|
In Depth / Perspective LB Chamber Urges Governor To Veto Lowenthal Container Fee Bill
(Sept. 11, 2006) -- The LB Area Chamber of Commerce has sent an email advocacy alert urging recipients to "help stop another tax" by urging Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto SB 927 by State Senator Alan Lowenthal that would require cargo container shippers to pay a fee on containers brought into the Ports of LB and L.A. Revenue generated by the container fee would be used for port security, clean air projects (via the CA Air Resources Board) and port rail projects (via the CA Transportation Comm'n).
In its email alert [text in full below], the LB Chamber contends the bill "facially discriminates against interstate and foreign commerce" and "violates the federal constitution."
The Lowenthal container fee measure is supported by the City of Long Beach via a unanimous 2005 vote of its City Council. The governing board of Downtown Long Beach Associates has also voted to support the measure.
The Port of LB is publicly neutral on the Lowenthal container fee bill...but the "California Association of Port Authorities" -- an entity in which the Ports of LB and L.A. are both members [and presumably payg some type of dues with public money] -- opposes the measure. The bill is also opposed by the "California Trade Coalition" --- a private group which lists the "CA Ass'n of Port Authorities" among groups on its letterhead -- and by the CA Chamber of Commerce.
For the record, we post the text of the LB Area Chamber's email alert in opposition below:
Sept. 10, 2006
Today the Chamber reiterated their opposition to SB 927 (Lowenthal) by urging Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto the bill. The Long Beach business community is actively committed to finding meaningful solutions to congestion relief, improving security and reducing pollution at California’s ports, however, we respectfully oppose this illegal cargo tax that would be foisted on our customers and then collected by the landlord Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.
SB 927 would impose an annual tax of over $500 million on California’s supply chain. This container tax of $30 per twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) is payable to the port by the cargo-owner customers of the marine terminal operators and ocean carriers processing these containers. We are proud to be a part of a private marketplace that already pays $800 million a year in true user fees to the ports for rail facilities, security projects at the ports, and the most aggressive port-directed air quality control programs in the world. However, this is not a user fee assessed by the ports, and the true cost of this tax will quickly be passed on to consumers.
Moreover, the proposed tax facially discriminates against interstate and foreign commerce, violates the federal Constitution, is disallowed by the United States’ current obligations under international trade agreements, and is contrary to the rulings of the California Supreme Court which ruled these "fees" as "virtually per se invalid" (see PMSA v. Voss, 12 Cal.4th 503(1995)).
By taking this stand, the Chamber joins the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, and the California Chamber of Commerce in seeking the defeat of SB 927.
[The email alert includes a sample letter, text below]
Hon. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor, State of California
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 927 (Lowenthal) -- Request for Veto
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
I am writing to express my opposition to SB 927 (Lowenthal). As you are well aware, the Long Beach business community is committed to finding meaningful solutions to congestion relief, improving security and reducing pollution at California’s ports. However, I respectfully oppose this illegal cargo tax that would be foisted on our customers and then collected by the landlord Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.
SB 927 would impose an annual tax of over $500 million on California’s supply chain. This container tax of $30 per twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) is payable to the port by the cargo-owner customers of the marine terminal operators and ocean carriers processing these containers. I am proud to be a part of a private marketplace that already pays $800 million a year in true user fees to the ports for rail facilities, security projects at the ports, and the most aggressive port-directed air quality control programs in the world. However, this is not a user fee assessed by the ports, and the true cost of this tax will quickly be passed on to consumers.
Moreover, the proposed tax facially discriminates against interstate and foreign commerce, violates the federal Constitution, is disallowed by the United States’ current obligations under international trade agreements, and is contrary to the rulings of the California Supreme Court which ruled these "fees" as "virtually per se invalid" (see PMSA v. Voss, 12 Cal.4th 503(1995)).
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Perspective
In August 2005, the Port of Long Beach's senior Washington, D.C. lobbyist publicly reported to LB's Board of Harbor Commissioners that his office helped kill federal legislation by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R., HB-LB-PV) [whose district includes the Ports of LB-L.A.] clearly allowing ports nationally to levy container fees for security purposes.
That legislation could have neutralized some of federal issues now cited by opponents of the Lowenthal container fee bill.
A day later, the Port's lobbyist -- who also represents the City of LB's on DC advocacy matters under a separate contract -- reiterated the Port's position to the LB City Council. [details below]
The admission by the Port of LB's lobbyist that he had helped defeat the Rohrabacher bill was newsworthy and remarkable. Among other things, to our knowledge the Port of LB's governing "Board of Harbor Commissioners" hadn't previously agendize the issue of the Rohrabacher legislation, or publicly discussed it, or taken an open, public vote on the issue. We are quite certain that the Port's lobbyist didn't invent the position on his own...and we presume he must have acted on instructions conveyed to him by the Port.
