksonville Port Authority, and will extend the timeline for completion of the project by one year. Any business leader assessing the current situation would quickly determine our country’s process for prioritizing, approving and funding critical infrastructure projects is //<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">fundamentally broken //.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">The federal government is key – port infrastructure is under __federal jurisdiction__ and federal action is vital to __leadership__ **
 * AAPA, 11** - AAPA represents 160 of the leading seaport authorities in the United States, Canada, Latin America and the Caribbean and more than 300 sustaining and associate members, firms and individuals with an interest in seaports (American Association of Port Authorities, “The U.S. Government’s Historic Role in Developing and Maintaining Landside and Waterside Connections to Seaports”, March 2011, [|http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/Transportation%20and%20the%20Constitution1.pdf)//GP]

Over time these constitutional responsibilities have been further defined and __our Constitution has formed the basis for the U.S. government to play a significant role in our nation’s transportation and infrastructure system__. As established in the timeline on page 2, over the years the leaders of our country saw that it was in the national interest to ensure that our ports, waterways, railways and highways benefited from federal oversight and support. For four centuries, beginning with the founding of the Jamestown colony, seaports have served as a vital economic lifeline for America by bringing goods and services to people, creating economic activity and enhancing the overall quality of life. Seaports continue to be the critical link for access to the global marketplace here in the United States handling more than 99 percent of cargoes. __Maintaining our national infrastructure that supports foreign and interstate commerce is__ not only __a federal responsibility__ but is in the national interest as established by our forefathers. In fact, improving waterways and coastal ports for navigation and national security is__the most federal of infrastructure responsibilities__, dating to the early missions assigned the Continental Army by then General George Washington. In Federalist Paper #42 written by James Madison, a case is made that the powers conferred by the Constitution for regulating commerce and establishing post roads are essential. He wrote: “Nothing which tends to facilitate the intercourse between the States can be deemed unworthy of the public care.” Back to Basics In these times of a tightening Federal Budget, as Congress and the Administration take on the task of prioritizing expenditures, we need to identify and prioritize core federal missions that are in the national interest and help to revitalize our economy. Modern, navigable seaports are vitalto international commerce and economic prosperity. For this to be a reality, Federal government investment is needed to maintain and strengthen our nation’s infrastructure that supports foreign and interstate commerce— the underpinnings of our economic security. These are wise investments that pay dividends immediately and over time, and form the backbone of our economy and society at large. Investments in port infrastructure are multipliers, as they create infrastructure that allows long-term job creation,//positioning the United States as a leader// __in international trade and commerce__. Waterways Pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress, by statute, has reserved jurisdiction over navigable waters for the federal government, which can determine how the waters are used, by whom, and under what conditions. As a result, the federal government takes the lead in building, maintaining, and operating the nation’s navigation channels. Authority to construct and maintain navigation projects on behalf of the United States was granted to the Corps of Engineers in the General Survey Act of 1824. In 1826, Congress passed the first Rivers and Harbors Act and provided funds to the Corps to make specific navigation improvements to the Ohio, Mississippi, and Missouri Rivers. Congress has continued to appropriate funds for specific navigation projects and the Corps has played a dual role by assessing, as well as implementing, needed projects in federal navigation channels. In 1899, Congress enacted the Rivers and Harbors Act, which makes it unlawful to undertake any modifications of navigable water channels unless authorized by the Secretary of the Army on the recommendation of the Corps of Engineers. It is well established that __the Commerce Clause is the basis for__ //exclusive federal jurisdiction// __over navigable waterways__. __The__ landmark United States __Supreme Court__ case of Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824) __found that navigation of vessels in and out of__ the __ports__ of the nation __is a form of interstate commerce and that__ //federal law takes precedence//. Federal authority over navigable waterways has been repeatedly affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Highways and Intermodal Connectors With interstate commerce and connectivity as the impetus, the federal role in ensuring a contiguous system of roads spanning the states has been implicit in our federal government since the writing of the Constitution. These powers were granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution by the clauses describing the regulation of commerce with foreign nations and among the several states …” and the responsibility “to establish Post Offices and Post Roads.” As the timeline illustrates, since the founding of this great nation, our most visionary leaders have engaged in national infrastructure initiatives. The highway system as we know it today was largely borne out of the 1939 Bureau of Public Roads report commissioned by Franklin Delano Roosevelt titled Toll Roads and Free Roads, which proposed a map of a transcontinental national superhighway system. This led to President Eisenhower’s Federal-Aid Highway of 1956 and subsequent development of the Interstate System. Without the federal role in planning, coordinating and providing funding, our current system of inter-regional highways would not have been possible. Today, this federal responsibility continues through the surface transportation programs funded largely by federal gas taxes. Highways, arterials and secondary roads that are identified as being important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility are classified as part of the National Highway System (NHS) and are eligible for federal funds through the federal-aid program. Road infrastructure that accesses major intermodal terminals, including seaports, are designated NHS connectors by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). While accounting for less than one percent of total NHS mileage, this important infrastructure represents a critical link in the goods movement value chain, carrying truck traffic between transportation modes and to the broader network of the interstate system. According to the Federal Highway Administration, of the 616 total defined NHS intermodal connectors, 253 are connected to ocean and river ports. Of the 1,222 total miles defined as part of the NHS intermodal connectors, 532 miles are port-related infrastructure. Unfortunately, these roads are often inadequate and in poor condition, plagued by inadequate turning radii and shoulder deficiencies and have been found to have twice the percentage of mileage with pavement deficiencies when compared to non-interstate NHS routes according to a study conducted by USDOT. States and MPOs have traditionally assigned freight-focused projects a low priority when compared with passenger-related improvements. Due to their freight-focused nature, NHS connectors generally do not fare well in project selection within the State and MPO planning processes. This critical infrastructure is more important than ever as our nation rebuilds the economy and creates jobs by expanding commerce through free trade agreements and increasing America’s exports and international competitiveness. These roads are key pieces of our connection to the world marketplace. In addition to their national economic importance, NHS Intermodal connectors are vital to defense mobilization and national security. With the military's increasing reliance on strategic ports and commercial trucking for mobility, intermodal connectors are critical to national defense planning. Given the reliance of our national economy and defense on intermodal connectors, __it is important that the federal government remain engaged in identifying, prioritizing and funding improvements to this critical infrastructure____which has__ //languished when dependent upon State and local planning processes.// Summary From the earliest days of our nation, there has been a clear and__consistent federal role and national interest in developing and maintaining landside and waterside connections to America’s seaports__. This vital transportation infrastructure literally connects American farmers, manufacturers and consumers to the world marketplace. More than a quarter of U.S. GDP and over 13 million jobs are accounted for by international trade. Especially in challenging fiscal times like today, it is critical that basic, core federal missions such as these, that directly impact America’s economic vitality, jobs, and global competitiveness, be recognized and prioritized.


