[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 26 (Friday, March 3, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1680-S1681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 2367. A bill to provide a cause of action for United States port 
operators with respect to the potential change of ownership of a 
terminal operator to a foreign entity, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on September 11, 2001, the 
longshoremen who work on the docks in Newark, NJ, could see the flames 
and smoke from the World Trade Center. Many of those dock workers lost 
a loved one or a friend that day. Of the three thousand people who 
died, 700 were from New Jersey.
  I have been to Port Newark many times before--I used to serve as a 
Commissioner of the Port Authority. This week I went back to Port 
Newark to tell those workers why I thought it was a bad idea to turn 
control of their port over to the government of Dubai, the United Arab 
Emirates. I really didn't have to explain it to them. They understood 
why it is a bad idea--just as 70 percent of the American people 
understand.
  Unfortunately, as of yesterday, a company owned by the government of

[[Page S1681]]

Dubai now controls port operations in Newark--and five other major 
ports in the United States. This is an outcome we have been trying to 
prevent. And if Congress had been given any warning, we would have 
prevented it.
  Instead, the Bush Administration gave this deal a casual thumbs-up, 
when it deserved the highest scrutiny. Now the President is telling my 
constituents in New Jersey--as well as residents of Philadelphia, 
Baltimore, South Florida and New Orleans--``don't worry.''
  But that's not good enough.
  By rubber stamping this deal, the Bush Administration sold out the 
Federal Government's ability to object to the deal. Any 
``investigation'' at this point is after-the-fact and all for show. You 
don't buy a home before you look at it, and get it inspected. But 
that's what the Bush Administration did in this case.
  The people who work in our port, and those who live nearby, know 
better than anyone how important it is to keep our ports secure. That's 
why I am introducing legislation today that will empower our ports to 
terminate leases that pose a security threat to the port and the 
surrounding community. My bill will give ports that power when the 
company that holds a lease is sold or taken over by a foreign company 
like the Dubai-owned one in this case.
  This is a valid approach. The Port Authority of New York and New 
Jersey is already in court trying to invalidate the lease that was sold 
to Dubai Ports World. My bill would also encourage ports to do their 
own security assessment of transfers of ownership. It requires the 
Department of Homeland Security to assist our ports with those 
assessments.
  We need to take this step to protect our constituents, because the 
Bush Administration has left them high and dry. The Administration has 
been playing a shell game on this issue from the very beginning. First 
they said no thorough investigation was needed, and approved the deal. 
Then came the public outcry. Now the Administration is supposedly 
conducting a ``thorough investigation.'' But it is a meaningless 
gesture--the deal was finalized already.
  And before the so-called investigation even begins, President Bush 
has already made up his mind. On Tuesday, President Bush said: ``My 
position hasn't changed.'' So much for an objective investigation.
  This is not a 45-day investigation. It's just a 45-day stalling 
period while the Administration hopes the American people will forget 
about this problem. But we don't forget what happened on September 11--
and we won't forget how the Administration tried to rubber-stamp this 
deal.
  My constituents are alarmed. And unfortunately, the Bush 
administration hasn't displayed the competence that could restore 
public confidence. We can't afford to wait 45 days while the 
Administration stalls. The time to protect our constituents is now.
  I urge my colleagues to support my bill, which will give local ports 
the power to protect the American people.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 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. 2367

       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 ``Local Port Security Act of 
     2006''.

     SEC. 2. FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION ESTABLISHED.

       The owner of a United States port may file an action 
     seeking relief, including nullification of any contractual 
     obligation with any terminal operator within the port, in any 
     appropriate United States district court if a merger, 
     acquisition, or takeover transaction would result in a change 
     in the ownership of the terminal operator, and the new owner 
     would be a foreign controlled entity. Such relief may be 
     granted upon a showing by the owner of the port of a 
     demonstrated increase in the security risk to the port or the 
     port community as a result of such change in ownership.

     SEC. 3. REVIEW BY SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

       The Secretary of Homeland Security shall review any 
     proposed change in the ownership of a terminal operator 
     within a United States port to a foreign controlled entity to 
     determine the existence of any potential security concerns 
     raised by such change, and shall transmit the findings of 
     such review to the owner of the United States port and to the 
     President, or the President's designee, for purposes of any 
     investigation under section 721(b) of the Defense Production 
     Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170(b)).

     SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act may be construed to affect or otherwise 
     alter the requirements of section 721 of the Defense 
     Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170), or any rule, 
     regulation, or order issued thereunder.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act--
       (1) the term ``United States port'' means all piers, 
     wharves, docks, and similar structures, adjacent to any 
     waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, to 
     which a vessel may be secured, including areas of land, 
     water, or land and water under and in immediate proximity to 
     such structures, buildings, on or contiguous to such 
     structures, and the equipment and materials on such 
     structures or in such buildings; and
       (2) the term ``marine terminal operator''--
       (A) means the operator of the wharves, bulkheads, quays, 
     piers, docks, and other berthing locations, and adjacent 
     storage or adjacent areas and structures associated with the 
     primary movement of cargo or materials from vessel to shore 
     or shore to vessel, including structures which are devoted to 
     receiving, handling, holding, consolidating, and loading or 
     delivery of waterborne shipments or passengers, including 
     areas devoted to the maintenance of the terminal or 
     equipment; and
       (B) does not include the operator of any production or 
     manufacturing areas, or any storage facility directly 
     associated with any such production or manufacturing area;
       (3) the term ``port community'' means the land adjacent to 
     and within 10 miles of a United States port on which persons 
     reside or work who could suffer injury or death in the event 
     of a terrorist attack on or at the port; and
       (4) the term ``foreign controlled entity'' means any entity 
     in which a foreign entity owns a majority interest, or 
     otherwise controls or manages the entity.

                          ____________________