[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 28, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1541-S1550]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
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.
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Kerry,
Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 2337. A bill to increase access to postsecondary education, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with
Senators Snowe, Akaka, Kerry, Durbin, and DeWine, the College Pathway
Act of 2006. The intent of this bill is to provide a means of
addressing the critical issue of college access and postsecondary
academic success. College access for all will continue to be a struggle
until the predictors of successful college performance are assimilated
into high school curricula. The degree to which high school students
are successfully prepared for college continues to be at the forefront
of educational concerns. Reports abound repeating the same message: our
high school students, particularly students from low-income and
minority populations, are not being adequately prepared for the
challenges of postsecondary education. The College Pathway Act seeks to
foster alliances among the interested and integral stakeholders in the
educational arena to create consistency in content and assessment
standards between P-12 and higher education. We do this by encouraging
the establishment of P-16 Commissions. We must rise to the challenge
and forge a pathway to enhance both college access and academic
success.
Postsecondary education is an important aspiration for most students
and the future strength of our economy and workforce will largely
depend on the postsecondary educational attainments of students across
the country regardless of ethnicity or economic status. High school
preparation is a major part of the problem. Published reports on the
status of this topic stress the lack of preparedness of high school
graduates for postsecondary education. Most will need remedial help in
college. More than 70 percent of high school graduates enter two and
four year colleges, but at least 28 percent immediately take remedial
English or math courses. At some point during their college years, 53
percent of students will take one remedial English or math class if not
more. For low-income and minority students, the percentage is higher.
States require a certain number of English and math courses to be
completed prior to graduation, however, the certainty of course content
reflecting the knowledge and skills important for college success is
not ensured.
Students find themselves taking high school courses lacking in rigor
and challenging content, particularly in the areas of math and science.
If asked, 39 percent of students who have gone on to a postsecondary
institution will admit they were not adequately prepared for college
and there were gaps in their overall preparation. College instructors
estimate that 42 percent of their students are not adequately prepared.
The quality and intensity of the secondary school curriculum are the
most significant predictors of college success; and are more
significant than race, socioeconomic status, secondary school grade
point average, or ACT and SAT scores. These findings are particularly
significant for minority groups enrolling in college. Students who
engage in challenging secondary coursework will attend and persist in
pursuing higher education at a greater rate than those who follow
programs of study that are not rigorous in content. All states have
English and mathematics standards and assessments at the high school
level, yet assessment standards and tests often do not reflect the
demands put on students in postsecondary education and in the
workplace. High school curricula must be aligned with college entry
requirements. The American Diploma Project states that the challenge
ahead is to create a system of assessments and graduation requirements
that considered together signify readiness for college and work. We, as
Federal policymakers, have an essential role to play in making this a
reality and creating college access for all.
In part, the misalignment between postsecondary institutions and high
school stems from current governance systems in place for P-12
educational systems and higher education. Both systems are generally
governed, financed and operated differently. This gap must be bridged
between the two systems. Creating a pipeline of shared information
between the two entities and the business community will promote an
exchange of necessary and useful information. Working to align
standards from the early grades through grade 12 recognizes that skill
acquisition and content assimilation build one upon the other and
acknowledges that high-school graduation and college success is a
culmination of preparation originating in the beginning years of
school. Aligning curricula
[[Page S1544]]
across school levels creates a more seamless education and ensures that
students are prepared for each subsequent grade with particular
attention to math, science, and engineering. Aligning P-12 and
postsecondary education would reduce the number of students who arrive
at college needing remedial coursework.
The need to develop high-quality data systems is also critical to
improving high school student outcomes. Accountability for high school
graduation numbers and drop-out rates is critical to addressing
education reform in our high schools. Currently reports have indicated
that the quality of high school graduation and drop-out data is often
not reliable and does not reflect the actual numbers.
Tracking student growth over time using longitudinal student-unit
databases will provide the most accurate information for policy
decisions and assessments. Furthermore, information provided about
student achievement over time can be linked to teachers, programs and
schools serving those students. The National Governor's Association
(NGA) recently convened a Task Force on State High School Graduation
Data--which included representatives from the American Federation of
Teachers, the Business Roundtable, the Council of Chief State School
Officers, the Education Commission of the States, the Educational
Testing Service, the Education Trust, the National Association of State
Boards of Education, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the
National Education Association, Standard and Poor's and the State
Higher Education Executive Officers--to make recommendations about how
States can develop a high-quality, comparable high school graduation
measure, as well as complementary indicators of student progress and
outcomes and data systems capable of collecting, analyzing, and
reporting the data States need. The task force members concurred as a
group on their mission and devised a compact to implement efforts to
guide States in developing high quality data-systems ideally using a
longitudinal student unit record data system. This compact was signed
by 51 governors in all States and Puerto Rico. The ultimate goal is
better outcomes for students. Better information can lead to better
policies and program implementation. Our bill therefore includes
incentives for States to develop or enhance such data systems.
The College Pathway Act supplies a remedy to the critical issue of
the disconnect existing between high school outcomes and college
expectations. Through the formation of partnerships between P-12 and
higher education systems in the States, academic success in
postsecondary education becomes the priority agenda item for reform. We
anticipate that P-16 Commissions will bring about an increase in the
percentage of academically prepared students, particularly low-income
and minority students, and a decrease in the percentage of college
students requiring remedial coursework, particularly with respect to
math, science, and engineering.
The College Pathway Act of 2006 awards grants to States to establish
P-16 Commissions in order to align P-12 outcomes with postsecondary
institutions' expectations. The Commissions under the leadership of the
governor or governor's designee, will convene stakeholders of the
statewide P-12 education and higher education community, and may
include parent groups, State legislative representatives, and
particularly members of the business community. The commissions' goal
to create a mission addressing college preparation will be the first
and critical step of this process.
Many States across our country have already seen the wisdom of a P-16
commission and have been working on goals and implementation. The
results, although preliminary for many States, are vastly encouraging.
Our bill will provide support both to States with existing P-16 bodies,
or States seeking to establish such commissions. It will give priority
to the States also seeking to establish or enhance data systems.
