[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 28, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1548-S1550]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      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.''

                          ____________________