S-4753-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Sponsored by Mike Lee (R-UT)
What it does
This bill would repeal Section 55109 of Title 46 of the U.S. Code, which is the codified version of the Foreign Dredge Act of 1906. That law currently requires that dredging work in U.S. waters — such as deepening harbors, clearing shipping channels, and maintaining ports — be performed only by American-built and American-owned vessels. The bill would also remove "dredged material" from a related transportation restriction, meaning foreign vessels could transport the material excavated during dredging operations.
Who benefits
Port authorities and the Army Corps of Engineers, which manage dredging contracts and could access a larger, potentially lower-cost pool of contractors. Shipping companies and importers/exporters who depend on deep, well-maintained ports and could benefit from faster or cheaper dredging. Foreign dredging companies — particularly large European firms like DEME and Van Oord that operate modern, high-capacity fleets — who would gain access to the U.S. market. Coastal communities whose ports have faced dredging backlogs due to limited domestic contractor availability. Consumers who could indirectly benefit if supply chain costs decrease.
Who is hurt
U.S. domestic dredging companies — primarily Great Lakes Dredge & Dock, Manson Construction, and a small number of other firms — who currently hold a protected monopoly on this work and would face new foreign competition. American shipyards that build and maintain dredging vessels, which could see reduced demand. U.S. maritime workers and unions (particularly the International Union of Operating Engineers and the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association) who work on domestic dredging vessels and could face wage pressure or job displacement. Domestic vessel manufacturers whose business model depends on Jones Act and related cabotage protections.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the U.S. domestic dredging fleet is too small and technologically limited to meet the country's port maintenance needs, pointing to documented backlogs at major ports like Savannah, Houston, and Baltimore. They contend that foreign dredging fleets — particularly those operating in Europe — use larger, more efficient vessels that could complete projects faster and at lower cost, reducing supply chain bottlenecks that affect American businesses and consumers. They further argue that the 1906 law is an outdated protectionist measure that raises infrastructure costs without producing commensurate national security benefits.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that eliminating domestic dredging protections would hollow out a strategically critical maritime industry, leaving the U.S. dependent on foreign vessels for maintaining the ports and waterways essential to national defense and commerce. They contend that the domestic dredging industry has invested in fleet modernization precisely because of the guaranteed market, and that opening competition to heavily subsidized European firms would be an unequal contest that destroys American jobs and shipbuilding capacity. They further argue that in a national emergency or conflict, foreign dredging vessels may be unavailable, creating a serious vulnerability in U.S. port infrastructure.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to regulate maritime commerce under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and has long exercised admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The Foreign Dredge Act is a straightforward exercise of that authority, and its repeal raises no significant constitutional questions — Congress is simply removing a restriction it previously enacted.
Checks and balances
Congress would relinquish its current statutory restriction on foreign dredging vessels; the executive branch (Army Corps of Engineers and the Maritime Administration) would gain broader discretion in awarding dredging contracts, with no new statutory checks created by this bill.
Historical precedent
The Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920) established similar domestic-vessel requirements for coastal shipping and has been the subject of ongoing legislative debate, with temporary waivers occasionally granted during emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina (2005) and Hurricane Maria (2017), but it has never been repealed.