[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 28, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1541-S1543]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Nelson of Florida, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 2334. A bill to ensure the security of United States ports, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am proud that I have introduced today
along with Senators Clinton, Lautenberg, Nelson, and Boxer legislation
that would guarantee that foreign governments cannot control the
operations of the ports of the United States. I thank Senator Clinton
for her leadership on this issue as we fight together, along with
Senator Schumer and others, to keep the Port of New York/New Jersey
safe.
I think we all know why public attention has been focused on this
deal over the past 2 weeks. Our ports are the gateway to this country.
They are the gateway for much that we eat, that we drink, that we wear,
drive, and use on a daily basis. But just as they bring in goods we
enjoy, the ports are also our Achilles' heel, the vulnerability that
could be exploited in an attempt to bring us down if terrorists
transport a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon to our ports. That
is why our legislation sets a new standard for the future control of
our ports.
Our legislation would protect our national security by keeping our
ports from falling into the hands of foreign governments. Our
legislation bans foreign government-owned companies from operating in
our ports and requires the President to report to Congress on how to
manage national security risks arising from any existing port
contracts. Our legislation would also end the secrecy associated with
the Dubai deal by making the executive branch notify Congress as well
as State and local officials of future deals. The legislation also
includes a new public comment period.
Never again should the American public find out about a secret deal
through the newspapers after the fact. Never again should Congress
learn about the sale of a key U.S. infrastructure asset to a foreign
state-owned company only after the deal is done. And never again can we
compromise national security by turning our port operations over to
another country, whether friend or foe.
Our message with this legislation today is clear: Never again.
I think all Americans instinctively know we cannot simply turn over
our critical national security infrastructure such as terminal
operations at our ports to a foreign government. Foreign governments
act very differently than even foreign companies. Foreign governments
act in their own national interests and in their own national security
interests. Privately held foreign companies are controlled by
stockholders and answer to the needs of the market, not the needs of a
government. One must only study the way in which Venezuelan President
Hugo Chavez has used his state-owned oil company to pursue the
interests of the Government of Venezuela to understand that state-owned
companies often behave very differently than publicly traded ones.
That is why our legislation bans foreign governments from owning,
leasing, or operating any facilities in our ports. We believe that just
as we would not turn over the operations of our airport facilities to a
foreign government, why should we turn the operations of our ports,
which are the biggest hole in our national security blanket, over to a
foreign government.
The opponents of this thought process, of this bill, like to argue
this is the reality of global trade. But the people making this
argument are the same ones who constantly remind us that the world has
changed since September 11 and that we must adapt our security response
accordingly. Whatever happened before September 11, the world has
changed since then and we cannot rely on our old methods of looking at
the world in a traditional way.
One of the things the September 11 Commission told us was to think
outside of the box. A simple envelope became a weapon of great injury
when it was filled with anthrax; an airplane used to travel
commercially or for pleasure was turned into a weapon of mass
destruction. Think outside the box. And if we cannot think outside the
box in the context of understanding how the ports in the United States,
in the hands of a foreign government in an operational capacity, can
have a security consequence, we are in trouble in this post-September
11 world. This is an area in which security must take priority over
commercial transactions.
Make no mistake about it; the legislation is urgently needed, and I
am writing the President today expressing my concern that this new 45-
day review leaves the President with no authority to act to stop Dubai
Ports World from taking control of United States port operations. I am
not sure that is clear with this 45-day review. This transaction was
set to close on March 2, and
[[Page S1542]]
we want to stop the clock now and make sure that 45-day investigative
review period is precedent to the fulfillment of that agreement.
We also believe it is time to end the secrecy surrounding these
deals. This secrecy apparently allowed the executive branch to ignore
our own laws. These laws require a 45-day investigation of deals
involving government-owned companies which could affect national
security. Clearly a deal to turn over part of our port operations to a
foreign government-owned company would impact national security. We
know the Coast Guard warned the administration that there were
intelligence gaps that made it impossible to determine the threats
raised by the deal. Yet it is only now, after enormous external
pressure, that this 45-day review period may be carried out. But
starting an investigation that should have already been carried out
under the law is not enough, and that is why, from my position on the
Banking Committee, during hearings later this week, I plan to seek to
discover why the law wasn't followed. I am looking forward to working
with both the chairman and ranking member to come up with comprehensive
solutions to these problems that emanated under the Committee on
Foreign Investment in the United States.
