Date: 2006-03-01
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. it is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Mr. Speaker. And it has been interesting to listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. For the last number of years we have had the privilege on our side of the aisle of the leader giving the 30something Democrats the opportunity to take the floor each night at least for 1 hour. if not 2. to talk about the things that are important to America and. in particular. important to our generation. So now it is nice to see that at least the other side is beginning to recognize that this is an important venue to get some information out to the people. As I said. imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. There are times. Mr. Speaker. that we are going to agree and times that we are going to disagree. The gentleman from Texas and I were just commiserating. and he and I were both elected just over 13 months ago and sworn into this esteemed body. And I was just joking with him that the chart that he just brought out and talked about related to the United Arab Emirates voting record with the United States and the United Nations is actually a document that I had with me right here in my hand and was one of the things that I was going to discuss as well. Because I think this port deal. normally we talk about our differences in the 30something Working Group with the Republicans on the other side of the aisle. in this case. I am heartened to see. at least for some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. we have not differed on the really deep concern that many of us have as a result directly of our constituents feedback on this pott deal with Dubai Ports World and the administration. When I can concur with my colleagues. I will do that. In this case. the administration has repeatedly indicated what a good friend the UAE is to the United States. And we only have very few examples that we can utilize to determine what the definition of "friend" is. One measure of friendship is cettainly how often they support us in terms of human rights and the other important issues that come up in the United Nations. There is a pitiful record that the United Arab Emirates has. And in terms of supporting us in the United Nations. not only is it pitiful but it was not so good before 2001. and it has only gotten worse since 2001. So I stand .here and am able to say that I am glad to see that our colleagues have at least pointed out that there is deep concern on the part of the legislative branch. at least some of us in the legislative branch. about the continued rapidfire. movement forward on this port deal. I continue to scratch my head. we continue to scratch our heads on our side of the aisle. at the brazen nature of the defense that the President has engaged in of this deal. The revelation that came to light less than a week ago now that this is a deal that the President was not even aware of. And I sit on the Domestic and International Monetary Policy. Trade and Technology Subcommittee. which had a hearing .today. Not only did we learn that the President did not have any knowledge of this deal but neither did the Secretary that was responsible for each of these agencies that is part of the process to approve the deal nor the Deputy Secretary nor the Under Secretary under them nor the Under Secretary under them. Three levels below the Secretary of each of the agencies responsible for reviewing the foreign investment deals that are proposed to occur in the United States. that was the level of awareness that there was in the agencies like the Department of Homeland Security. like the Department of State. like the intelligence agencies that are involved in the process of approving this. That is so disturbing. it is hard to explain. I can tell you. Mr. Speaker. that in the time that I have been in Congress and. quite honestly. since I spent 12 years prior to being in Congress in the Florida legislature. and I will even include the 13 years combined that I have served in public office. I have not spen or gotten feedback this quickly and in this enormity in as short a period of time on an issue as I have on this proposed port deal. And I am talking about compared to Social Security privatization. the Medicare prescription drug program. I -get a lot of responses and feedback on those issues. but they are lengthy and volumifious over a period of time. I have little old ladies and elderly gentlemen call my office. I represent a large senior citizen population. calling my office crying because they are in fear. I represent an area that includes the Port of Miami. My district abuts the Port of Miami. I had an opportunity to tour the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company and saw firsthand what the potential threat is in the event that this- company owned by the United Arab Emirates goes astray in the event that we no longer consider them an ally down the road. that there is absolutely no question that there is a potential national security risk. And for the President and his administration to continue to insist that there is not a national security risk when it is clear that they have not even begun to examine this potential risk closely. that is just shocking. We have had a number of different revelations thathave occurred over the last week. not the least of which is that the Coast Guard brought up their concern during the process. the CPS process. the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. During that committees process. the Coast Guard raised concerns. The Department of Homeland Security raised concerns. And let me back up for a second because although there are millions of people who have been paying attention to this. let me take this opportunity to back up for a second and just explain what it is Iam talking about. Of course. so many people are aware