The fact that the City of Long Beach failed to support the Rohrabacher measure -- which increased local control (a stated city policy) -- was likewise noteworthy. The City of Long Beach, which could and should have been part of the national debate on this matter, kept silent...while the Port quietly used its lobbying resources to help defeat the measure.
Defeating the Rohrabacher measure has effectively strengthened the hand of industry opponents of the Lowenthal bill -- legislation publicly endorsed by the City of Long Beach. In other words, what happened then is directly affecting what's happening now. Accordingly, LBReport.com re-posts below some of our detailed prior coverage on this matter.
[begin detailed background coverage]
 On August 8, 2005, the Port of LB's senior Washington, D.C. lobbyist, E. Del Smith, publicly indicated to LB's Board of Harbor Commissioners that he had helped defeat legislation, authored by LB area Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R., HB-LB-PV), that would have neutralized problematic federal arguments to local port authorities levying a security-related fee on containers.
"There has been an effort to increase container fees, a piece of legislation that we helped defeat just recently," Mr. Smith reported.
 Mr. Smith's remarkable statement drew no public response from Harbor Commissioners. To our knowledge, the Port's non-elected (Mayor chosen, Council approved) governing body had not previously agendized, or publicly discussed or publicly voted to oppose the legislation.
Congressman Rohrabacher, whose district includes the Ports of LB and L.A., had for a second time introduced a bill (HR 494) to add verbiage to an existing federal law that lets non-federal interests (Ports) levy harbor fees for specified purposes. Rohrabacher's legislation would have permitted, but not required, Ports to put fees on containers fees to help fund infrastructure and security items, arguably easing the cost for taxpayers.
On August 9, one day after LBReport.com reported that Port lobbyist Smith took credit for helping kill the bill, he reiterated and defended that position before the LB City Council. City management, with Council approval, also retains Smith to advocate the City's interests in Washington, D.C.
The Rohrabacher container fee measure would have neutralized a number of problematic federal legal issues regarding a state container fee bill (SB 760 by State Senator Alan Lowenthal). The LB City Council had endorsed Lowenthal's bill...and revenue from it would be used in part for port security purposes. Killing Rohrabacher's bill also ran counter to City Hall's frequently stated principle of local control (it would have increased local control by enabling a locally-decided security related container fee).
8th district Councilwoman Rae Gabelich raised these matters with lobbyist Smith:
Councilwoman Rae Gabelich: [to Mr. Smith]...You reportedly said yesterday in your presentation to the Harbor Commission, that "there has been an effort to increase container fees, a piece of legislation that we helped defeat just recently." Yet that was part of the 710 Oversight Recommendations to use those fees for local environmental protection. And so my question to you is how can you serve two masters? How do you decide when you go to represent a bill, whose position takes priority?
Mr. Smith: ...Our job is to work with the feasibility of a bill that we have found or been directed to execute. No conflict of interest between the Port and the City. We helped defeat the bill because the bill was ill-drafted. It was never gonna pass because it would have had to have the concurrence of all the seaports in the United States. There are already 125 fees on port already, taxes, the Congress would have never allowed this.
And most of all, we were concerned in our office that, forget the Port and the City, the state of California would have feasibly been able to dip down, levy a fee on a container and take the money back to Sacramento.
And it was with those factors that we joined the Port industry in defeating the bill. I'm hoping this answers your question, perhaps it doesn't.
...
Mr. Smith: [after intervening colloquy]...I want you to hear from my colleague Sante Esposito who of course used to be with the Committee of Congress and wrote these bills...
Mr. Esposito: In legislation the devil's in the details and Del is absolutely right. This particular issue was opposed by the administration, opposed by OMB, opposed by the American Port Association and opposed by the authorizing committee. The proposal would have imposed a fee but then made that money available to the states to decide how they wanted to spend it and I don't think that's what any port wants to have happen.
That doesn't necessarily mean that the container fee issue, approached in a different way, wouldn't work but this particular proposal would not work, and it was defeated in two Congresses overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis.
Councilwoman Gabelich: You understand that the issue is that we've got to protect the communities that line the freeways that serve the Port and there isn't any money. So we have to find a way to do that, and so maybe with your help we can put something better together...
A month earlier, without audible or visible support from the City of Long Beach, and with the quiet opposition of the Port of LB's lobbyists, the Rohrabacher bill reached the House floor. It held the key to removing federal impediments to the city-supported Lowenthal bill. It failed on a 111-310 vote.
