May 12, 2003 MTSNAC Chair, Chuck Raymond, convened the meeting at 10:00 am and started off by thanking the MTSNAC members and MARAD officials present for their dedication. He indicated that it had been his pleasure to serve as MTSNAC Chair for the past three years. He remarked on the vision and leadership of Secretary Mineta particularly in the area of maritime interests including a potential SEA-21 initiative. The support and enthusiasm of the Maritime Administrator, Capt. William Schubert, was also noted with appreciation. With regard to MTSNAC governance, the Chair noted the contributions of the Vice Chair Frank Sims, Executive Director Ray Barberesi and the MARAD personnel including the outstanding contributions of Joann Spittle.
The Chair made further remarks concerning his tenure on the council and the important work that still has to be done. He noted that Secretary Mineta is still eagerly awaiting council input on a potential funding mechanism for maritime infrastructure needs and that this is a long term project. The Chair stated that a SEA-21 proposal is a component of a new transportation policy for the United States that will provide economic security for our nation. In addition, it was noted that it is necessary to integrate water into the national transportation system to alleviate freight congestion and in response to the impending capacity crunch. In keeping with these remarks, the Chair introduced the Maritime Administrator Captain William Schubert.
Remarks of Capt. Schubert
Capt. Schubert greeted the council and noted the activities planned for National Transportation Week. He then extended his gratitude for the work of MTSNAC Chair Chuck Raymond and Vice Chair Frank Sims and further thanked them on behalf of the Secretary. The Administrator also introduced the agency’s new Deputy Administrator John Jamian.
Capt. Schubert began his remarks by noting the incredible level of activity surrounding the events of the last 18 months including new transportation security initiatives, the Iraq war, and the west coast shut down. After this tumultuous period, the agency is turning its attention to new projects including: the short-sea shipping initiative; MSP reauthorization; a SEA-21 proposal; and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFE-TEA).
He noted that the Secretary would be announcing the components of SAFE-TEA shortly and that all he could say was that it would contain new initiatives and new momentum. He also discussed plans for SEA-21 and reiterated the Secretary’s request for a realistic framework and funding proposal. Capt. Schubert noted that whether the council’s view of SEA-21 initiatives is a trust fund or a number of initiatives should be communicated to the Secretary. He requested that the council make decisions and advise the Secretary who is expecting results.
Chuck Raymond thanked the Administrator for his appearance and efforts on behalf of the MTS.
Council Introductions
The members of the council were asked to introduce themselves and their affiliated organizations.
Administrative Details—Minutes—Actions Items from Previous Meeting
MTSNAC Executive Director Raymond Barberesi noted that the minutes of the November MTSNAC meeting had been distributed to council members for their review and asked for a motion to approve the minutes. Looman Stingo so moved and Peggy Tadej seconded. The minutes were approved.
1) The Executive Director then gave his report on the action items from the last meeting. De-criminalization resolution: This was sent to the Secretary who recommended that MARAD compile a catalog of incidents to sent to the Department of Justice for action.
2) MTS Users Study: The Interagency Committee for the MTS (ICMTS) contracted with the Marine Board of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an MTS users study which is scheduled to be published by the end of September 2003. Several federal agencies pooled funds to arrange this. Mr. Jeffrey High of the U.S. Coast Guard will update the Council on the status of the study later today. MARAD also asked for a separate Needs Study for the Council. Mr. Barberesi will brief the Council on this later today.
3) ICMTS MOU: The MOU is being reaffirmed and the Coast Guard continues to be an active member of ICMTS. However, since the Coast Guard has left the Department of Transportation, MARAD has been asked to co-chair the ICMTS with the Coast Guard.
4) ICMTS to explore MTS issues not requiring legislation: ICMTS is in the process of doing this.
5) Ensure that traditional Coast Guard functions be preserved in the Department of Homeland Security: A letter with this request has been forwarded to the Secretary and MARAD is currently awaiting a response.
6) ICMTS to be represented on the Interagency Task Force: ICMTS is currently undergoing a reorganization and this will be included.
7) MTS Funding Needs: This has been forwarded to the Secretary.
8) Council concern over Coast Guard NVIC on port security: A federal interagency task force is addressing container terminal security issues.
9) Council’s endorsement of a marine Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC): No action required..
