[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 30 (Thursday, March 9, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1941-S1943]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PORT SECURITY
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the courtesy of my colleague. I
believe what I am going to say, since the Senator is addressing the
issue of the DP World port terminal transaction, might bear on his
remarks.
Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to work very closely with
the White House and the administration, with our distinguished leader,
Bill Frist, and several other Senators on this question.
I have had the opportunity to meet and work with representatives of
the DP World company who came to the United States for the purposes of
sharing the importance of this contract and their perspective.
I shall not recount the events that have occurred here in the last
few days. But I have just been contacted by Edward Bilkie, chief
operating officer, of DP World. And in an effort to get this message to
all interested parties as quickly as possible, I indicated a
willingness to read a press release that is now being issued by DP
World. It reads as follows:
Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab
Emirates and the United States and to preserve this
relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S.
operations of P&O Ports North America, Inc. to a United
States entity. This decision is based on an understanding
that DP World will have time to effect the transfer in an
orderly fashion and that DP World will not suffer economic
loss. We look forward to working with the Department of the
Treasury to implement this decision.
His Highness Sheikh Muhammad al-Maktum, Prime Minister of UAE, has
directed the company, in the interest of the UAE and the United States,
to take this action as the appropriate course to take in the future.
Mr. President, I would say that I started the day with the Secretary
of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and General Abizaid--
discussing with them not the politics strictly--but potential security
implications. It is not just the security of the United States with
which we are concerned, but that of the free world, for much of the
world is engaged in this war on terrorism.
It is absolutely essential that we, the United States, and our
coalition partners in the region of the Persian Gulf, who are doing our
best to secure the stated goals in Afghanistan and in Iraq, sustain a
strong working partnership. Indeed, the relationships among the
coalition of partners--most specifically the United States, the
Government of UAE, the Government of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar--must be
maintained as strong as possible because they are valued partners in
this war on terror.
This is not just a matter of importance regarding the current
operations at the moment in Afghanistan and Iraq, but rather in looking
to the indeterminate future as to how long our coalition partners will
be engaged in the war on terrorism to deter any attacks, and if
necessary, to use force of arms to prevent injury to life and limb of
citizens in the free nations of the world.
This has been a very interesting chapter in my 28 years of having the
privilege to be a Member of the Senate. But I believe both governments
have collaborated and acted in good faith, recognizing the
circumstances at hand and our shared objectives from this time forward.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
two letters addressed to me from the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S.
Army.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff,
Washington, DC, March 9, 2006.
Hon. John W. Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to your letter of 28
February 2006, the loss of access rights for US forces to the
United Arab Emirates (UAE) would severely impact US
operations in the US Central Command area of responsibility.
These strategically located ports and airfields are crucial
to providing timely logistical support to our military
operating in the region. Beyond port and airfield access,
this loss would negatively affect bilateral exercises and
result in loss of support from a strong regional ally.
In particular, Jebel Ali is the premier naval refurbishment
port in the region and hosts more US Navy ships than any port
outside the United States. It provides a dedicated deepwater
berthing space for aircraft carriers, and is the only
carrier-capable port in the Arabian Gulf. Additionally, the
Port
[[Page S1942]]
of Fujairah faces the Indian Ocean and provides critical
logistics support to US operations in the region. We assess
that losing access to UAE ports would have a severe impact on
US naval operations in support of Operations ENDURING FREEDOM
and IRAQI FREEDOM. Finally, the UAE provides basing for US
Air Force aircraft flying various missions in support of
operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Horn of Africa.
Very Respectfully,
Peter Pace,
General, United States Marine Corps, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
____
United States Central Command,
Office of the Commander,
Macdill Air Force Base, FL.
Hon. John W. Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to your letter of 8 March
2006, the United Arab Emirates is a strategically important
regional partner, and a supportive ally in the Global War on
Terror. UAE occupies a critically important position relative
to the Strait of Hormuz, and access to its naval and air
bases is essential for maintaining presence in the region.