Among local members of Congress, Ed Royce (R., El Dorado-OC) and Loretta Sanchez (OC) voted "yes;" Juanita Millender-McDonald (D., Carson-LB) and Linda Sanchez (D., Lakewood) voted "no."
Below, from the Congressional Record are some excerpts of what took place on the House floor:
Congressional Record, House of Representatives, July 14, 2005
Mr. ROHRABACHER ...I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 2864 that will expand the scope of section 208 in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. My amendment will allow our ports to levy a fee on containers and use that fee to pay for security and infrastructure at the ports.
The Rohrabacher amendment will facilitate the effort to modernize and secure American ports. In my district, the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles handle approximately 44 percent of all of the goods delivered to American shores, yet they are in constant need of revenue for facilities, improvements and upgrades to roads and bridges and rails.
Our marine terminals are invaluable commerce infrastructure, not only to our country but also for the many foreign manufacturers who sell primarily in the U.S. market. This is the portal through which foreign manufacturers deliver their goods to our markets. Yet these manufacturers provide almost none of the costs of operation or upkeep of these vital assets. This system, as it currently operates, is a subsidy to foreign manufacturers, paid by the American taxpayer, concealing the true cost of
imported goods. What we have here is all backwards. What we are in effect doing, as the system works, is putting a tariff on products that are made in America.
Section 208 of WRDA currently allows ports to charge fees on tonnage and use those fees to fund infrastructure improvements. This section is hardly, if ever, invoked by the ports to raise funds due to the fact that it is complicated to collect and tends to be too unwieldy to be used effectively.
My amendment allows the ports to use a simpler and more efficient method: Fees on containers. The market-based fee in my amendment is simple to implement and to track, should be more widely used to raise funds for port projects. My amendment will also permit these fees to be used for homeland security projects at the ports, as well as infrastructure.
And let us be frank, the security threats that emanate from our ports come from foreign cargo. Why are we paying for their threat? If they want access to our markets, overseas manufacturers should pay the cost to ensure the safety of their deliveries. For too long the funding of marine terminals has been a one-way street with the American taxpayer footing the bill for the factory owners of Shanghai, Beijing and Macau while American manufacturers have been subsidizing their own competition.
Our port facilities should have the freedom to levy a market-based container fee which will provide new revenue and make our system more equitable to the American taxpayer and American manufacturers. The Rohrabacher amendment is the most efficient way to achieve these goals. The Rohrabacher amendment says we are on the side of the American taxpayer, and those people who run overseas to manufacture in China and elsewhere should be paying their part of the cost to make sure that that system, our
port system, is working.
I would expect that people on both sides of the aisle would be supporting this. Unfortunately, our port systems, our ports, the people who run them, would rather come to the American taxpayer and get stipends from us rather than asking for a just fee to those manufacturers in China to pay for some of the costs that are required to ship their goods through our ports.
This is an American versus foreign vote here. Whose side are we on? Who is going to pay the bill? Right now if our people go overseas and build their manufacturing plants, we end up subsidizing that by permitting them low-cost ways of getting their goods right into our market and undercutting the American producers who stayed behind to hire American people.
I would ask people on both sides of the aisle to seriously consider this. Do not listen to the ports who simply want more taxpayer subsidies. Let us let the people who use this system, the foreign manufacturers, pay their fair share.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from California is one of the best friends I have in this Congress, and I certainly have great admiration and respect for him, and I sympathize with everything that he has just said; but I must regretfully state the position of the committee at this point, which is in opposition to this amendment.
The civil works program of the Army Corps of Engineers provides Federal assistance for dredging entrance channels and harbors and the Department of Homeland Security now offers grants for security projects.
But, generally, capital improvements to port infrastructure are a non-Federal responsibility. The gentleman's amendment would permit a non-Federal interest, which could be the port authority or the State generally, to collect a fee per container that moves through the harbor and to use those funds for security purposes or for infrastructure projects within the port or any transportation infrastructure outside the harbor.
First, if the goal is to help ports, this amendment is unnecessary. Ports can already charge fees for services under the authority of section 208 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, which they can use to help them with the cost of security and port infrastructure.
Second, this amendment goes too far by allowing the collected funds to be used for transportation projects outside the port. This could mean potentially a State fee paid by shippers of containers at ports being used to pay for highway and rail projects elsewhere in the State. This is why the American Association of Port Authorities and even the gentleman's home port of LA/Long Beach oppose this amendment.
The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing on this bill in November 2003. The American Association of Port Authorities, the Waterfront Coalition, and the World Shipping Council all testified in opposition to this proposal.
