A87 
any user fees are necessary, but if you decide that one is indicated 
we certainly want to talk about how it is applied. 
Mr. PRITCHARD. I am not surprised at your answer. I think it was 
good to get it on the record. 
I think sometimes, however, about—how you balance out where 
you do some dredging. It is very easy to do some dredging in some 
areas, and the question is—whether the investment really makes 
sense or whether it becomes the pet project of some Congressman 
to look good and turn the heat on the corps. We can end up dredg- 
ing something that is really questionable in some cases. If some re- 
sponsiblity and some, even if it is very slight, of the cost were 
shared, I think it would result in a little more rational decisions on 
dredging for some of these ports. 
I know that I might be accused of having a narrow interest since 
I come from Seattle and Everett, and, of course, we have very deep 
water ports which we don’t dredge. 
I am just saying that I think there are some arguments the other 
way, and I would hope that we would be prudent and reasonable. 
Certainly these areas must be kept open. In the final analysis, you 
know, it has to be paid by the goods that go through the portal. 
Mr. Brinson. Mr. Pritchard, we certainly agree and we are on 
record as saying that we think there should be some sharing of cost 
between the Federal Government, although there is a Federal in- 
terest factor that is constant. 
We think there should be a sharing of the cost on projects deeper 
than 45 feet. Clearly the public interest begins to diminish in favor 
of four and four direct use beneficiaries. That is cost sharing and 
we realize that that certainly is indicated. 
Our problem though, sir, is that we have a proposed layering of 
user fees all of which impact on the flow of commerce in this coun- 
try and there seems to be no sensitivity whatsoever, particularly 
among the executive agencies to identifying the cumulative im- 
pacts of these various initiatives. 
I can cite for you, sir, five user fee proposals that right now, if 
implemented, would individually impact on a ton of cargo. 
Now the question is at what point in time does it become impos- 
sible economically and feasibly for this cargo to move so we say the 
entire user fee initiative should be looked at in the aggregate and 
that the Federal interest be identified and be paramount in consid- 
eration. 
Mr. PritcHARD. Well, obviously, those costs are borne some- 
where. It is just a matter of how you spread those costs out. But I 
would agree that the essential interest of this country in having 
shipment of these goods is paramount to help the position of Amer- 
ica, and we should not look upon shipments as sort of easy targets 
to pick up some increasing revenue in a government that is having 
some problems right now. 
I have no other questions. Thank you. 
Mr. Breaux. Mrs. Schneider. 
Mrs. SCHNEIDER. No questions. 
Mr. Breaux. I would like to thank this panel. I am very familiar 
with the problems that many of you discussed. You mentioned the 
Port of Lake Charles. I remember the first waiver that was granted 
and when they did the bioassay tests, all the little critters that 