The College Pathway Act of 2006 can offer States an opportunity to
craft a vision that will reach all students over time so that their
educational pathway of access to and success in college will be
ensured.
I urge my colleagues to act favorably on this measure. I ask
unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2337
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 ``College Pathway Act of
2006''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Postsecondary education is an important aspiration for
most students and the future strength of the United States
economy and workforce will largely depend on the
postsecondary educational attainments of all people of the
United States, regardless of sex, race, or ethnic background.
(2) Parents and students recognize the value of
postsecondary education. Ninety-seven percent of secondary
school students expect to attend college, and more than 75
percent of secondary school graduates enroll in some
postsecondary education within 2 years of secondary school
graduation.
(3) Notwithstanding those expectations, only 32 percent of
students graduate from secondary school adequately prepared
to enter a 4-year institution of higher education. Students
living in poverty and students of color are roughly half as
likely to be college-ready.
(4) Despite the reality that most students will enter
college after secondary school, secondary school graduation
requirements are not aligned with the expectations of
postsecondary education.
(5) Rather than beginning college-level work upon entering
postsecondary education, many students (nearly 1 in 3) enroll
in developmental coursework, and more than half will take at
least 1 class of developmental coursework before leaving
postsecondary education. Students who need to take a class of
developmental coursework in college have less than a 40
percent chance of completing their course of study, and
students who take 3 or more classes of developmental
coursework face reducing their prospects of completing their
course of study to less than 1 in 5.
(6) The quality and intensity of the secondary school
curriculum--
(A) are the most significant predictors of college success;
and
(B) are more significant than race, socioeconomic status,
secondary school grade point average, or ACT and SAT scores.
(7) States around the Nation have developed secondary
school academic standards, but there is often no relationship
between those standards and institutional expectations for
college-level study. Students, families, and school personnel
need information to address the gap that exists between
satisfying various kindergarten through grade 12 standards
and meeting the standards that indicate success in higher
education. The lack of clear information affects all
students, but the effect is particularly grave for students
living in poverty who are more reliant on schools and public
sources of information to gauge their preparedness for
college-level work.
(8) Numerous reports have cited the need to improve
mathematics and science achievement in prekindergarten
through grade 12.
(9) Current data systems are not designed to measure the
efficacy of State actions intended to prepare students to
enter and succeed in postsecondary education. State-level
data systems usually contain only data related to
kindergarten through grade 12, and often are not compatible
with postsecondary education data systems.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are the following:
(1) To broaden the focus of Federal, State, and local
higher education programs to promote academic success in
postsecondary education, particularly with respect to
mathematics, science, and engineering.
(2) To increase the percentage of low-income and minority
students who are academically prepared to enter and
successfully complete postsecondary-level general education
coursework.
(3) To decrease the percentage of students requiring
developmental coursework through grants that enable States to
coordinate the public prekindergarten through grade 12
education system and the postsecondary education system--
(A) to ensure that covered institutions articulate and
publicize the prerequisite skills and knowledge expected of
incoming postsecondary students attending covered
institutions, in order to provide students and other
interested parties with accurate information pertaining to
the students' necessary preparations for postsecondary
education;
(B) to establish and implement middle school and secondary
school course enrollment guidelines--
(i) to ensure that public secondary school students, in all
major racial and ethnic groups, and income levels, complete
academic courses linked with academic success at the
postsecondary level; and
(ii) to increase the percentage of students in each major
racial group, ethnic group, and income level who graduate
from secondary school and enter postsecondary education with
the academic preparation necessary to successfully complete
postsecondary-level
[[Page S1545]]
general education coursework, particularly with respect to
mathematics, science, and engineering;
(C) to implement programs and policies that increase
secondary school graduation rates; and
(D) to collect and analyze disaggregated longitudinal
student data throughout P-16 education in order to--
(i) understand and improve students' progress throughout
the P-16 education system;
(ii) understand problems and needs throughout the P-16
education system; and
(iii) align prekindergarten through grade 12 academic
standards and higher education standards so that more
students are prepared to successfully complete postsecondary-
level general education coursework.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) In general.--The terms ``local educational agency'',
``parent'', ``secondary school'', and ``State'' have the
meanings given the terms in section 9101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(2) Academic assessments.--The term ``academic
assessments'' means the academic assessments implemented by a
State educational agency pursuant to section 1111(b)(3) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311(b)(3)).
(3) Academic standards.--The term ``academic standards''
means the challenging academic content standards and
challenging student academic achievement standards adopted by
a State pursuant to section 1111(b)(1) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(1)).
(4) Covered institution.--The term ``covered institution''
means an institution of higher education that participates in
a program under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.).
(5) Developmental coursework.--The term ``developmental
coursework'' means coursework that a student is required to
complete in order to attain prerequisite knowledge or skills
necessary for entrance into a postsecondary degree or
certification program.
(6) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the
term in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1002).
(7) P-16 education.--The term ``P-16 education'' means the
educational system from prekindergarten through the
conferring of a baccalaureate degree.
(8) P-16 educator.--The term ``P-16 educator'' means an
individual teaching in P-16 education.
(9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
(10) Student.--The term ``student'' means any student
enrolled in a public school.
SEC. 5. P-16 EDUCATION STEWARDSHIP SYSTEM GRANTS.
(a) Program Authorized.--From amounts appropriated under
section 10 for a fiscal year, and subject to subsection (b),
the Secretary shall award grants, on a competitive basis, to
States to enable the States--
(1) to establish--
(A) P-16 education stewardship commissions in accordance
with section 7; or
(B) P-16 education stewardship systems consisting of--
(i) a P-16 education stewardship commission in accordance
with section 7; and
(ii) a P-16 education data system in accordance with
section 8; and
(2) to carry out the activities and programs described in
the State application and plan submitted under section 6.
(b) Award Basis.--In determining the approval and amount of
a grant under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give
priority to an application from a State that desires the
grant to establish a P-16 education stewardship system
described in subsection (a)(1)(B).