SEA-21 Initiative Discussion
The Chair then introduced a discussion of the SEA-21 initiative which centers around a funding mechanism for MTS infrastructure needs. He noted the GAO report which indicated that the nation is not investing enough in the MTS. In framing this discussion, he asked that each team leader present a general consensus opinion of their team with regard to a SEA-21 funding mechanism and MTS needs.
Chris Koch spoke for the Infrastructure Team. He noted the team does not seem to endorse a new trust fund and is struggling to define the parameters of the MTS with regard to a SEA-21 initiative. The team has a clear consensus the issue of spending the funds in the two existing MTS-related trust funds for their intended purposes. With regard to Customs duties to fund SEA-21, he indicated that these funds are spoken for and MTS needs would likely be funded through new taxes. Bernie Groseclose voiced a concern about the existing funds not being spent and the potential imposition of new user fees. Jim McCarville stated that it is difficult to achieve consensus on this issue because of the broad range of beneficiaries. Steve Pfeiffer the new Short Sea Shipping Team Leader remarked that he is not prepared to let go of the Customs Fees funding mechanism proposal and that he would prefer this approach. He added that fees collected on maritime commerce should go to maritime commerce. Hank Marcus commented that there is a need for an integrated freight transportation policy that looks at the entire intermodal system not just individual modes.
Pat Hall speaking for the Security Team based his remarks on an observation that the relevant question with regard to security is what needs to be funded. He noted that the industry does not yet know its areas of responsibility. Once this is defined and it is determined how industry must comply, then the issue of funding becomes pressing. The potential difficulties of performance under enhanced security levels—MARSEC 2 and 3 present unique challenges as well as the potential for inconsistent state and local laws.
Charles Kurz presented the position of the Safety and Environment Team and commented that his Team did not focus on funding but concentrated on needs. Joe Miniace echoed the comments of Pat Hall and also noted that existing trust funds should be used for their intended purpose. As past Team Leader for the Human Resources Team, Mike Watson indicated that his Team also focuses more on policy than funding and added his preference in pursuing Customs fees as opposed to new user fees. The Shipyard Team was represented by John Gaughan who commented that the Team did not address broader funding issues but did mention the Title XI loan guarantee program for maritime enterprise as a way to assist the short sea shipping effort. Jim McCarville noted that many MTS needs, such as congestion abatement, might find funding in existing funding sources. Looman Stingo remarked that the Inland Water Trust Fund has a User Board that meets three times a year. They do a needs assessment every year and then submit it to Congress. The Chair remarked that the council should seek the User Board’s recommendations. He also noted that shippers are concerned that the Administration in its ’04 budget might be looking to take money from the Inland and Harbor Maintenance Trust Funds for other purposes.
Jim Cook noted his concern about funding capacity needs and that the definition of MTS creates extensive overlaps among the modes. This should not create competition between the modes. The Chair summed up the discussion and noted the council should look at full and efficient funding for projects in order to complete them in a cost-effective and timely manner. He further noted his support for the comments of John Gaughan with regard to Title XI funding as a critical element in national security.
Lunch Break
The meeting was reconvened after the lunch break.
ICMTS Briefing—
Jeff High, United States Coast Guard Jeff High indicated that in light of the government agency reorganization that has moved the Coast Guard to the Department of Homeland Security, MARAD will be Co-Chairing the ICMTS to keep it in the Department of Transportation.
He noted the progress of the Transportation Research Board study as part of a commitment to transportation integration. This commitment is demonstrated by Secretary Mineta’s interest in a SEA-21 initiative and Assistant Secretary Biter’s commitment to intermodalism. He noted that this will be forwarded by a national freight policy, intermodal project like the Alameda Corridor and a SEA-21 initiative.
Rajiv Khandpur was asked to make a presentation that set forth some of the thinking on this issue. His presentation was entitled, National Strategy for the Marine Transportation System. The presentation focus on five goals:
The presentation sparked debate and questions that primarily focused on the status of needs assessments. Mr. Khanpur indicated that this component was not yet in place. Sam Crane remarked that needs will depend on the how MTS is defined by geographic designation. Jim McCarville noted that the number of indirect beneficiaries is very broad and that this is an area that might be expanded. He remarked that the people who benefit from the MTS are unaware that they do. John Gaughan also remarked on the need for clarity with regard to beneficiaries. He used the example of ship repair and asked whether that industry would be considered a recipient or part of the MTS. Chris Koch cautioned against over generalizing about the aging infrastructure.