that there is a proposal that was considered -over the last several months but that only recently came to light b:y most people in this administration. most people responsible for this decision. It only recently came to light in the last several weeks where we have learned that Dubai Ports World. which is a company. a foreign corporation. owned 100 percent by the government of the United Arab Emirates. is in the process of closing a deal. The deal is supposed to closed tomorrow. They have purchased an interest in P&O. a stevedoring company. and after tomorrow when the deal closes. they will now own and operate the terminal operating companies at six of our major ports. Six major ports. When you have a proposal like that in the United States. it is supposed to go through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. That is made up of a number of different agencies in the United States. It is supposed to include people like the Secretary " of Homeland Security. Secretary of State. The Secretary of the . Treasury chairs it. You have numerous intelligence agencies that have the highest level. or are supposed to have the highest level. of Secretaries serving on that committee. and they go through a review process. by law. This is a law that they are supposed to follow whereby they take it through a 30day .review process. And after that 30day review. if there are national security concerns. then that is supposed to trigger an additional 45day review. a national security review. so that we can investigate whether there are national security implications to the foreign investment in the United States. Now. given that the United Arab Emirates just 5 years ago was referred to 58 times in the 9/11 Commission report as having some level of. involvement with the 9/11 attacks. knowing that just on thesurface. how is it possible that a 45day national security review was not triggered? Where were.the alarm bells? Where was the concern. I mean. one has only to tour the terminals. like I did last week at the Port of Miami. downtown Miami. literally just across the water from the port. and see the devastating potential impact if you have just one or two people. There were not thousands of people that planned the 9/11 attack. It only takes a few determined terrorists to wreak havoc and horror on our Nation. And honestly. it would take almost no one to engage in a terrorist act. God forbid. in the event that our relationship with the United Arab Emirates somehow changes in the near future or down the road. But we will have no mechanism to remove them from our country. What happens. and what I learned when I went to the Port of Miami to see firsthand the problem. what happens is that it is not that the United Arab Emirates or Dubai Ports World is going to run our ports. That is not accurate. But they are going to have control of the largest terminal operating company. and this is just in Miami. the largest terminal operating company that is responsible for loading and unloading containers in the Port of Miami. There are a million containers that go through the Port of Miami every single year. a million. And this company that is owned by. the UAE is going to be in charge of the loading and unloading of those containers. What I learned when I went to the Port of Miami was that while they are not. in charge of the security or rupning the port itself. each terminal operating company is responsible for their own security internally in their terminals and on their.property. So because you have a million containers going through the Port of Miami.. that is a whole lot of the security measures that are taken on the Port of Miami and that this company. and as a result the UAE. is responsible for. In addition. what is equally disturbing is that the individuals in the companies that run these terminal operating companies. they have an intimate knowledge of the security measures that are taken on the port grohnds itself. So we know two things. One. they are responsible for security within their own terminal for those million containers. One million containers at least at the Port of Miami go in and oui of there over the course of a year. And their personnel also have intimate knowledge of the security measures taken at the port every single day. It only takes one or two rogues. it only takes one or two bitter people. it only takes one.or two people who differ even with the government of the UAE. if they currently are our friends. and I would argue that given their track record in terms of the support or lack of support for things we care about in the United Nations and for.a number of other reasons that they are not the friends that President Bush represents that they are. but it does not take more than one or two people who hold hate in their heart for the United States and our people to wreak havoc on us. They are not just this close. They would be here. They would be here on our ports on our grounds. Let us take this a step further because beyond just the United Nations votes that my colleagues talked about and that I just mentioned. we also have the United Arab Emirates that is a member of the Arab League of Nations. The Arab League of Nations is currently engaged in a boycott of the State of Israel. The United Arab Emirates supports that boycott. Now. Israel is the United States strongest ally in the Middle East So now we have a second layer of evidence that the United Arab Emirates is not a verygood friend of the United States. How could we allow. both for national security reasons and for economic fairness reasons. a country like the United Arab Emirates to do business and.to purchase a very significant terminal operating company in our six major ports and allow them to do that kind. of business here when they refuse to do business with the State of Israel. our strongest ally in the Middle East? That is unconscionable. And with all due respect. the