(c) Period of Grants.--
(1) States establishing p-16 education stewardship
systems.--Each grant made under this section to a State to
establish a P-16 education stewardship system described in
subsection (a)(1)(B) shall be awarded for a period of 5
years.
(2) States establishing p-16 education stewardship
commissions.--Each grant made under this section to a State
to establish a P-16 education stewardship commission
described in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be awarded for a
period of 3 years.
SEC. 6. STATE APPLICATION AND PLAN.
(a) In General.--A State desiring a grant under section 5
shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in
such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary
may reasonably require.
(b) Contents.--Each application submitted under this
section shall include, at a minimum, the following:
(1) A demonstration that the State, not later than 5 months
after receiving grant funds under this Act, will establish a
P-16 education stewardship commission described in section 7.
(2) For a State applying for a grant under section
5(a)(1)(B), a demonstration that the State, not later than 2
years after receiving grant funds under this Act, will
implement, expand, or improve a P-16 education data system
described in section 8.
(3) A demonstration that the State will work with the State
P-16 education stewardship commission and others as necessary
to examine the relationship among the content of
postsecondary education admission and placement exams, the
prerequisite skills and knowledge required to successfully
take postsecondary-level general education coursework, the
prekindergarten through grade 12 courses and academic factors
associated with academic success at the postsecondary level,
particularly with respect to mathematics, science, and
engineering, and existing academic standards and academic
assessments.
(4) A description of how the State will, using the
information from the State P-16 education stewardship
commission, increase the percentage of students taking
courses that have the highest correlation of academic success
at the postsecondary level, for each of the following groups
of students:
(A) Economically disadvantaged students.
(B) Students from each major racial and ethnic group.
(C) Students with disabilities.
(D) Students with limited English proficiency.
(5) A description of how the State will distribute the
information in the P-16 education stewardship commission's
report under section 7(c)(4) to the public in the State,
including public secondary schools, local educational
agencies, school counselors, P-16 educators, institutions of
higher education, students, and parents.
(6) An assurance that the State will continue to pursue
effective P-16 education alignment strategies after the end
of the grant period.
SEC. 7. P-16 EDUCATION STEWARDSHIP COMMISSION.
(a) P-16 Education Stewardship Commission.--
(1) In general.--Each State receiving a grant under section
5 shall establish a P-16 education stewardship commission
that has the policymaking ability to meet the requirements of
this section.
(2) Existing commission.--The State may designate an
existing coordinating body or commission as the State P-16
education stewardship commission for purposes of this Act, if
the body or commission meets, or is amended to meet, the
basic requirements of this section.
(b) Membership.--
(1) Composition.--Each P-16 education stewardship
commission shall be composed of the Governor of the State, or
the designee of the Governor, and the stakeholders of the
statewide education community, as determined by the Governor
or the designee of the Governor, such as--
(A) the chief State official responsible for administering
prekindergarten through grade 12 education in the State;
(B) the chief State official of the entity primarily
responsible for the supervision of institutions of higher
education in the State;
(C) bipartisan representation from the State legislative
committee with jurisdiction over prekindergarten through
grade 12 education and higher education;
(D) representatives of 2- and 4-year institutions of higher
education in the State;
(E) representatives of the business community; and
(F) at the discretion of the Governor, or the designee of
the Governor, representatives from prekindergarten through
grade 12 and higher education governing boards and other
organizations.
(2) Chairperson; meetings.--The Governor of the State, or
the designee of the Governor, shall serve as chairperson of
the P-16 education stewardship commission and shall convene
regular meetings of the commission.
(c) Duties of the Commission.--
(1) Meetings of covered institutions.--
(A) In general.--Each State P-16 education stewardship
commission shall convene regular meetings of the covered
institutions in the State for the purpose of assessing and
reaching consensus regarding--
(i) the prerequisite skills and knowledge expected of
incoming freshmen to successfully engage in and complete
postsecondary-level general education coursework without the
prior need to enroll in developmental coursework,
particularly with respect to mathematics, science, and
engineering; and
(ii) patterns of coursework and other academic factors that
demonstrate the highest correlation with success in
completing postsecondary-level general education coursework
and degree or certification programs.
(B) Findings of covered institutions.--The covered
institutions shall communicate to the P-16 education
stewardship commission the findings of the covered
institutions, which--
(i) shall include the consensus on the prerequisite skills
and knowledge, patterns of coursework, and other academic
factors described in subparagraph (A);
(ii) shall address, at minimum, the subjects of reading,
mathematics, science, grammar, and writing, and may cover
additional academic content areas;
(iii) shall be descriptive of content and purpose, and
shall not be limited to a simple listing of secondary course
names; and
(iv) may be different for 2- and 4-year institutions of
higher education.
(2) Commission recommendations.--Not later than 18 months
after a State receives a grant under section 5, and annually
thereafter for each year in the grant period, the State P-16
education stewardship commission shall--
[[Page S1546]]
(A) develop recommendations regarding the prerequisite
skills and knowledge, patterns of coursework, and other
academic factors described in paragraph (1)(A); and
(B) develop recommendations and enact policies to increase
the success rate of students in the students' transition from
secondary school to postsecondary education.
(3) Commission findings.--Not later than 3 years after a
State receives a grant under section 5(a)(1)(B), the State P-
16 education stewardship commission shall--
(A) compile and interpret the findings from the P-16
education data system; and
(B) include the compilation and interpretation of the
findings in the report described in paragraph (4)(A).
(4) Reports.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 18 months after a State
receives a grant under section 5, and annually thereafter for
each year in the grant period, the State P-16 education
stewardship commission shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary a clear and concise report that shall include the
recommendations described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
paragraph (2).
(B) Distribution to the public.--Not later than 60 days
after the submission of a report under subparagraph (A), each
State P-16 education stewardship commission shall publish and
widely distribute the information in the report to the public
in the State, including--
(i) all public secondary schools and local educational
agencies;
(ii) school counselors;
(iii) P-16 educators;
(iv) institutions of higher education; and
(v) students and parents, especially students entering
grade 9 in the next academic year and the parents of such
students, to assist the students and the parents in making
informed and strategic course enrollment decisions.
