[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 30 (Thursday, March 9, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1933-S1934]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             PORT SECURITY

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have been watching the developments on 
the Senate floor with, let's say, much surprise. It is very hard for me 
to understand why this Senate would not want to go on record in 
opposition to the Dubai ports deal when we have an opportunity to do 
that, to dispose of that amendment by Senator Schumer and go right back 
to the ethics reform bill that is before the Senate.
  I thank Senator Schumer for his courage because I know how it is 
around here sometimes. You need courage to say: Look, this is so 
important I am not going to back down. Senator Schumer explained that 
he and his colleagues from New York and New Jersey and Connecticut 
suffered the biggest blow on 9/11, although, believe me, the whole 
country suffered a blow--certainly in Pennsylvania directly and in my 
home State of California, where all those planes were going. We lost 
many people on that day.
  But Senator Schumer explains that when you tell the people at home: I 
am going to do everything in my power so that we never have another 9/
11, you better mean it. You better mean it. That means you have to step 
up to the plate. If you believe this deal presents a danger to our 
security, you have to step up to the plate, you have to use every 
legislative prerogative at your disposal, and you have to say to your 
colleagues: I am sorry, we are going to take 5 minutes out, we are 
going to take 10 minutes out, we are going to take 15 minutes out of 
this bill, and we are going to vote on this.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, God bless them--I know 
they must have a reason for this--they have stopped us from voting. 
They have stopped us from voting to stop this Dubai ports deal. Why is 
it important? There are so many reasons. This deal involves a port 
operator that is fully owned and controlled by a foreign country. Do 
we, in a post-9/11 world, want to have our very important 
infrastructure controlled by another country? I say no. Pre-9/11 we 
didn't think this way so much.

  We had a situation, Senator Feinstein and I, in Long Beach, the Los 
Angeles port, where China took over the running of a terminal. We were 
very concerned. This was in about 1997, well before 9/11. We were 
concerned then, and we asked for a special report from then-Secretary 
of Defense Cohen and Sandy Berger--he was our National Security 
Adviser. We asked them to do a written report to us before we let that 
go through. I believe now it ought to be looked at again. Not only 
that, but for all of the other ports that are being operated by foreign 
countries, we ought to have a look back. We ought to see if that is the 
right thing to do.
  But one thing I know for sure, today, this deal has to stop. We have 
a chance here, thanks to Senator Schumer, who took a lot of abuse--
maybe not publicly but privately--for having the courage to do this. We 
have to have a vote. It is amazing to me that those on the other side 
would stop us.
  This is the same group who said to the Democrats: You better step 
back and let us have a vote on every judge we want, you better step 
back and let us have votes on all these things, and they will not let 
us have a vote on the most sacred responsibility we have, which is to 
keep our country safe.
  Let the American people understand what this is about. It is not as 
if we have done so much for port security in this Congress. We have 
gotten failing grades for what we have failed to do on port security. 
It is not for lack of trying.
  I want to show you how many amendments we voted on, to try to 
increase port security, and what happened. In the 107th Congress, $585 
million increase for port security in the fiscal year 2003 
appropriations; another vote, $500 million increase for port security; 
another vote, $200 million increase for the Coast Guard; $1 billion for 
port security. Guess what happened in the 107th Congress. Every one of 
those amendments went down. Every one of those amendments went down 
because my colleagues on the other side pretty much voted party line, 
voted down.
  What happened in the 108th Congress? An amendment for a $460 million 
increase for port security plus a $70 million increase for the Coast 
Guard for homeland security was voted down; $450 million increase for 
port security, voted down; $100 million increase--we went at it again 
and again--voted down; $324 million increase for the Coast Guard, voted 
down; $80 million increase for the Coast Guard, voted down; $150 
million increase for port security grants, voted down.
  My colleagues on the other side voted down every one of these while 
they voted for tax breaks for the most wealthy Americans who already 
earn $1 million a year.
  I hope the American people are catching on to what is going on. Had 
we done some of these things and you had the country, the United Arab 
Emirates, that had connections to 9/11--two of the hijackers were from 
there. We know that money was laundered for the operation through 
Dubai. We know that Dr. Khan, the Pakistani scientist who turned on the 
civilized world and smuggled nuclear components to Iran, to North 
Korea, and to Libya--how did he smuggle those? Through the port of 
Dubai. And what we are going to do is reward these people, is give them 
the right to operate a terminal.
  Then you hear from my colleagues: Oh, the terminal operator has 
nothing to do with security.
  Wrong. We have a letter from the No. 2 man at the Port Authority in 
New Jersey and New York. Do you know what he said? The terminal 
operator is one of the major players in port security. They are the 
ones who decide who gets hired. They are the ones who do the background 
checks.
  I have that letter. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     To: Honorable Lindsey Graham U.S. Senator.
     From: James P. Fox, Deputy Executive Director, Port Authority 
         of NY/NJ.
     Date: March 1, 2006.
     Re: port security-terminal operators.