As I said before, I am also concerned about the secrecy in this
process. Many New Jersey residents have written or called me asking why
the process in approving the deal was so secretive and why Congress was
kept in the dark. It is clear to me, to the people of New Jersey, using
their common sense, and to the American public that we must have
transparency and openness as we address these national security issues.
Without our legislation, the committee that reviews this process
doesn't even have to tell Congress about the deal until after it has
made a decision. And even after they make a decision, they have no
obligation to inform the American public. In the particular case of the
Dubai Ports deal, the committee sent out no information and the press
only learned about it when Dubai Ports World decided to put out its own
press release. That is why our legislation would require the
notification of Congress, State, and local authorities where
appropriate, as well as a public comment period to allow the public
impacted by any future deals to share their concerns with the Federal
Government.
These are basic reforms which I think most Americans would agree seem
necessary, almost obvious when it comes to protecting our ports. The
fight to secure our ports cannot and will not end with this
legislation.
Let me be clear: Our ports are not secure. I have been arguing on
this for quite a long time as a former Member of the House of
Representatives representing the Port of Elizabeth and Newark, the
third largest port, the Port of New York/New Jersey and other ports on
the eastern seaboard. For all the money the Nation has poured into
improving our security, several critical links in the chain have been
ignored, and this week the spotlight has shone brightly on one aspect
of the problem: our ports, the port of entry for thousands of
containers every day, holding everything from clothing to electronics.
But these containers could also contain much more dangerous cargo such
as a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon.
The bottom line is we don't know what is in the vast majority of
containers entering this country because despite repeated warnings from
security experts from both within and without our Government, only 1
out of every 20 containers that passes through our ports is screened,
and 95 percent receive no screening whatsoever other than a cursory
glance at a cargo manifest.
It is crucial that we also develop a national transportation plan
that includes a comprehensive strategy for protecting our ports. A
weapon of mass destruction detonated in a shipping container at the
Port of New York/New Jersey or any other seaport could cause tens of
thousands of casualties and economic losses approaching a trillion
dollars. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, $5.4 billion will be needed
over the next 10 years for port security. Yet since the 9/11 attacks,
Congress has provided less than $800 million.
This is not a new problem, and it should not be surprising that the
administration has let this problem fester. They have continuously
focused on the security of only one aspect of our critical
infrastructure to the detriment of the rest. That is something we can
no longer continue to accept.
In New Jersey we face the reality of failures in our national
security every day when we look across the river at Ground Zero and
mourn the loss of over 700 fellow New Jerseyans who died on September
11, 2001. The problem of port security is not in some distant future or
some distant issue but an everyday reality, as we look at our own port
which brings in hundreds of thousands of containers from around the
world every day: 145 million tons last year from over 5,000 ships. This
is a port that generates over 200,000 jobs and $25 billion of economic
activity. It is a great economic engine. It is also a great risk.
In today's reality, a foreign government, if it were to be operating
the facilities at one of those ports and simply wanted to do something
as benign maybe as shutting it down at a critical moment, such as when
we are sending supplies to our troops in the field--we use our
commercial ports increasingly to send military equipment and supplies
to back our troops in the field--imagine if it were shut down at a
critical moment when we needed those supplies to be generated across
the sea.
That is why we have to face these realities together. We must stand
together across party lines and across States to fight for the safety
and security of our families. Our ports are on the front lines in our
fight against terrorism, and with this legislation, we say we will
never again allow a deal which would compromise the national security
of our ports, the safety of New Jersey, or the security of the United
States.
I urge my fellow Senators on both sides of the aisle to join with us
in this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2334
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Port Security Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LEASES OF REAL PROPERTY AND FACILITIES
AT UNITED STATES PORTS BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT-
OWNED ENTITIES.