SEC. 8. P-16 EDUCATION DATA SYSTEM.
(a) Establishment.--Not later than 2 years after a State
receives a grant under section 5(a)(1)(B), the State shall
establish a State-level longitudinal data system that
provides each student, upon enrollment in a public school or
in a covered institution in the State, with a unique
identifier that is retained throughout the student's
enrollment in P-16 education in the State.
(b) Functions of Data System.--The State shall, through the
implementation of the data system described in subsection
(a), carry out the following:
(1) Identify factors that correlate to students' ability to
successfully engage in and complete postsecondary-level
general education coursework without the need for prior
developmental coursework.
(2) Implement procedures to track developmental coursework
enrollment rates.
(3) Implement procedures to assist with identifying
correlations between course-taking patterns in public
secondary education and increased academic performance in
higher education.
(4) Implement procedures to assist with identifying the
points at which students exit the P-16 education system,
including the assimilation of valid and reliable secondary
school dropout data.
(5) Incorporate data to track postsecondary degree and
certification completion rates and student persistence
patterns.
(6) Ensure that the data system is compliant with the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20 U.S.C.
1232g).
(7) Disaggregate the data described in paragraphs (1)
through (5) by race, ethnicity, income level, sex, secondary
school attended, and type of institution of higher education
attended.
(c) Existing Data Systems.--A State may employ, coordinate,
or revise an existing data system for purposes of this
section if such data system produces valid and reliable
information that satisfies the requirements of subsection
(b).
SEC. 9. REPORTS; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) State Reports.--
(1) Annual report.--Each State that receives a grant under
section 5 shall submit an annual report to the Secretary for
each year of the grant period that shall include a
description of the activities undertaken under the grant to
improve academic readiness for postsecondary-level general
education coursework and course completion.
(2) Dissemination.--Each State shall prepare, publish, and
widely disseminate the report described in paragraph (1) to
the public in the State, including secondary schools, local
educational agencies, school counselors, P-16 educators,
institutions of higher education, students, and parents.
(b) Secretary Reports.--
(1) Annual report.--The Secretary shall submit an annual
report to Congress that includes--
(A) findings from the State reports submitted under
subsection (a)(1);
(B) a description of the actions taken by the Department of
Education to assist States with creating P-16 education
stewardship commissions and P-16 education data systems;
(C) a description of the actions and incentives planned by
the States' P-16 education stewardship commissions--
(i) to help States align academic standards, courses, and
academic assessments with postsecondary academic
expectations, courses, and assessments;
(ii) to help States increase the percentage of minority and
low-income students prepared to enter and succeed at the
postsecondary level; and
(iii) to reduce postsecondary developmental coursework
enrollment rates of minority and low-income students;
(D) a description of the actions and incentives planned to
help States reduce postsecondary developmental coursework
enrollment rates;
(E) an assessment of the effectiveness of P-16 education
stewardship commissions in improving college readiness and
eliminating the need for developmental coursework; and
(F) recommendations regarding how to make the P-16
education stewardship commissions more effective, and whether
the establishment of such commissions should be encouraged
throughout the United States.
(2) Availability.--The Secretary shall make the annual
report described in paragraph (1) available to the public and
to each State and institution of higher education.
(c) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide,
upon request, technical assistance to States and institutions
of higher education seeking technical assistance under this
Act.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and such sums as may be
necessary for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2011.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill that will
improve college access by creating a framework to ensure that high
school graduates amass the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in
college--the College Pathway Act. My colleague, Senator Lieberman, and
I have been working hand-in-hand to identify the degree to which high
school students are unsuccessfully prepared for college and develop
practical solutions to this issue. The bill we introduce today is the
product of our combined efforts.
Today, 97 percent of secondary school students expect to attend
college, however, high school students are not prepared academically
for the rigors of college coursework. Although States around the
country have developed high school standards, there is often a
disconnect that exists between high school standards and college
expectations. Today, 53 percent of post-secondary students require
remedial English or mathematics. Graduation rates for those requiring
remedial classes are less then 40 percent. And that is why Senator
Leiberman and I are working together in response to the concerns that
too many students start college without the proper tools.
Part of the problem is that colleges and high schools generally have
separate statewide governing boards for their pre-kindergarten through
12th grade and higher education systems. The College Pathway Act awards
grants enabling States the opportunity of a voluntary establishment of
pre-kindergarten through the 16th grade commissions in States,
consisting of representatives of the pre-kindergarten through 12th
grade and higher education communities, the governor's office,
appropriate State legislators and members of the business community.
These partnerships within the commission would promote academic success
in postsecondary education, increase the percentage of academically
prepared low-income and minority students, and decrease the percentage
of college students requiring remedial coursework, particularly with
respect to math, science and engineering.
This commission offers a framework for aligning lower, middle and
high school curriculum and assessment standards with post-secondary
expectations. Students who are properly prepared before entering
college are far more likely to succeed in college. Indeed, many States
across the Nation are looking to the pre-kindergarten through 12th
grade concept to improve alignment. Federal funding for establishment
of pre-kindergarten through 12th grade commissions would allow States
to implement or expand their current programs. In addition, many States
are attempting to improve data collection systems in order to better
evaluate those programs that lead to success. Our bill would also offer
support to those States which voluntarily seek to enhance and improve
the effectiveness of their data systems. We believe that by promoting
coordination of grades pre-kindergarten through 12th grade, States will
better align education systems helping to ensure that all students are
prepared to successfully engage in and complete post-secondary level
coursework.
Our Nation must make a solid commitment to ensuring that every
individual has the opportunity to pursue a higher education. We should
pursue
[[Page S1547]]
policies that will prepare students to begin their college career. I
believe that education is the great equalizer in our society that gives
every citizen of our Nation the same opportunity to succeed in the
global economy of the 21st century. That's why I will continue to
target access to higher education for America's students. The College
Pathway Act will help to further this goal.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to voice my strong support as
an original cosponsor of The College Pathway Act, introduced by my
colleagues from Connecticut and Maine, Senators Lieberman and Snowe. I
greatly appreciate their foresight in creating legislation that will
help Hawaii and other states bring greater links between education at
all levels, as well as with business and industry.