 * Federal leadership is vital to expediting new projects and coordinating federal agencies – it creates faster infrastructure development**
 * Woodley Jr. 8**— Chairman – PIANC (Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses) USA (John Paul, “Dredging key to keeping nation’s economy afloat”, Seaports Magazine, [], Summer) EL

Like many nations, __the United States will be challenged over the next decade to be able to accommodate the projected rapid increases in trade at its harbors.____The United States is moving toward an adequate channel infrastructure to handle the larger containerships now being introduced into the world fleet,__ but __in order to handle them we need to: • Provide a reliable funding stream to complete ongoing channel construction projects__ on optimal schedules; • __Work toward consensus between government agencies at all levels and with stakeholders on how to move forward on critical authorized or ongoing channel improvements;__ • __Streamline the project study, design and authorization process to the extent possible; • Work with state and local port authorities to move quickly to add additional landside cargo-handling facilities and to improve intermodal connections__ ; and • Explore opportunities for short-sea shipping to minimize the overland move and reduce highway and rail congestion. __I submit that the United States needs to be working toward a national commitment to create and maintain a network of harbors equal to or better than any other nation’s__. To reach this goal, __we should consider establishing multiyear funding streams and project authorizations__ determined at least three to five years out to enable all stakeholders to plan and react accordingly. Finally, __we need a visionary leadership process to balance all multiple demands on use of water.If the Army Corps of Engineers, other federal agencies, states, local governments and the nongovernment sector communicate the state of the nation’s infrastructure to the Congress, we could see a renewed emphasis__. Collaboration is key to accomplish this goal – collaboration to modernize our harbors and bring them up to 21st century needs, to deliver environmentally sustainable solutions, and to work alongside other water interests, including government and nongovernment organizations. There are opportunities to change the way we do business, save valuable resources and improve our performance. Together, we can ensure our water transportation systems continue to be our trade window to the world. In so doing, __we will do our part to keep America’s economy strong for generations to come.__


 * Ports are upgrading docks and landside transportation infrastructure – solves their alt causes and supply chains– the plan is key to dredge a sufficient number of ports**
 * AP, 2012** by RUSS BYNUM and BRUCE SMITH (“Charleston and other Southeast, Gulf port cities need deeper waterways; Corps of Engineers,” 6/22/12, http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120622/PC05/120629718/1010/charleston-and-other-southeast-gulf-port-cities-need-deeper-waterways-corps-of-engineers)//AM

__The deepening projects singled out by the Army Corps represent just a fraction of the money U.S. ports are spending to upgrade their docks, ship-to-shore cranes and other infrastructure. The American Association of Port Authorities released a survey last week showing U.S. ports plan to spend at least $46 billion on improvements in the next five years.__ Still, the Corps’ report cautioned that “uncertainty will persist” for several years after the Panama Canal expansion is finished as to how many supersized ships will call on U.S. ports, which ones they’ll frequent and how full their cargo decks will be. Giant ships sailing through Egypt’s Suez Canal have already begun making trips to the East Coast, where high tides give them enough of a boost to reach ports such as Savannah and Charleston. __The budget crisis has made federal funding for port projects extremely tight,__ especially __since Congress and__ President Barack __Obama__ for the past two years __have sworn off__ so-called __“earmark” spending that was used to fund such projects in the past__. __The Army Corps report said current funding levels for port improvements won’t cover all the projects that should be done__. If Congress won’t increase the agency’s funding for harbor projects, the report said, then perhaps state governments and private companies such as shipping lines should be required to pay a greater share.

=__**Neg**__=

2NR strats yo, as far as i can remember:


 * Inherency against dredging
 * Oil DA and case against HTF
 * JV ptx and case against Alaska Ports
 * T-vehicles against Title XI
 * Oil DA and case against Title XI (x3)