Jeff High indicated that they are looking for an MTSNAC position and comments on the draft paper. The Chair requested that council members send comments through the Teams to MARAD.
Briefing on Status of Needs Assessment
Ray Barberesi was asked to provide a report on the status of the needs assessment requested by the MTSNAC. Mr. Barberesi said that MARAD had contracted with SAIC to produce a needs study. Since there was a narrow timeframe (90 days), SAIC sent a survey to various MTS stakeholders throughout the country. SAIC looked at funding considerations and developed a matrix for evaluation of investments which would lead to a framework to identify critical MTS needs.
Hank Marcus praised the study but wondered if the views were those of SAIC. Chuck Raymond pointed out that the word “infrastructure” is very broad and that shippers and consignees both drive the supply chain. Chris Koch added that MTSNAC was on record for no new dedicated funding and that it was important to define those needs which require specific, dedicated funding sources.
Ron Thomason emphasized the need to focus on the MTS “professional” and the need to properly train this group (page 12).
Bob Nelson asked if the recreational boating community was represented. Chuck Raymond added that a systematic approach must be used for the entire system. Peter Peyton agreed, but added that we need to look at the entire supply chain. Chris Koch emphasized the necessity of engaging the shipper in this process.
Mike Watson admonished the group that this study was repeating much of the same material as two years ago. He noted that the Council’s charge was to forward a few recommendations to Secretary Mineta. The Council must define what needs funding. Capt. Schubert wants direction from the Council. Chuck Raymond replied that both Secretary Slater and Secretary Mineta asked MTSNAC to study the entire system, which includes awareness, security, information technology and human resources.
Mr. Ed Mortimer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce then briefed the Council on the Chamber’s recently released study, Trade and Transportation - A Study of North American Port and Intermodal Systems. The study concluded that mobility is one of the most critical issues facing our Nation’s transportation industry. The study identifies six building blocks and recommendations:
1) A clearly defined freight program within the U.S. Department of Transportation;
2) A national intermodal planning and development initiative and a national freight advisory committee:
3) A coherent environmental regulatory process;
4) Integration of labor into the national freight policy;
5) Better freight data and Information Technology (IT);
6) More funding options, such as a change to the ethanol subsidy and a review of the national gasoline tax.
Mr. Gil Hicks then made a Power point presentation to the Council on the California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council (CALMITSAC). CALMITSAC’s mission is to foster development of a Marine Transportation System in California that is safe, secure, efficient, environmentally sound, and capable of expanding to meet the demands of the global economy. The Council draws its membership from several state, local and federal organizations, including the U.S. Maritime Administration, U.S. Coast Guard, the California Association of Port Authorities, the Marine Exchanges of the San Francisco Bay region and Southern California, and California maritime labor. CALMITSAC has two subgroups: SOCAL-MTSAC in Southern California and NORCAL-MTSAC in Northern California. CALMITSAC has prepared a list of MTS Infrastructure needs for Southern California ($16.464 B) and Northern California ($7.213 B) and identified major initiatives for the Council to focus on. Mr. Hicks challenged the Council with a Call to Action, namely that MTS stakeholders “should take an aggressive role in promoting additional funding for a goods-movement transportation system.” He also stressed CALMITSAC’s commitment to strong partnerships with MTSNAC, state, federal and local governments, shippers, carriers and other segments of the goods movement industry.
After Mr. Hick’s presentation, the Council took a 15 minute break.
The meeting reconvened at 4:05 PM. Chuck Raymond thanked Gil Hicks for his presentation.
MTS Regional Reports
Jeff Keever of SAMTSO (South Atlantic Marine Transportation System Organization) gave a status report to the Council. SAMTSO has conducted five meetings since its inception, and has focused on awareness. SAMTSO has also participated in the DOT Port Security Grant process. The next SAMTSO meeting is scheduled for June 10 in Norfolk, VA and will feature a presentation on TEA-21 reauthorization.
