A bill to repeal the requirements of the Foreign Dredge Act of 1906 with respect to dredging and dredged material.
Introduced June 11, 2026 · Last action June 11, 2026
Plain English Summary
This bill repeals requirements from the Foreign Dredge Act of 1906 that currently mandate the use of U.S.-flagged vessels and U.S. crews for dredging operations and dredged material handling. The repeal would allow federal agencies and private entities to contract with foreign dredging companies and vessels without restriction.
Who benefits
Foreign dredging companies and vessel operators (such as Boskalis, Van Oord, and other major international dredging contractors); federal and state agencies that procure dredging services (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, port authorities); private developers and port operators seeking lower-cost dredging; shippers and importers who benefit from reduced dredging costs passed through infrastructure projects.
Who pays / loses
U.S. dredging companies (such as Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, Jan de Nul subsidiaries operating domestically); U.S. maritime workers and crews employed in dredging operations; domestic shipyards that build and maintain dredging vessels; port workers whose employment may shift to lower-wage foreign crews.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
The dredging industry has a direct financial stake in this bill's passage. International dredging companies benefit from market access currently restricted by the Foreign Dredge Act. Domestic dredging operators and maritime unions oppose the bill. The sponsor, Senator Mike Lee, has received significant contributions from the 'Other' category ($1.39M in 2024), which often includes business interests; the Transportation sector contributed $2,369, aligning with maritime and shipping industry interests that benefit from reduced operational costs.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
U.S. dredging workers and maritime employees (approximately 2,000–3,000 workers in domestic dredging operations, based on industry employment data); U.S. dredging companies competing for federal and state contracts; port authorities and inland waterway management agencies responsible for maintaining channels and harbors; shippers and cargo interests benefiting from lower dredging costs; foreign dredging contractors gaining market entry to U.S. federal and state projects.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue that repealing the Foreign Dredge Act will reduce infrastructure costs by allowing competitive international bidding on dredging projects, particularly for ports and waterways critical to commerce. Critics contend that the repeal undermines the Jones Act maritime protection regime, eliminates American jobs in a strategic industry, and reduces wages for U.S. maritime workers. The bill aligns with free-market deregulation priorities. Non-partisan evidence on dredging cost impacts is limited in published CBO or GAO assessments specific to this repeal; historical Jones Act debates show documented wage premiums for domestic maritime labor, but comparable dredging-specific cost analyses are not widely available in public records.
Real-World Stakes
If enacted, U.S. federal dredging contracts (including Army Corps of Engineers projects for navigation channels, port deepening, and flood control) would likely shift toward foreign bidders offering lower rates. This mirrors outcomes seen in other industries when maritime cabotage restrictions were weakened—e.g., reduced domestic maritime employment and consolidation around fewer operators. State and local ports would face pressure to hire foreign dredging services, potentially reducing domestic crew employment and shifting procurement to international firms. The precedent most analogous is the debate over Jones Act modifications in the 1980s–2000s, where proposals to relax domestic maritime restrictions consistently encountered opposition from U.S. maritime unions and domestic shipbuilders citing job losses. No specific bill text fiscal estimate is available; actual cost savings and employment impacts would depend on competitive conditions and contract volumes at the time of implementation.
Sponsor
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
Top contributing industries
Other$1,385,935.74
Finance$8,994.41
Transportation$2,368.91
Law$1,725
Healthcare$1,662.5
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.