I know the field of education well, having served as a teacher, vice
principal, principal, and school administrator in Hawaii before holding
public office. I taught at the elementary, middle, and secondary
levels, and continue to hold great interest in developments in these
areas, as well as in early childhood and higher education. From these
experiences, I have advocated that education should be an
interconnected pathway, from pre-kindergarten through postsecondary
levels and beyond, into the workforce.
We need all stakeholders in education and the labor force to work
together, seamlessly. The Lieberman-Snowe bill will help to further
this very aim in Hawaii and other States with existing entities, and to
assist other States in meeting similar, meaningful goals through the
creation of similar entities. By encouraging States to establish P-16,
or as in Hawaii's case, P-20 commissions, to align lower, middle, and
high school curricular and assessment standards with what is expected
in higher education, we will better assure college readiness and reach
a fundamental goal: greater rates of college completion.
To describe the Hawaii P-20 initiative in more detail, the initiative
brings together public and private educators at all levels, working in
collaboration with representatives of state government, the business
community, labor, and educational support agencies to focus on
improving learner achievement. Its vision statement says, all Hawaii
residents will be educated, caring, self-sufficient, and able to
contribute to their families, to the economy, and to the common good,
and will be encouraged to continue learning throughout their lives.
The initiative, which recently unveiled its strategic plan, is a
joint commitment of the Hawaii Department of Education, the Good
Beginnings Alliance, and the University of Hawaii, working with a
statewide P-20 Council to develop a seamless system of educational
delivery. I encourage anyone with interest in this effort to view
the details of the plan at www.p20hawaii.org. A main goal of the
initiative is to prepare my State's learners to succeed in a society
fast becoming more global, technological and complex. Ultimately, it
seeks to improve the quality of life for all of Hawaii.
I am pleased to support this effort and work toward providing this
and similar programs in other states with the resources to achieve
their aims. The Lieberman-Snowe bill does this, and I look forward to
working with my colleagues toward its enactment.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Isakson):
S. 2340. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
preserve access to community cancer care by Medicare beneficiaries; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to
introduce the Community Cancer Care Preservation Act, which will ensure
Medicare beneficiaries' access to community-based cancer treatment and
provide Medicare reimbursement assistance for oncologists providing
vital cancer care services.
Cancer takes a great toll on our friends, families, and our Nation.
In the United States, cancer causes one out of every four deaths and
was responsible for 570,000 deaths last year. In 2005, over 2 million
new cases of cancer were diagnosed, the most prevalent of which were
breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal.
While these statistics are daunting, the rate of cancer deaths in the
United States has decreased since 1993. This decrease is the result of
earlier detection and diagnosis, more effective and targeted cancer
therapies, and greater accessibility to quality care provided by
oncologists. These vital services have allowed millions of individuals
to lead healthy and productive lives after successfully battling
cancer.
In 2004, 42.7 million individuals were enrolled in Medicare; of those
beneficiaries over 29 percent have had cancer during their lives, 12.5
million beneficiaries. With such a large percentage of our seniors
facing this horrible disease, the need for access to community cancer
care is critical.
Community cancer clinics treat 84 percent of Americans with cancer.
Community cancer centers are free-standing outpatient facilities that
provide comprehensive cancer care in the physician's office setting
located in patients' communities. These clinics are especially critical
in rural areas where access to larger cancer clinics is not available.
They provide patients with earlier diagnosis, more effective cancer
therapies, and innovative supportive care that reduces fatigue, nausea/
vomiting, and pain. The accessibility of treatment in the hands of
skilled community oncologists has decreased the cancer mortality rate.
On December 8, 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and
Modernization Act was signed into law by President Bush. This
legislation contained numerous provisions that were beneficial to
America's seniors and medical facilities; however, it also provided a
reduction to Medicare's reimbursement for oncology treatment. The
provisions sought to bring a balance to the reimbursement for the cost
of cancer drugs and services. Previous to the implementation of the
law, CMS reimbursed the cost of cancer treatment drugs at a very high
level. This level provided sufficient funding to supplement the costs
of care, storage of the prescription drugs, and the costs of cancer
care services, which were not being provided adequate funding. The law
enacted reimbursement reductions for the cost of prescription drugs
while increasing the funding provided for cancer care services;
however, that increase did not sufficiently offset oncologists' losses
from the reduction in cancer drug reimbursement.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that Medicare
reimbursements to oncologists would be reduced by
$4.2 billion from 2004-2013. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that
reductions will reach $15.7 billion over that time. This increased
reduction will have a debilitating effect on oncologists' ability to
provide cancer treatment to Medicare beneficiaries, especially those in
the community setting.
For 2006, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
estimates that the beneficiary reimbursement for services provided by
community cancer care will be cut by 6.6 percent, a $200 to $300
million reduction. However, this reimbursement reduction may be larger
than estimated. CMS did not factor in the delay in drug manufacturer
price increases for cancer therapies and the bad debt of beneficiaries
who may not pay their Medicare 20 percent co-insurance payment. When
accounting for these reductions, the overall cut to cancer care will
likely exceed $300 million.
The Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act mandated a
transitional increase of 32 percent in service fees in 2004, falling to
3 percent in 2005, and 0 percent in 2006. This was done to provide time
for CMS to pay for essential unpaid medical services, such as pharmacy
facilities and treatment planning. In 2005, CMS created a cancer care
demonstration project as a quality enhancement initiative to examine
the effects of oncology drugs on patients. This demonstration project
also provided $300 million in critical funding because CMS had not
increased the reimbursement for essential unpaid medical services. On
June 29, 2005, I sent a letter with 38 other Senators to President Bush
requesting an extension to the demonstration project through 2006. CMS,
however, announced a new oncology demonstration project for 2006 that
examines the quality of cancer care in relation to treatment
guidelines, but at $180-$210 million less than the previous funding
level.