Mr. Nick Cretan of NAMTSO (North Atlantic Marine Transportation System Organization) advised the Council that NAMTSO was following the lead of both SAMTSO and CALMITSAC. NAMTSO includes ports from Baltimore to the Canadian border. NAMSTO participated in the Short Sea Shipping Conference which was presented by the Maritime Administration in New York in November 2002. The Albany Express barge service between the Port of New York/New Jersey and Albany, NY has recently commenced and is being closely followed by many groups within the maritime community. Mr. Cretan added that NAMTSO was working with local schools and chambers of commerce to emphasize our water highways and focus on a rediscovery of our past. The next NAMTSO meeting will be in New York City in June 2003. A Fall regional meeting is scheduled for September 2003 at Foxwoods, Connecticut.
Liz Wainwright, President of MISNA (Maritime Information System of North America), then addressed the Council. MISNA is a non-profit organization whose core business is community-based information systems, such as ship tracking. MISNA is moving toward a common database. Major MISNA initiatives include a national notice of agreement with the U.S. Coast Guard, information sharing with the Maritime Administration during the West Coast waterfront contract negotiations in the fall of 2002, and ballast water reporting.
Team Reports
Awareness Team
Joe Miniace reported that the team is still developing ways to educate the public and the administration on MTS and SEA-21. The team will employ PR to publicize National Maritime Day in 2004. The Awareness Team is supporting regional councils, but many of these councils don’t yet have awareness teams. Mr. Miniace presented minutes from two recent Awareness Team meetings for Council approval. They were reviewed, seconded, and approved.Jonathan Benner noted that events after the MTSNAC August 2002 meeting greatly helped to raise MTS awareness. Charles Kurz asked if there had been any response to the U.S. Coast Guard produced MTS video. Rajiv Khandpur of the Coast Guard replied that the video has been sent to members of Congress. He also recommended that other MTSNAC teams view the video.
Safety and Environmental Protection Team
Charles Kurz submitted the January 21, 2003 meeting minutes to the Council for its review and approval. The minutes were unanimously approved. Charles Kurz asked Ray Barberesi to report back to the Council on the status of the Secretary’s response to the team’s de-criminalization resolution. Mr. Kurz also asked that the Council members be provided with a copy of the Administration’s soon-to-released SAFETEA proposal. He also expressed his hope that the team’s three year accomplishments report would be circulated among all Council members. Mr. Kurz also requested that any items from the recently held Harbor Safety Conference be circulated to all Council members. In addition, Mr. Kurz stated that the Safety and Environmental Protection Team will provide comments on the ICMTS National Strategy Report.
Information Technology and Research and Development Team
Hank Marcus reported that there has not been any meeting since the last Council meeting and thus there is no report.
Security Team
Pat Hall reported that the team held meetings on January 13, March 28 and May 7. Minutes from the November 1, 2002 as well as the January 13 and March 28, 2003 meetings were submitted to the Council and unanimously approved.
Mr. Hall said that a small working group had been formed to respond to the U.S. Coast Guard proposed port security regulations under MTSA (Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002). The comments have been submitted to the Council. Pat Hall moved that the following resolution authorizing the submission of the comments to the Secretary of Transportation and the Coast Guard be adopted:
The full MTSNAC adopts the comments drafted by the Security Team concerning the domestic application of the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code and that these comments should be forwarded to the Secretary of Transportation and United States Coast Guard for information purposes.Steve Pfeiffer seconded the motion. Jonathan Benner questioned whether the Council should be involved in federal government rulemaking proceedings. The Council’s FACA representative responded that an advisory committee should not formally participate in federal rulemaking procedures, but may provide assistance and guidance to federal agencies. The Chair indicated that this should be tabled for the next day’s discussion.
Out of Order: The resolution was revisited during the May 13th session and was passed unopposed after additional discussion.
At the March 28, 2003 Security Team meeting, the team passed a resolution for the MTSNAC to ask for a formal role for the Security Team in advising the new Department of Homeland Security.
Pat Hall offered a resolution to that effect that stated:
The MTSNAC requests that the Secretary of Transportation intercede in obtaining a formal role for the MTSNAC Security Team in advising the Border and Transportation Security Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security on matters relating to maritime transportation security.
John Gaughan seconded the motion and the resolution was passed unopposed. As for the Team’s future plans, Pat Hall indicated that the Team intends to study recent TSA and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration interim final rules for obtaining HAZ MAT endorsements for CDLs. In addition, the Team is eagerly awaiting the Coast Guard’s interim final rules on the domestic application of the ISPS Code as well as data and information on new Customs cargo security initiatives.