The government of the UAE is a committed partner in support
of operations throughout the region, providing vital military
and humanitarian assistance as well as political support. For
example, UAE has contributed over $100 million toward Tsunami
relief operations, over $50 million in support of
humanitarian mine clearance efforts in Lebanon, and over $100
million dollars in supplies, personnel, facilities, and
funding during Pakistan earthquake relief operations.
UAE's cooperation in the Global War on Terror has been
noteworthy. Less than 60 days after the 9/11 attacks, the
first UAE liaison officer arrived at USCENTCOM headquarters.
Since August 2003, UAE Special Forces have been deployed in
support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. Additionally, a field
hospital was deployed to Iraq from April 2003 to November
2005, providing critically important medical services and
supplies. US Air Force assets utilize UAE base support for
aerial refueling, intra-theater lift, and surveillance/
reconnaissance missions in support of Operation ENDURING
FREEDOM, Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, and Combined Joint Task
Force Horn of Africa. Finally, the significance of UAE's
support of the War on Terror is clearly evident in the $545
million of direct and indirect cost sharing in FY04 and FY05.
Our strong partnership with the UAE is similar to the
support received from other moderate Arab nations. As you
have noted, other nations provide critically important
basing, overflight, financial, and in many cases, troop and
equipment contributions to operations in the region. The
cooperation of our moderate Arab partners is essential to the
success of the mission, and UAE is a strong example of
strategic partnership at work in the Middle East.
Very Respectfully,
John P. Abizaid,
General, United States Army, Commander.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague from
Virginia for his unfailing efforts to try to find a solution here that
would solve the many different goals and needs of the situation of the
purchase by Dubai Ports World of British P&O.
I believe the words that were mentioned in Mr. Bilkey's letter--I
tried to write them down here--were that DP World will ``transfer
fully'' to a U.S. entity.
Could I ask my colleague to yield for a question? Did I get the words
exactly right? I would be happy to yield for a question. I just want to
make sure I got the words right in the letter which my friend from
Virginia just read--that DP World will ``transfer fully.''
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am having it duplicated, and I will hand
the Senator a copy.
Mr. SCHUMER. Obviously, this is a promising development, but of
course the devil is in the details. I think those of us who feel
strongly about this issue believe that the U.S. part of the British
company should have no connection to the United Arab Emirates or DP
World, which is fully owned by the United Arab Emirates.
So therefore, we would have to examine their proposal.
The bottom line is, again, if U.S. operations are fully independent
in every way, that could indeed be promising. If, on the other hand,
there is still ultimate control exercised by DP World, I don't think
our goals will be accomplished. Obviously, we will need to study this
agreement carefully.
I again thank my colleague from Virginia for his unstinting efforts,
like everything he does, to try to come up with a fair and reasonable
compromise.
In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to join in voting against
cloture at this point in time. Obviously, the vote occurs at 2 o'clock,
and this brief statement by Mr. Edward Bilkey is something which has to
be studied.
At this point in time, the amendment I have offered, along with so
many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, should remain in play.
I make a couple of points about that. First, I believe strongly in
ethics reform. I believe this Senate can do both at once, ethics reform
and deal with the Dubai issue. They are not mutually exclusive.
The bottom line is we have offered to take a few hours off ethics
reform, vote on my amendment as a freestanding bill, and then go back
to ethics reform. It is truly the actions of the other side--invoking
cloture, refusing to let this amendment come up--if cloture is not
invoked, which I believe it will not be, that will be slowing down
ethics reform. It is the intention of those on this side--and I know
our minority leader will speak to this--to turn to ethics reform when
we can but not in exclusion, not in place of, getting a vote on this
particular issue.
The bottom line is very simple. There have been too many concerns
raised about DP Ports World and its views of security, its actions in
regard to security. We cannot any longer play roll-the-dice. We cannot
roll the dice when it comes to the security of our Nation. The way this
deal was approved initially, the secret nature by which this
investigation occurred--casual, cursory--is simply not good enough. We
have to examine the whole issue of port security.