[[Page S1548]]
Accordingly, I am introducing legislation to provide community
oncologists with the tools to withstand the CMS reforms brought forth
under the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. The bill's
$1.7 billion price tag, over the next 5 years, is a relatively small
cost in the face of the vast reductions in CMS's reimbursement to
oncologists. Let me briefly summarize the provisions of this
legislation.
1. Sales Price Updates: Currently, CMS updates the prices for cancer
treatment drugs quarterly. This delay in price updating forces
community cancer clinics to often pay increased prices for prescription
drugs for up to six months without increased reimbursement. This
legislation requires the sales price for oncology drug reimbursement be
updated as changes occur in the price to provide a more accurate
reimbursement to oncologists for the cost of drugs. This will provide a
reimbursement to oncologists that is fair and reflective of market
costs.
2. Removal of the Prompt Pay Discount: The prompt pay discount is a
discount from the wholesaler to the physician for prompt payment on
prescription drugs. This is a benefit for physicians that operate an
efficient and organized practice and allows them to gain extra revenue
as an incentive for conducting business in that manner. The current
average sales price for prescription drugs from CMS takes into account
the prompt pay discount provided by wholesalers. The inclusion of these
funds, which are not guaranteed unless the practice operates in a very
efficient way, decreases the amount of reimbursement from CMS. My
legislation would remove the discount from the CMS average sales price
requiring CMS to reimburse oncologists at the price they pay for drugs
without the inclusion of discounts.
3. Quality Care Demonstration Project Extension: The quality care
demonstration project provided information to CMS that was gathered by
oncologists about the effects of oncology drugs on patients. This
project was altered and funds were reduced provided to conduct the
informational interviews to oncologists. The bill would extend the 2005
quality cancer care demonstration project through 2006. The project
collects information from cancer patients on the effects of cancer
treatment including fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and the treatment of
these symptoms.
4. Increase in Payments for Oncological Drug Storage: The CMS
reimbursement for oncology prescription drugs does not provide adequate
funding for storage and care needs. The prescription drugs for cancer
care often require special provisions including refrigeration and
handling as some drugs that are highly toxic. These special provisions
result in an increased cost, which is why my legislation provides a two
percent increase in payments to account for the storage and care of
oncology drugs.
5. Reports Regarding Cancer Care: The legislation would also require
a report from the Secretary of Health and Human Services on a plan to
increase the number of cancer patients in clinical trails and a
Congressional Budget Office Report on the effects of the Medicare
Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 on cancer
care. These reports will assist Congress and the Administration in its
future decisions impacting cancer care.
As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
(LHHS) Appropriations Subcommittee, I have sought to increase funding
for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer
Institute (NCI). Since becoming Chairman of the LHHS Subcommittee, the
funding for NIH has increased from $11.3 billion in fiscal year 1996 to
$29.4 billion in 2006, an increase of 147 percent, while funding for
the NCI increased from $2.3 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $4.9 billion
in 2006, an increase of 113 percent.
On February 16, 2005, I was diagnosed with stage IVB Hodgkin's
lymphoma and had my first chemotherapy treatment two days later. I had
a total of 12 treatments, my last on July 22, 2005, and tests following
that final treatment concluded that I am cancer free. As a recipient of
cancer treatment for Hodgkin's lymphoma cancer, I have an acute
understanding of the problems that confront patients as well as
physicians that administer their care.
This legislation provides Medicare reimbursement assistance for
community oncologists and ensures Medicare beneficiaries' access to
community-based cancer treatment. I encourage my colleagues to work
with Senators Coleman, Isakson and me to move this legislation forward
promptly.
______
By Mr. DORGAN:
S. 2341. A bill to prohibit the merger, acquisition, or takeover of
Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company by Dubai Ports World;
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Commerce Committee is having a hearing
this afternoon--and I have been at a portion of that hearing--dealing
with the question of Dubai Ports World, which is a company largely
owned by the United Arab Emirates. This is a company that has been
given the green light by this administration to manage six of America's
largest seaports.
This has caused a substantial amount of controversy and discussion.
In the last couple of days some of that controversy has been resolved,
at least in the minds of some, because the company owned by the United
Arab Emirates has asked the administration for a 45-day review of the
circumstances of this deal, and they will not take control of the
management of the American ports for these 45 days.
It is rather unusual for a company to be asking that the United
States Government do a 45-day review of the circumstances of whether a
United Arab Emirates company should be managing America's ports.
Speaking for myself, I don't need 45 days to understand this. I don't
need 45 minutes to understand it. I know a bad idea when I see one.
The President has made up his mind. President Bush has said he will
veto any legislation that is offered here in the Congress that would
upset this deal which would allow the company owned by the United Arab
Emirates to manage America's ports. If the President feels he should
veto a piece of legislation, that is his right. He has not vetoed any
bill since he became President of the United States, but if his
proposition is he wants to veto a piece of legislation and turn over
America's seaports, six of America's large seaports, to management by
the United Arab Emirates, so be it. But I think the President would be
making a very serious mistake.
Our country is under a terrorist threat. We get regular briefings on
that in the Senate, and the American people know that from watching the
news. We understand the terrorist threats take the form of threat to
air travel because the terrorists, as we know, last used commercial jet
airplanes to fly into the World Trade Center towers in New York City.
We understand the threats at our airports. That is why when you go to
the airport and try to board a plane they have you take off your belt,
take off your shoes, and run you through a metal detector. There is
great concern about the threat of terrorism and security at our
airports.
There is also great concern about security at our seaports.
I have spoken, I am guessing, about a dozen times on the floor of
this Senate about the security at our seaports since the time of the 9/
11 attacks.
I recall shortly after 9/11 when a fellow from a Middle East country
decided to ship himself in a container on a container ship. He got
inside a container, and he got loaded on a container ship. Here was
this man with a container. He had a cot to sleep on, he had a GPS
device, a radio, a supply of water, and he was shipping himself, I
believe, to Canada, and there was concern that he was a terrorist and
he was going to enter the country by shipping himself in a container on
a container ship.