Human Resources Team
Mike Watson reported that the team had not met since the last MTSNAC meeting and there was no report. Short Sea Shipping Team Steve Pfeiffer had no report. He congratulated the Port of New York/New Jersey for initiating its PIDN (Port Inland Distribution Network) system.
Inland Waterways Team
Jim McCarville presented the team’s March 5, 2003 meeting minutes to the Council approval. They were reviewed and unanimously approved. He also reported that the team had renamed itself. The new name is Inland Waterway Intermodal Team. The team is planning a conference for later this year. A Container-On-Barge report has been submitted to MARAD for its review. The team is currently reviewing the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) data. Mr. McCarville also reported on Project SmartBarge, an initiative to proved one-stop shopping comparison for inland shipper customers.
Mr. McCarville presented a resolution to the Council opposing any diversion of the Inland Waterways User Fee Fund from new construction to O & M. The resolution was approved.
Mr. McCarville also offered a resolution approving a principals’ group to mediate issues on the Missouri River. After a brief discussion, this motion was tabled for the next day’s session.
Out of Order In returning to this issue the next day, Jim McCarville offered to rework this resolution and offer it at a later date.
Infrastructure Team
Chris Koch submitted the team’s meeting minutes from October 28, 2003 for approval. The minutes were unanimously approved. The team has had no meetings since then.
Shipbuilding Team
John Gaughan reported that the team’s first meeting was held in Washington, D.C. on April 29, 2003. The meeting minutes were submitted to the Council and they were unanimously approved. He also submitted a team request to rename to team. The proposed new name is “Shipyard Team.” The Council approved the name change.
Mr. Gaughan also advised the Council that the Shipyard Team had developed a mission statement: The lack of liquidity has severe negative consequences on the U.S. MTS’ ability to renew its fleet and start-up operations are impeded by a lack of financing. The solution is an expansion of the Maritime Administration’s Title XI Program and an opening of the CCF (Capital Construction Fund) to domestic vessels. SAIC has been engaged to explore this issue.
Mr. Gaughan requested that the Chair direct the infrastructure team and the Council’s sponsor to include shipyards as an integral part of the MTS infrastructure. This will be considered tomorrow by the Council.Short Sea Shipping Presentation
Ray Barberesi reported that MARAD is a strong supporter of Short Sea Shipping and is currently working on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Canada, Mexico and the EU on short sea shipping. A video has been developed as a result of the Short Sea Shipping Conference held in November 2002 in New York.
At 5:30 PM the Chair adjourned the meeting for the day and indicated that the meeting would resume the next day at 8:30 am.
TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2003
The meeting was reconvened on Tuesday morning, May 13, 2003 at 8:35 AM.
Joseph Morris of the National Academies of Science Transportation Research Board (TRB) briefed the Council on TRB’s recently completed Special Report #271 - Freight Capacity for the 21st Century. One conclusion of the study is that there is less slack in the U.S. transportation system in operations and investment than is generally thought. There is a need for comprehensive policy at the federal level, something broader than TEA-21 and other DOT programs.
Some of the study’s findings include:
1) Economic efficiency should be the primary focus;
2) Limit government involvement to essential roles;
3) Government responsibility doesn’t justify a subsidy;
4) Finance provisions in public-sector transportation programs are a major determinant of performance.
The report also recommends maintaining user fees funding.
Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
Chuck Raymond publicly thanked Carol Lambos for her untiring efforts for the Council over the past three years.
Ray Barberesi then led a round of applause for the current Chair and Vice-Chair (Chuck Raymond and Frank Sims).
The floor was then opened to nominations.
Chuck Raymond nominated John Gaughan for Chair. The nomination was seconded. There was no discussion on the nomination.
Jim McCarville nominated Jonathan Benner for Chair. The nomination was seconded. There was no discussion on the nomination.
The Council wrote down their votes, the votes were collected and tabulated. Ray Barberesi announced that John Gaughan was the newly elected Chair.
The floor was then opened to nominations for Vice-Chair. Frank Sims nominated Joe Miniace. The nomination was seconded. Jonathan Benner announced his support for Joe Miniace’s nomination because Mr. Miniace has a great breadth of knowledge and experience in the industry and with the Council.