(a) In General.--Section 271(d) of the Defense Production
Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Subject to subsection (d)'' and inserting
the following:
``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (e)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Prohibition on leases of real property and facilities
at united states ports by foreign government-owned
entities.--The President shall prohibit any merger,
acquisition, or takeover described in subsection (a)(1) that
will result in any entity that is owned or controlled by a
foreign government leasing, operating, managing, or owning
real property or facilities at a United States port.''.
(b) Report Required.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to
Congress a report on the leasing, operating, managing, or
owning real property or facilities at United States ports by
entities that are owned or controlled by foreign governments.
(2) Content.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall
include--
(A) a list of all entities that are owned or controlled by
foreign governments that are leasing, operating, managing, or
owning real property or facilities at United States ports;
(B) an assessment of the national security threat posed by
such activities; and
(C) recommendations for any legislation in response to such
threat.
SEC. 3. INCREASED TRANSPARENCY OF MANDATORY INVESTIGATIONS.
Section 271(b) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. App. 2170(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
(2) by striking ``The President'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The President'';
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(2) Notification to congress.--Not later than one day
after commencing an investigation under paragraph (1), the
President shall provide notice of the investigation and
relevant information regarding the proposed
[[Page S1543]]
merger, acquisition, or takeover, including relevant
ownership records to--
``(A) the Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the
Senate;
``(B) the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives;
``(C) the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Committee on
Finance, the Committee on Homeland Security and Government
Affairs, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate;
``(D) the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Committee on
Ways and Means, the Committee on Homeland Security, the
Committee on Financial Services, the Committee on Armed
Services, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
of the House of Representatives; and
``(E) the Members of Congress representing the States and
districts affected by the proposed transaction.
``(3) Notification to public officials of investigations of
proposed transactions affecting united states ports.--In the
case of an investigation under paragraph (1) of a proposed
merger, acquisition, or takeover that will result in any
entity that is owned or controlled by a foreign government
leasing, operating, managing, or owning real property or
facilities at a United States port, the President shall, not
later than one day after commencing an investigation under
paragraph (1), notify the Governors and heads of relevant
government agencies of the States in which such ports are
located and provide to such Governors and relevant agency
heads information regarding the proposed merger, acquisition,
or takeover, including relevant ownership records.
``(4) Public comments.--
``(A) Solicitation of public comments.--Not later than 7
days after commencing an investigation under paragraph (1),
the President shall publish in the Federal Register a
description of the proposed merger, acquisition, or takeover,
including a solicitation for public comments on such proposed
merger, acquisition, or takeover.
``(B) Summary of public comments.--Not later than 10 days
prior to the completion of an investigation under paragraph
(1), the President shall publish in the Federal Register a
summary of the public comments received pursuant to
subparagraph (A).''.
SEC. 4. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.
Section 271(e) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. App. 2170(e)) is amended by striking ``subsection
(c)'' and inserting ``subsection (d)''.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any merger,
acquisition, or takeover considered on or after October 1,
2005 under section 271 of the Defense Production Act of 1950
(50 U.S.C. App. 2170).
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am glad to hear our new colleague from
New Jersey talking about our national security, and certainly this is
one subject which always concerns us. It is the primary role of our
National Government to provide for the security of the American people.
I hope that in the debate, though, about the control of our ports, we
don't operate on the basis of looking for political advantage but,
rather, we take a calm and deliberate review of the facts.
I heard this morning, in the Armed Services Committee, from the
Director of National Intelligence, who said that after a review of this
transaction, it was his opinion, as the lead Government official for
the intelligence community in our Nation, that any risk in this
transaction was low. Certainly, that was useful information to have,
and I anticipate that we will continue to hear more as the Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee continues to look into
this transaction, and I trust we will do our due diligence during this
45-day review period.
But I hope we don't make this a political football. I hope we don't
paint this with such a broad brush that we consider any Arab nation our
enemy when, in fact, this Nation has been an ally in the global war on
terror. I hope we will make our judgments based on behavior and not
where someone comes from or their ethnicity or other origins because,
of course, fanning the flames of prejudice based upon those sorts of
considerations would be inappropriate entirely.
______