I have spoken here, I suppose, almost a dozen times talking about the
danger of having anywhere from 5.7 to 5.9 million containers coming
into this country every year, millions of containers on a container
ship coming into this country every year, and somewhere around 4
percent of them and perhaps as much as 5 percent are inspected; the
rest are not.
I went to a port facility once. We don't have ports in North Dakota.
But I went to a port facility to visit and see what the security was.
They were showing me a container they had taken off a ship. The
container they opened
[[Page S1549]]
happened to be frozen broccoli from Poland, bags and bags and bags of
frozen broccoli. I said, How do you know what is in the middle of this
container? I see there are bags of frozen broccoli. How do you know
that is all that is here in the container? Well, we don't know. That is
why we are inspecting this particular container. How many containers do
you inspect? We know the answer to that. Out of every 100, 96 are not
inspected.
That is a threat to our country's seaports.
What about a terrorist organization deciding they want to try to
steal a nuclear weapon someplace? After all, there are tens of
thousands of them--somewhere, we believe, between 20,000 and 30,000
nuclear weapons that exist in this world. Steal a nuclear weapon and
put it in a container, on a container ship and run it up to a dock,
appear at one of America's major cities. What about the prospect of
that happening? Then we would not see 3,000 deaths. No, we would see
100,000 deaths or more.
Seaport security is a very serious issue.
Now, in the midst of all of these issues of national security, we
hear that something called CFIUS--the Committee on Foreign Investments
in the United States, composed of some 12 Federal agencies coming
together as a committee, evaluating foreign investment in the United
States--decided it is all right if this company called Dubai Ports
World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, is allowed to
manage six of America's largest ports, including ports in New York, New
Jersey, Miami, Louisiana, and Maryland.
That is not all right with me.
I just came from a committee hearing where we had some people say,
Well, you are going to offend somebody here. The United Arab Emirates
is a country that has been very helpful to us in the fight on
terrorism. The last thing we want to do is offend them.
What about offending common sense? Should we be offending common
sense here in the Senate? I don't think so. Common sense would say to
us when threatened by terrorist threats, security in this country ought
to be security provided by the United States. We can't provide for our
own security in our management of U.S. ports?
The United Arab Emirates is probably a perfectly wonderful country.
It is not a democracy, I will tell you. And two of the hijackers on 9/
11/2001 were UAE citizens. And the United Arab Emirates was only one of
three countries that recognized the Taliban Government which played
host to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.
Let me read something from the 9/11 Commission report. On page 137:
Early in 1999, the CIA received a recording that Osama bin
Laden was spending much of his time at one of several camps
in the Afghanistan desert south of Kandahar. At the beginning
of February, bin Laden was reportedly located at the vicinity
of Sheik Ali Camp, a desert hunting camp being used by
visitors from a Gulf State. Public sources have stated that
those terrorists were from the United Arab Emirates.
I will not read all of this.
According to the reports, the military was doing targeting work to
hit the camp where Osama bin Laden was thought to be, to hit it with
cruise missiles. But no strike was launched. And Mr. bin Laden
apparently soon moved on and the immediate strike plans became moot.
According to the CIA and defense officials, the reason the strike was
not launched against bin Laden was that policymakers were concerned
about the danger that a strike would kill a prince from the United Arab
Emirates who was visiting with bin Laden.
The 9-11 Commission report also talks about an official airplane for
the United Arab Emirates at a landing strip there. They believed the
UAE officials were visiting with Mr. bin Laden. So apparently, any
opportunity for this country to target Mr. bin Laden before 9/11 was in
part fouled by the relationship between at least some in the Royal
Family of the United Arab Emirates and Mr. bin Laden.
One of our Cabinet officers said, Well, this issue is not just about
national security, but also about trade and about commerce.
Look, trade and commerce do not ever trump national security. If
there are national security issues, then they have to be dealt with and
have to be recognized.
We are told, Well, everyone signed off on this; there is not a
problem here. But now we find out today that not everybody did sign off
on this. Yesterday we found out that the Coast Guard expressed
reservations about the deal in a secret report, which had already been
made public. The report said:
There are many intelligence gaps concerning the potential
for DPW or PNO assets to support terrorist operations. That
precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential DPW
and PNO ports merger.
So don't tell me that the Coast Guard signed off on this. They raised
questions about it, as they should have.
I have a GAO report that I showed a few moments ago in the Commerce
Committee. This is the title of the July 2005 GAO report: ``The DOD
Cannot Ensure its Oversight of Contractors Under Foreign Influence is
Sufficient.''
If the Department of Defense cannot ensure proper oversight of
foreign contractors, the Department of Homeland Security can? I don't
think so. The Department of Homeland Security, after all, responded to
Hurricane Katrina. Look at the mess they made with that. Now they are
saying, even though the Department of Defense cannot ensure oversight
of foreign contractors, Homeland Security is going to be able to do
that with respect to the security of our ports? I don't think so.
So national security is an issue. And saying so is not a slap in the
face at any country. It is just recognizing the obvious.
Something else that has not been talked about should be talked about.
We have moved at a full gallop toward globalization. We are in a global
economy, we are told. Well, the fact that we are in a global economy
should not persuade us not to think. One of the questions ought to be
raised by all is--aside from the national security interests, which are
significant interests--one of the other questions is, why would our
country not have the capability to provide its own port management, its
own port security?
There are certain things we do that we know we must do. Again, go to
the airport and see what they tell you about your shoes and belt and
see a little 6-year-old boy spread-eagle against the wall being
``wanded'' and ask yourself: Why is that happening? Because we have
decided there is a security threat at airports. Terrorists use a
commercial airliner as a guided missile to destroy buildings in our
country and to murder Americans. So we have issues of national security
to respond to a threat with airport screening.
What about our seaports? Does anyone think there is any less danger
with somewhere around 5.7 to 5.9 million containers coming into our
country, with 96 percent of them not having been screened? Does anyone
think there is less danger to America to have just one of those
containers be pulled up slowly at an American pier or port or dock that
has a weapon of mass destruction?