I have been pushing that issue for many years, ever since September
11. Hopefully, out of this sorry mess, we will look at that. In the
meantime, this deal should not go through. This deal creates too many
unanswered questions. To simply allow the President, who has already
said he is for the deal even before the investigation is completed, to
have the only and final say is wrong.
I urge a vote against cloture.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to state that I
will be voting against the motion to invoke cloture on the lobbying
reform bill. Typically, I vote for cloture motions because they are
usually intended to facilitate an up-or-down vote on a piece of
legislation or a nomination that is being stalled. Today, that is not
the case. Yesterday, cloture was filed on the lobbying reform bill to
prevent an up-or-down vote on an amendment. In this case, it is an
amendment on port security, an issue of critical importance to this
country right now. As a result, I will vote against cloture today to
ensure that up-or-down votes are allowed to occur.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The minority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is a lot going on as to whether the
port deal is there or not there. We have to wait and see what really is
going to happen.
I want everyone to understand how we got to where we are today, how
we got to this cloture vote. It is fair to say the minority, the
Democrats, forced the debate on ethics reform with the legislation we
introduced, the Honest Leadership Act. We did that in January. If it
were not for us, I don't believe the Senate would be even talking about
Government reform this week--maybe sometime in the future. We pushed
this and pushed it hard. Regardless of what happens today, Democrats
are committed to seeing this legislation through. We are going to
complete lobbying reform legislation, and on my side I am committed to
ensuring we do that.
The Senate has to be able to do two things at one time. We can handle
the vote on the Dubai port situation and we can vote on honest
leadership amendments. Historically, this body has been able to do
both; that is, conduct its day-to-day business and address critical
national security issues when they arise. That is all we are asking we
do now.
Democrats believe it is important that we clean up what is in
Washington with the lobbying, and we have heard the floor managers
agree with me, but we also understand it is just as important that we
stop a foreign government with connections to terrorism, which I will
talk about in a minute, and even nuclear proliferation, from taking
control of our ports.
[[Page S1943]]
The Senate must not look the other way, as this administration's
dangerous, I believe, incompetence once again threatens our country. I
understand the majority has in the past rubberstamped this
administration's actions and activities; however, we on this side of
the aisle are going to continue to call attention to this issue. We
need tough and smart national security policies, not more of the same
as we saw with Katrina and in Iraq.
It is a vision of the Democrats that the Senate can and should
complete action on lobbying reform and also protect Americans by
addressing port security.
Do we Senate Democrats want a country, not a company, running our
seaports? No, especially a country that was one of only three countries
in the entire world to recognize the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
Do we want a country that has a trade boycott against Israel running
our ports, a country that has not even recognized the State of Israel,
which was formed in 1948? Do we want a country that was a staging
ground for the September 11 terrorists running our ports? Do we want a
country owning one of our seaports that was instrumental in allowing
nuclear devices to make nuclear weapons go through its seaports to
other parts of the world? The answer is no, we do not want that.
Just a year or so ago, it was exposed that Dubai was the center of
the world's largest nuclear proliferation as the AQ Khan network used
Dubai to traffic nuclear weapons technology to the highest bidders.
Osama bin Laden's operatives are said to have used Dubai as a local hub
after September 11. Terrorism money has been laundered through the
United Arab Emirates. Several of the hijackers flew from Dubai to the
United States in preparation for the attacks. The 9/11 Commission found
that the United Arab Emirates represented a persistent counterterrorism
problem for the United States.
We do not want such a country running our ports.
We believe there should be a vote today. There won't be one today on
this issue, I understand that. The reason the leaders in the House and
the Senate have done what they could in the last 24 hours to say there
will not be a vote is because it is the hope of President Bush that
this issue will go away some way.
That is why I will vote against cloture. The Senate needs to speak
out against the seaport deal. We have heard the American people speak
out against it. We heard the House of Representatives in their
Committee on Appropriations speak out against it. It is now time for
the Senate to do the same.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________