House Passes WRDA
The House passed the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 on Sept. 28, sending the legislation (here) to conference after the Senate passed its version of the bill on Sept. 15 (see 1609150071). The House version differs from the Senate version in the treatment of the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT), among other things. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee didn’t comment. The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) called for a speedy resolution of the differences "We urge the Senate and the House to reach agreement as quickly as possible on a final bill, enabling the federal government to uphold its end of the partnership by authorizing badly needed investments to waterside connections with seaports.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Discrepancies also exist with regard to “donor port” language between the two versions of legislation. The House bill requires all donor ports, which are large ports that contribute higher amounts to yearly HMT revenues than other ports, to compete for $25 million in available HMT funds, a congressional staffer said. The Senate bill splits that $25 million into two pots. One pot is $12.5 million that the original six donor ports compete for (ports of Long Beach, Calif., Los Angeles, Miami, New York/New Jersey, Seattle and Tacoma, Wash.). The second pot is $12.5 million that those six and three donor ports proposed in the House legislation (Port Hueneme, Calif., Everglades, Fla., and San Diego) would compete for, the staffer said. This means the Senate provision would make more money available for the traditional six donor ports than the House version.