[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 24 (Wednesday, March 1, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H474-H475]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   PROBLEMS WITH THE DUBAI PORTS DEAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong concern about the 
Bush administration's agreement to allow a United Arab Emirates 
company, Dubai Ports World, to manage operations at several U.S. 
seaports, including the Port of Baltimore in my home State of Maryland.
  Let me first emphasize that the Untied Arab Emirates is a valued ally 
in the war against terrorism, and I sincerely appreciate their 
contribution to the war effort.
  Unfortunately, some pundits and supporters of this deal suggest that 
bipartisan criticism of the port deal stems from racism or xenophobia 
or even political-year grandstanding. I reject these arguments. These 
are the same pundits who were quick to say that Congress was lax in its 
oversight and failed to connect the dots after a terrorist attack.
  The sole issue here is national security and connecting the dots 
before the facts. Let me be clear. I do not oppose foreign ownership or 
operation of U.S.

[[Page H475]]

ports, per se. However, I do think that in any case of foreign 
ownership or operation of sensitive U.S. assets, we need to scrutinize 
these deals that could threaten our national security.
  That should have happened in this case. In cases involving foreign 
ownership and national security, the Committee on Foreign Investment in 
the United States provides for a second-level 45-day security review.
  Despite concerns expressed by the Department of Homeland Security and 
the Coast Guard, that did not occur. Only now, after this controversy 
has erupted, has the administration agreed to review the deal. Why are 
both Democrats and Republicans raising objections?
  Here are the facts that give us pause: first, the United Arab 
Emirates honors an Arab boycott of Israel, thereby discriminating 
against a valued U.S. friend and ally. Second, al Qaeda used the bank 
system in the United Arab Emirates to execute the 9/11 and the 1998 
African Embassy bombings.
  Third, the United Arab Emirates was one of three countries that 
recognized Afghan's brutal Taliban regime.
  Four, the 9/11 Commission reports indicated that Osama bin Laden 
regularly met with United Arab Emirates officials in the camps in 
Afghanistan. Reports suggest that bin Laden may have, in fact, been 
tipped off by friends in the United Arab Emirates.
  Simply put, the United Arab Emirates' record on terrorism is in fact 
mixed at best, and serious questions need to be asked about whether 
this company should be allowed port management.
  Let us talk about specific concerns. Last week Joseph King, a former 
Bush administration official at Customs, said in a Washington Post 
interview that people's national security fears about the deal are well 
grounded.
  He goes on to point out that under the deal, this company would have 
carte blanche-like authority to obtain hundreds of visas to relocate 
managers and other employees to the United States. Using appeals for 
solidarity or even threats of violence, al Qaeda operatives could force 
low-level managers to provide these visas to al Qaeda sympathizers.
  According to recent articles in a December 13, 2005, intelligence 
assessment of the company and its owners, the United Arab Emirates, by 
the Coast Guard warned: ``There are many intelligence gaps concerning 
the potential for Dubai Ports World or P&O assets to support terrorist 
operations that preclude'' the completion of a thorough threat 
assessment.

                              {time}  1630

  ``The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown 
threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities.'' That 
should give us pause.
  Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security initially objected 
to this deal. What are these intelligence gaps? How big are they? Have 
they been resolved? All questions we cannot answer right now.
  Let me say this. The administration's announcement of this deal is 
chillingly akin to the administration's prewar intelligence on weapons 
of mass destruction. There the administration selectively tailored 
intelligence to support the invasion that it desired from the very 
beginning. Here, the administration seems to be ignoring, deliberately 
ignoring, red flags and cherry-picking positive intelligence to support 
approval of a ports deal that it already wants.
  Let me conclude. Thankfully, Congress has put the brakes on this 
deal. We will be taking a long, serious and hard look at this 
arrangement. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has already made up 
its mind to support the deal even before a serious review has begun, 
and that is not in the best interest of the United States.

                          ____________________