Jim McCarville then nominated Pat Hall for Vice-Chair. The nomination was seconded. There was no discussion on the nomination.
The Council then wrote down their votes, the votes were collected and tabulated. Ray Barberesi then announced that Joe Miniace was the newly elected Vice-Chair. Mr. Barberesi then announced that there would be an MTS celebration in California later this week on May 14-15. The honorees are Jim Spinosa of ILWU and Joe Miniace of PMA.
Public Comment Period
RADM Carl Seiberlich (Ret.) of TranSystems gave the Council an update on ISO. RADM Seiberlich is currently the U.S. representative to the Intermodal and Short Sea Shipping Subcommittee of ISO. To date the U.S. has shown little interest in the intermodal systems requirements or setting up routes and participants in the “Safe and Secure Trade Lanes” pilot program.
Bill Wanamaker commended RADM Seiberlich on his work which affects everyone in the room. He also expressed surprise that more attention is not given to RADM Seiberlich’s work.
At 9:45 a break was proposed, with the meeting to reconvene at 10:15 AM.
After the break John Gaughan then addressed the Council and stressed that time is of the essence. Mr. Gaughan asked Ray Barberesi for future meeting timelines. Mr. Barberesi explained that the reason for not holding this meeting earlier was not because of lack of interest but due to DOT budget constraints. That is now past us. There is full funding and support for the Council by Capt. Schubert and the Maritime Administration. The next full MTSNAC meeting will be held during the last week of August or first week of September, probably in California.
Joe Miniace then thanked the Council for their support and promised to do everything needed to get all Council documents to the Secretary.
John Gaughan then asked Ray Barberesi for an outline of current and proposed initiatives. Mr. Barberesi replied that the current TEA-21 expires at the end of 2003. In addition, the Department of Transportation has been charged by the Secretary to bring recommendations on SEA-21 to his attention by the end of this calendar year.
John Gaughan observed that there will likely be some legislative action on the highway bill, even if it happens at the eleventh hour. He asked the members how the Council can have an impact on the proposed legislation given the short timeframe.
Jim McCarville responded that the Council needs to take action or lose the opportunity to influence the SAFETEA proposal. Intermodal connectors must be addressed as well as research development and technology. There should also be funding available for short sea shipping projects like PIDN in New York.
Ron Thomason added that security funding should be considered in light of the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS) coming into force by July 1, 2004.
Jim McCarville identified security and O & M in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund as issues that need to be resolved. He also stated that stakeholders need to reduce the number of contentious issues.
Joe Miniace urged the Council to develop an action plan. John Gaughan asked if MARAD/SAIC could produce language for the Council that addresses these issues in SAFETEA.
Bob Nelson stated that safety was his group’s primary focus. After 9-11 safety on the open waters became paramount. We need to consider safety and security issues from the standpoint of recreational boaters. BOAT US can be a valuable asset to the Council in this regard. John Gaughan asked if Bob Nelson had any specific recommendations? ADM Nelson suggested that the U.S. Coast Guard use private boats and boaters to assist in local patrols.
Bill Wanamaker noted a possible corollary with the trucking industry. There are 3.5 million commercial drivers throughout the country. Training them to look for certain people and/or suspicious activities and whom to call might be helpful.
Bob Nelson added that recreational boaters don’t want compensation for this, just recognition. Chuck Raymond noted that the MTSNAC White Paper stated that 51% of U.S. power generation capacity is along our inland waterways.
Jim Cook expressed his support for the other modes and added that their funding is important. The public doesn’t fully understand the concept of intermodalism. SEA-21 should endorse the services provided by state and local entities. We need to speed up the process. We must also recognize that government funding is limited. The Council should tell the Secretary what the national priorities are or should be. A follow-up measurement system is also needed to measure the success of these programs. We don’t need to agree on all the solutions, but should be willing to consider many approaches.
Jonathan Benner agreed and added that we cannot address all issues. We need to focus on smaller and achievable initiatives. What happens if we subtract SAFETEA from the equation? What is left?
Bill Wanamaker asked if there were a list of MTSNAC priorities. The Council can address issues which are not just funding related, but operations, such as port congestion.
Mike Watson suggested that the recommendations from the November 2002 meeting be used as a basis. He also noted that the Council has been working on this for the past three years.
