House lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree: America's ports and harbors are in need of dredging, expansion and other basic maintenance and improvements in order to remain competitive.

And the money is there -- sort of. Trouble is, those who control the purse strings don't want to spend it.

Of all the money that pours into a federal trust fund intended to pay for port and harbor maintenance -- about $1.5 billion annually, the proceeds of a 0.125 percent ad valorem tax on goods that imports that arrive on U.S. docks -- only about half is spent. That results in an accumulated $6 billion balance, enough to pay for all needed work several times over.

But that balance, like so many these days, exists only on paper. In a budgetary gimmick, the half that does not get spent each year has long been used to offset federal spending elsewhere.

House Republicans and Democrats this week showed they are divided about how best to solve the problem. On one hand, lawmakers have rallied around a bipartisan bill (H.R. 104) introduced by Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) -- the "Restore America's Maritime Promise Act," or RAMP Act -- that would require that the full amount of money collected each year for harbor maintenance be spent on just that.

But Democrats, including one key subcommittee leader who signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill, say the bill alone is not enough.

Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.), ranking member on the Transportation Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment, says the federal spending reduction targets established earlier this year as part of the deal to raise the federal debt limit essentially mandate that if appropriators spend more money on harbors, they must spend less money elsewhere.

Specifically, Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) would have to allow for the total amount spent on energy and water issues -- the so-called 302(b) allocation for energy and water appropriations -- to increase by the amount of the additional ports spending, Bishop said. Or another expenditure within the bill would have to be reduced, he said.

"Easier said than done," Bishop said in an interview yesterday. "There are some really important programs that are funded out of energy and water, which has already taken a hit. It's easy to say we'll reduce all the other accounts by $700 million, but in actual implementation, that's a pretty steep hill to climb."

But Boustany argues that the RAMP Act is sufficient to ensure the money gets spent in full, as intended. His spokesman, Jeff Dobrozsi, said the Louisiana congressman is not only pushing the bill but also simultaneously pressing appropriators to use their authority to increase harbor maintenance funding.

"Congressman Boustany would love to pass the RAMP Act, but we also recognize the political reality," said Dobrozsi. "In lieu of that, we're taking a dual course of pushing the RAMP Act and speaking with the Appropriations Committee about the need to increase funding in our bill."

Republicans this week held a hearing of the water resources subcommittee to call attention to port and dredging issues, noting that the maintenance and expansions are long overdue and needed now more than ever.

"I am a fiscal conservative, but I still believe it is necessary to invest in America's transportation infrastructure to stimulate the economy and keep it strong," said Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), chairman of the subcommittee. "Unlike a lot of government spending, investing in transportation provides a positive return on investment."

But Bishop said more action is needed.

"We have heard from witness after witness about the importance of maintaining our waterway transportation system," Bishop said. "I get it, and I think we all agree that more needs to be done. The problem that I am struggling with is how we meet the needs under the present constraints that we are operating under."

2012 spending

The Army Corps, which administers the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, has already absorbed massive budget cuts and now faces $2 billion in flood recovery work for which it does not currently have the money. Both the House and Senate also are pushing 2012 spending proposals that would roll back Army Corps civil works spending even further -- to 2005 levels.

Bishop wants Gibbs to help lead an effort to engage appropriators on where the funding could come from or whether the total allocation could be increased.

But Gibbs, who called the hearing, criticized what he deemed President Obama's misplaced spending priorities, noting that the administration requested $280 million in the Army Corps budget for construction of new navigation projects -- about half of what was requested for environmental restoration, one of several Army Corps mandates.

Assistant Secretary of the Army Jo Ellen Darcy, who oversees the Army Corps civil works program, called the level of harbor maintenance spending "appropriate," given the spending constraints an the agency's many other priorities under the civil works program, which include navigation, flood protection, environmental restoration and hydropower, among others.

In response to Republican allegations that environmental restoration provided "little to no" economic benefits, Bishop noted that economists project that restoration of the Everglades -- which accounts for more than half the Army Corps' ecosystem restoration expenditures this year and enjoys strong support from even staunch Republicans, such as Florida's Rep. Allen West and Sen. Marco Rubio -- is predicted to generate 440,000 jobs.

Darcy agreed. "There is economic activity that results from restoration activity," she said.

Bishop urged the subcommittee to provide appropriators with a list of spending priorities to help determine where spending could be reduced.

"If we're really serious about this, which I think we all are, then we have to write an energy and water appropriations bill that spends the money," Bishop said. "I hope we have some means of doing that with the energy and water appropriators that are our colleagues, so we can move beyond the stage where we're all complaining."

Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) was more aggressive in her criticism of subcommittee Republicans for not putting forward a legislative solution that would both increase spending on ports maintenance and infrastructure while meeting party leaders' goals for reducing federal spending.

"We're just talking about it. We're just moaning and groaning," she bellowed. "You control the House! You control the votes! Put your bill on the floor! Bring it to the committee!"

Port problems

Only two of the nation's top 10 ports are dredged to their authorized depths and widths. Record flooding this year worsened silting in of many waterways. And a major enlargement of the Panama Canal is scheduled to be completed in 2014 that many believe could usher the next generation of supertankers to the Eastern seaboard -- provided ports are deep and large enough to welcome them. So far, only one is: the Port of Virginia in Norfolk.

During the hearing, port officials and waterways industry leaders testifying painted a grim picture of U.S. readiness for future maritime trade: As ships grow larger and the Panama Canal undergoes a major enlargement, U.S. ports remain largely unchanged. Navigation channels are silting in. Canada and Mexico are investing in port and transportation infrastructure in a bid to steal imports from U.S. ports, in part by luring importers who hope to dodge the U.S. ad valorem import tax.

Bureaucratic red tape and start-and-stop federal funding means that, for timelines of port expansion projects, "the new norm is decades with costs rising with each delay," said Jerry Bridges, chairman of the board of the American Association of Port Authorities and executive director of the Virginia Port Authority.

Finally, new trade agreements with Korea, Panama and Colombia as estimates that the U.S. population will grow by 100 million people -- 30 percent -- by 2050, portend an even greater need for expansion, said industry officials.

The problems are the same ones the industry has complained about for 10 years, said Peter Peyton, president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Marine Clerks Association.

"How do we compete," asked Peyton, "if we don't look at the problems that we've been looking at for 10 years that we haven't been able to come up with answers for?"