President touts his support for the State of Israel and what a good friend this President has been to the State of Israel. Well. I think we have one example here where he is not being such a good friend to the State of Israel if he could turn the other cheek and vociferously defend a business deal even in spite of the fact that this country denies the State of Israels legitimacy in terms of their existence and engages in harm to the State of Israel by.supporting an economic boycott. So to me the proof is in the pudding. I think words are nice. but actions are a whole lot better. Up and down this deal is disturbing. Now. another colleague of mine. Congressman BACHUS from the State of Alabama. again I want to cite he is also a colleague of mine from the other side of the aisle. in the subcommittee hearing today. he talked about the fact that in the United Arab Emirates. they will not allow the United States to have 10.0 percent ownership of a company on their port. yet we are allowing the United Arab Emirates to have a 100 percent ownership of a company in our .port. And when he asked the administration to explain that. they had no explanation. He was going to have to get back to us. Well. of course he was going to have to get back to us because there is no explanation for that. This is a matter of fairness. This is a matter of what is wrong versus what is right. and this is a matter of national security. Now. here is where I am going to part company with my colleagues on this because it is wonderful that many of .my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are opposing. rightfully so. this port deal and joining Democrats on our side of the aisle in our concern. our deep and grave concern in opposition to this port deal. However. it would have been far nicer if they had not come so late to the dance in terms of their recognizing that port security is a deep and troubling problem that we have in the United States. We currently check less than 5 percent of the containers that come through our ports in the United States. :Now. that is bad enough. But over the course of the last 5 years. and this is something else I learned when I went to the Port of Miami last week. the difference between our appropriations for airport security. in 5 years we have appropriated an additional. $18 billion for airport security and less than $700 million for port security. Now. I just could not believe when I learned how lopsided the difference in security measures were. If I am a terrorist. and I am not. but if I am a terrorist. it really does not take a smart terrorist to recognize that if you have that lopsided a difference in terms of the money we have spent to shore up our security at our airports versus our ports. where do you think the weak spot is. and where do you think they are most likely to zero in on in terms of attack? They are most. likely to zero in on port .security and that weakness. And now what do we do? Without a national security review. without any concern expressed by this administration whatsoever. we allow a country that just 5 years ago was involved in terms of financing. allowing the financing. housing the 9/11 t6rrorists. allowing the finailcing of that attack and. in addition to that. allowing the transport of nuclear material through. their country to the state of Iran.That is not allowing. it is not even strong enough to say that that is allowing the fox into the hen house. It is not strong enough to say that. .Where we part company with our friends on the other side of the aisle is in terms of our support for port security. because time and again. Mr. Speaker. the Democrats in this Chamber have proposed increases in funding for port security. We have proposed going from the 5 percent to 100 percent in terms of checking the containers that come through our ports. ] 1930 Each time we have offered an amendment that would do that. that would accomplish that. The Republicans in this body have rejected it. rejected it with their red lights on that board right above your head. Mr. Speaker. And that is just so incredibly disturbing. because it is very nice to stand here on this floor and verbally oppose this ports deal on national security grounds. but when we have an opportunity to do something about- it. Mr. Speaker. I would like to see my colleagues join us not just with words. but with their actions as well. I would like to see them support the Appropriations Committee ranking member on our side. Mr. OBEY from Wisconsin. He proposed last year and the year before just a 5 percent decrease in the tax cuts for our wealthiest Americans who make more than $1 million a year. the wealthiest. arguably no skin off their noses. and to spend that money. I believe it was an additional $750 million. I have to doublecheck that number. but to be able to come close to spending an additional $1 billion on port security just by dropping the tax cut for our wealthiest Americans by 5 percent. And that was rejected. The Democrats voted for it and the Republicans voted against it. So it is very nice. and I am pleased to see. and I have been yearning as a freshman. it is the thing that has caused me the most concern. consternation. Over the course of the last year. my good friend from Texas and I have talked about it. many a time. we serve on the Judiciary Committee together. There is too much animosity in this Chamber. There are too many differences. We focus more on our differences than we do on our -potential alliances. This is a time when we have an opportunity to come together. I would like to see us come together in words and in deeds. We have that opportunity here. and it would be great. I am hopeful that henceforth we are going to be able to look elbows and move together to oppose this deal and to address the national security concerns that deals like this present. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.