John Gaughan suggested taking the old SEA-21 report and the MTS Needs Assessment and meshing the two. Carol Lambos noted that the November SEA-21 report was waiting for the MTS Needs Assessment. The Assessment did not address SEA-21 funding. It also did not anticipate SAFETEA. The November report is a living document and should be revised. Mike Watson replied that the Needs Assessment doesn’t tell us anything new. Chris Koch observed that there is probably more consensus than is apparent. The Council can provide updates to the study. The Council can endorse TEA-21 and the freight study. The group also needs to see what SAFETEA is and struggle with the security issues. MTSNAC must be specific on the funding issues and must make its own case before Congress.
John Gaughan suggested that the MTS Needs Assessment Executive Summary be used as a document to blend with the November recommendations to the Secretary. Copies of the Executive Summary were distributed to the Council members. Ray Barberesi stated that the summary was a good starting point for the Council.
Sam Crane advised the Council that SAFETEA will be rolled out by the Administration at 2 PM tomorrow. He recommended that the Infrastructure Team and others review SAFETEA and other documents, and report back to the Council by September. Chuck Raymond added that an Executive Team will be meeting over the summer and will make corrections and recommendations.
Jean Godwin of AAPA pointed out that the Council had gone on record in November urging that trust funds be spent as intended and that the Council should look at TEA-21 or SAFETEA and make recommendations to the Secretary. The Council should also address under funded maritime programs. We should fix things that are broken now. New funding should come later.
John Gaughan called for an action plan. He tasked the Infrastructure Team and other interested participants to review SAFETEA for issues that MTSNAC is looking for. Ed Welch of PVA and Sam Crane both volunteered to join the group. The MTSNAC Executive Director will organize the group and set a timeline. As far as SEA-21, all Council members should review the SAIC draft report. Chris Koch asked for clarification on how members are to provide comments – individually or through teams?
Ed Welch observed that the Needs Assessment seems to define winners and losers and that the Council probably doesn’t want to endorse that approach. Rebecca Doyle of SAIC pointed out that during the study some users had more developed research than others, but that the assessment was not an attempt to give those users more attention. Jim Cook thought that the purpose of the needs assessment was to justify funding requests. Chuck Raymond added that this is not a complete assessment, but merely a snapshot. Peter Peyton asked if the regional groups could just list their ten top needs. John Gaughan replied that SAIC did that. Charles Kurz stated that there was no need to reaffirm the November report. It is a living document and subject to change and updating. The Council has also just received the ICMTS draft report.
Bill Wanamaker agreed with Peter Peyton and added that the assessment should be simplified. He also asked how the Council’s recommendations will catch up with the legislation scheduled to go to Congress this week.
John Gaughan suggested that the Infrastructure Team and volunteers should get a copy of SAFETEA and review it. Chris Koch replied that the team can do that and identify those needs not funded by SAFETEA or other current sources. Chuck Raymond observed that over the last three years the Council has been charged with providing the Secretary with advice on creating a marine transportation system to handle the requirements to 2020. Perhaps the mission needs to be redefined.
Hank Marcus asked if the U.S. Chamber of Commerce could provide its background material for the container terminal analysis in their report.
Worth Hager noted that there was no discussion of O & M funding which is critical. Some sections of the inland waterways are being closed down as a result. Jonathan Benner added that more time should be allotted for this type of discussion. He suggested that we include security at the next meeting.
Moya Phelps asked how the members should respond to the ICMTS draft report. They should report through their teams by mid-June.
John Gaughan then summarized the discussion and next steps:
Jim Cook requested follow-up actions on the above.
John Gaughan asked the sponsor to provide a list of members whose term is expiring and a list of possible replacements. Jean Godwin asked what should be the focus of the Executive Team when it meets? John Gaughan replied that it should focus on a report to the Secretary on SAFETEA, review and identify appropriate aspects of SEA-21 as well as other related issues.
New Business
Worth Hager announced that a retirement dinner for Harry Cook would be held in Washington on June 24, 2003.
John Gaughan reminded the Council that Maritime Day ceremonies would be held in New York and Washington on May 22, 2003. The Washington ceremony will be at the Navy Memorial at 10:00 AM.
He also took note of the approximately 2500 mariners currently at sea in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Chris Koch will be addressing a breakfast meeting at the Hampton Roads Maritime Day celebration on May 22, 2003.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.