We are spending billions and billions of dollars building an
antiballistic missile defense system that does not work, regrettably.
We have spent billions of dollars and are spending billions more trying
to hit a bullet with a bullet because we are concerned that a rogue
nation or a terrorist will get hold of a ballistic missile, put on its
tip a nuclear weapon, and send it to us somewhere around 15,000 miles
per hour. By far, the more significant threat is for a ship to pull up
at one of our docks at about 5 miles per hour, leaded with containers,
most of which have never been inspected, containing in one circumstance
a weapon of mass destruction. That is by far a more significant threat
to our country.
I have spoken, I suppose, a dozen times over the years since 2001
about port security. Not because we have any ports in North Dakota,
because we do not. But it is obvious to me that if you are going to
begin to provide security for this country, we do not just do it by
metal detectors at airports; we do it at seaports and rail security, as
well. And with respect to seaports, it seems completely illogical to me
from a national security standpoint that we would decide to turn over
to foreign countries the management of our ports, our seaports.
People have said today: Are you kidding? This is done all the time,
for God's sake. Get a life. This is going on
[[Page S1550]]
everywhere. You do not understand the global economy. We have had other
countries managing our seaports.
This has become an issue that most American people recognize is a
problem. But a number of Members in the Congress do not recognize it as
a problem. Some do. But I heard opening statements at a committee
hearing suggesting this debate is about racial profiling, it is about
offending a good neighbor. Well, that is all nonsense. This is about
demanding at least some level of common sense be used in establishing
public policy.
The President says: We did the right thing. I have already made up my
mind, he says, and we approved it. And I will veto anything that would
overturn that approval.
Then he says, when asked by the company that is owned by the United
Arab Emirates to review it for 45 more days, the President says: Yes,
we will review it for 45 more days. But, again, he put out a statement
today saying: I've already made up my mind.
At a committee hearing this afternoon, others on the committee said:
Well, some of you have already made up your mind. Shame on you.
As I said, it would not take me 45 days to figure it out. It does not
take 45 minutes to figure it out. We ought to, as a country, be able to
find ways to manage our seaports. And we ought to, as a country, take
responsibility for our own national security. After all, it is not
every country in the world where you pin a little pin on the map that
says: Here's target one, here's the bull's eye of the target for
terrorists. They want to attack this country. This is where they want
to attack. We understand that.
All of us feel fortunate we have not been attacked again since 2001.
But we all know, as well, that there is much yet to do. Seaport
security is one of those areas in which we have to do much better.
My colleague who sat behind me some years, Senator Fritz Hollings
from South Carolina, would come to the Senate and speak at great length
about this. He would offer funding for more seaport security. It was
routinely turned down. All of us offered this and were routinely turned
down. We did not have the money. And we are inspecting 4 to 5 percent.
Someday, God forbid, if something happens at a seaport, we will all
stand and scratch our heads and say: Why didn't we try to find a way to
do this better, more inspections? Why didn't we understand that is more
vulnerable even than airport security? Why didn't we figure that out?
This is an opportunity. I understand this will be controversial. I
understand the President is going to be upset if the Congress takes
action.
I will offer legislation today that is very simple. It does not
tiptoe around 45 days and all these things. It just says this should
not happen.
If that offends someone, I am sorry. But I do not want to offend
common sense. And it seems to me, in this country there is a deep
reservoir of common sense at the local cafe or down at the hardware
store to say it would make the most sense, given the fact we are
targeted by terrorists, it would make the most sense for our country to
take responsibility for itself. This is not about globalism. It is not
about the global economy. It is not about offending someone. It is
about deciding as a country to assume responsibility for your security.
Let me make one other point. Yes, we need friends. Yes, we need the
United Arab Emirates to be our friend and other countries as well to
cooperate with us. But wouldn't it have been nice, for example, if we
had more cooperation when Dr. Kahn in Pakistan was arranging to have
nuclear materials and nuclear plans and nuclear parts sent around to
North Korea and to Iran and to other countries? Our children will pay
for that, unfortunately. And most of that material went through the
United Arab Emirates' ports.
Wouldn't it have been nice if we had more friends? We need more
friends. But, it seems to me, we ought not buy friendship by deciding
that we will put a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates in
the position of managing America's ports. Once again, this is merely
common sense.
The GAO report of last summer ought to be instructive to us. If the
Department of Defense cannot ensure its oversight of contractors under
foreign influence, how on Earth can Homeland Security ensure oversight
of a contractor that is owned by a foreign government in the Middle
East? How on Earth can we expect that to happen?
I come to the Senate to talk a lot about trade. In this age of
globalism people say: You are just a xenophobic isolationist stooge who
does not get it. The world has changed. It is a global world. Everyone
does everything everywhere.
It seems to me it is not inappropriate even in a global economy to
pursue our own interests from time to time, and that is especially true
when it deals with the subject of terrorism. Does the global economy
mean that you outsource or offshore everything? Is there anything you
cannot do without?
Some 15 years ago, I used to question Carla Hills, the trade
ambassador, at various hearings. Managed trade was anathema to her, and
it has been to virtually every administration. Yet virtually every
country we do trade with has managed trade. They have managed trade
with a set of objectives. I used to continually ask Carla Hill: Is
there anything the loss of which would give you problems?
For example, if, in a completely open system of trade we lost our
entire steel industry--it was gone, no steel mill and no steel produced
domestically--would that give you a problem? The answer was, no,
whatever happens, happens. That is nonsense. There are certain things
that a country must hang on to to remain a strong economic power, a
world economic power.
Maybe this, also, in addition to the national security issues--which
I think are very important--maybe it is also an opportunity to wake up
and answer the question: What is appropriate in a global economy? Is
everything on the table? Everything for sale? Everything up for trading
and grabs? Is offshoring just fine, notwithstanding what it means to
the American economy?
Perhaps, if we use this opportunity to ask those questions, we will
have done this country a favor.
In the meantime, I will introduce the simplest piece of legislation
introduced on this subject. It simply says: ``Just say no.''
____________________