This amendment is the same as the amendment the gentleman from California brought to the House floor last Congress. It was defeated by a vote of 359-65. The committee believes that the ports can and should charge whatever fees they believe are necessary to cover their security needs and infrastructure projects. They have the authority to do that now, and Congress should not dictate how they make this business decision.
I can assure the gentleman that I would like to work with him on some of the broader section 208 issues to see if we can better address his very legitimate concerns. We certainly sympathize with the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment is well-intentioned, but at this point the committee position is to urge our colleagues to oppose this amendment.
...[A number of Congressmembers speak in opposition to the bill]...
Mr. ROHRABACHER . Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The establishment has set up a system that we have built a Frankenstein monster in China by ensuring that jobs and manufacturing are going to China. I do not know why that is, I think that was a horrible decision, but it is time for us to start backing away from that policy. The most important way to start backing away from the policy of taking American jobs and shipping them to China, building the economic strength of China, the first step to take is to make sure that those people who go to
China to manufacture are paying the cost of shipping their goods into America's markets rather than having the taxpayer provide that for them at the expense of our own manufacturers.
I would ask people on both sides of the aisle, let us turn around this policy, change the basic policy on China, vote ``yes'' on the Rohrabacher amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher ).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. ROHRABACHER . Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote...
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 376(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
H R 2864 RECORDED VOTE 14-Jul-2005 2:11 PM
AUTHOR(S): Rohrabacher of California Amendment
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Amendment
|
|
|
|
|
| Republican |
57 |
167 |
|
6 |
| Democratic |
53 |
143 |
|
6 |
| Independent |
1 |
|
|
|
|
111 |
310 |
|
12 |
---- AYES 111 ---
Abercrombie
Akin
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bono
Brown (OH)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Case
Coble
Costa
Costello
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Emerson
Engel
Evans
Farr
Flake
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Green (WI)
|
Gutknecht
Harman
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Herseth
Hinchey
Hooley
Hostettler
Hunter
Issa
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
King (IA)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lungren, Daniel E.
Maloney
Marshall
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Mica
Moore (WI)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
|
Napolitano
Olver
Otter
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Renzi
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Sherman
Sherwood
Shuster
Slaughter
Sodrel
Stearns
Strickland
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Walsh
Watt
Wilson (SC)
|
---- NOES 310 ---
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
|
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hensarling
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
|
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sánchez, Linda T.
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
|
---- NOT VOTING 12 ---
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Cubin
|
Cunningham
Gallegly
Kilpatrick (MI)
McIntyre
|
Miller (FL)
Oberstar
Platts
Young (FL)
|
In a March 3, 2006 freewheeling telephone interview with Congressman Rohrabacher, LBReport.com asked about the Port of LB's opposition to container fees for security, reflected by an August 2005 boast by PoLB's DC lobbyist that he'd helped killed Rohrabacher's container fee legislation. Speaking extemporaneously on a cell phone while in motion, Congressman Rohrabacher said bluntly:
"It's pretty grotesque. This is the Ports beating themselves in the head with a hammer and then bragging about it. I mean it's insane." He continued:
Cong. Rohrabacher: ...[T]here's a tremendous arrogance in the Ports, and in Long Beach and in Los Angeles in those people involved around the Ports, and when you have arrogance coupled with basically naivete, it's really a very destructive force.
And that's what you've got here. They're involved in a powerful dynamic in our society, the ports. This is an incredibly powerful dynamic, but they are nowhere near as sophisticated as they think they are. And in fact, their parochialism would be funny if it wasn't so destructive, and their opposition to the container fee idea is the best example of that.
However, if you have a good idea and you keep pushing it, and you are someone who doesn't mind being put down for a number of years until people realize that you are right, it's OK.
[end previous coverage]
LBReport.com will report the Governor's action on the Lowenthal container fee measure when news breaks. Check our front page (www.lbreport.com) for FLASH updates and detailed coverage.
Return To Front Page
Contact us: mail@LBReport.com
|
Alford's English Gardens Beautifies Area Homes. Learn More, Click Here
 Mike & Kathie Kowal know Los Cerritos, Bixby Knolls, Cal Hts. and beyond. Click to learn more
DrainPros: Unclog Drains + Full Service Plumbing, Locally Owned Pros. Info, Click Here
Wedding Entertainment Planning Is His Specialty. Bill Lovelace Delivers Personalized, Wedding Event Services. Get Info, Click Here
Preserve Your Family's Most Precious Photos and Videos on DVD. Click For Info
Carter Wood Floors, a LB company, will restore your wood floor or install a new one. Enhance your home. Click pic.
|