 Port Security: Federal Agendas vs. Terminal Operators Responsibilities

       The main players in port security consist of Customs and 
     Border Patrol, U.S. Coast Guard, Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement and the marine terminal operators.
       Due to the recent DP World Ports acquisition of P&O Ports, 
     reports have debated the level of responsibility that marine 
     terminal facilities operators have for security at their 
     facilities. Too clarify, marine terminal operators schedule 
     the ship traffic in and out of their terminals and they are 
     also responsible for handling the loading and unloading of 
     the vessels cargo. In 2004 alone, the Port Authority of New 
     York and New Jersey's terminal operators combined handled 
     4,478,480 (twenty-foot equivalent units) or TEUs.
       Marine terminal operators, such as P&O, are a1so 
     responsible for the perimeter security of their leasehold. 
     They hire the security guards and purchase the technology 
     that will protect the terminals property, therefore having 
     control over who can enter and exit a facility. Currently, 
     each port, and each operator within the port, has its own

[[Page S1934]]

     system for checking and identifying workers. It is important 
     that Congress and the administration understand the 
     importance of funding the Transportation Worker's 
     Identification Card in order to bring national uniformity to 
     port worker identification. At this time, there are no 
     required minimum standard security measures that the marine 
     terminal operators must adhere too. Voluntary security is not 
     security,
       It is important to note that marine terminal operators must 
     also act as an interface with the vessel and the federal 
     agencies. For example, if Customs and Border Patrol wants to 
     inspect a certain container they work through the terminal 
     operator to make that container available. As a terminal 
     operator, the management team and personnel are an intricate 
     part of the overall security apparatus at the terminal. It is 
     these personnel that will have an intimate role in the 
     movement and scheduling of cargo.
       To make a statement that the terminals do not play a role 
     in the security checks and balances at the terminal is off-
     base. Therefore any change of management at a terminal 
     facility brings with it the need to ensure that those 
     directing and controlling the flow of cargo do not pose any 
     risk to national security.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, here is the letter. They hired two 
security guards--that would be the Dubai people--and purchased the 
technology that will protect the terminal properties. They have control 
over who can enter and exit a facility. They have their own systems for 
checking and identifying workers.
  Let me tell you that the terminal operators, according to the people 
who know best, are very much into the loop of security. As a matter of 
fact, they are deemed one of the main players. That is what they are 
called--main players in port security consisting of Customs, Border 
Patrol, Coast Guard, Immigration, Customs enforcement, and the terminal 
operators.
  If anyone says to you it doesn't matter who loses the terminal, you 
just relate to them that we know better. When Senator Stevens had the 
CCO of Dubai Ports World before our committee, I said to him: What do 
you think about the fact that this Dr. Kahn got all of these smuggled 
nuclear components through Port of Dubai?
  Do you know what he said? This is the chief corporate officer of 
Dubai Ports World. He said, ``We don't know anything about it. We never 
look at containers.''
  Can you imagine? So here it is. We have a chance to stop this Dubai 
Ports deal in its tracks. To do so is in the best interests of the 
people of this country. To do so would be reflective of what the House 
of Representatives did yesterday in their Appropriations Committee. To 
do so is our highest responsibility to the people of this country. To 
do so is common sense. To do so is to stand for the security of this 
country.
  This deal is greased. The underlying bill that Senator Schumer 
attached this to, you and I, Mr. President, could live by the rules of 
this bill. And I intend to do it whether it is passed today, tomorrow, 
or next week. But we have to stop this deal from going forward. Listen, 
that deal was greased. That deal was greased. The President is all for 
it. He said: I didn't know anything about it. But 50 seconds later he 
was all for it.
  This is our only chance today, unless there is an agreement to have a 
stand-alone bill. I hope colleagues will fight for the right to vote 
for this important amendment. Thank you very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

                          ____________________