[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 34 (Thursday, March 16, 2006)]
[House]
[Page H1122]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             PORT SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, many Americans are breathing a sigh of 
relief. They believe we have resolved the issue of port security, but 
that is far from the truth. True, for now, the idea of United Arab 
Emirates operating some of our port terminals has abated. But this is 
very much just a very small issue regarding port security.
  The fact is, our ports are probably today very little less secure 
than pre-9/11. The grades that the 9/11 Commission give to this 
administration's efforts on port security were generally failing.
  The United States has bound itself to an international agreement 
through the International Maritime Organization that allowed secret 
ownership of ships. Osama bin Laden could have a fleet of his own. We 
are not allowed to know. They fly under flags that countries that 
provide no supervision, in fact, in the case of Liberia, until 
recently, didn't even have a government, and barely exist.
  They have crews of unknown identity. Yes, they send us a name about 
the ship lands, but is that really the person. Is that really the 
background. Do we have fingerprints? No. We don't know who the people 
are on those ships. The cargo on those ships is not secure. The 
containers are not secure. It would cost a few dollars to secure a 
container from loading to unloading in the United States of America and 
scan it. The Bush administration thinks that is a cost that we cannot 
afford or would unnecessarily impinge upon free commerce.
  Then, of course, the technology, the technology that we don't have at 
the ports, to adequately scan these containers. Now, we cannot breathe 
a sigh of relief. Our ports are not yet secure. We depend upon a 
transmitted manifest. Now, I can just see that the Osama bin Laden line 
with the terrorist crew is going to send a manifest that says this 
container has 199 concrete bird baths and one small tactical nuclear 
weapon, and our intelligence people might even ask to open that 
container. Who knows, they might not. So we need to do a tremendous 
amount more.
  Then there is another issue. The Bush administration, while Congress 
is away next week, is intending to put forward a rule that would allow 
foreign interests to control United States airlines in contravention of 
a very explicit law which prohibits control by foreign interests. The 
Bush Administration, using their inherent powers, has decided to 
reinterpret the meaning of the word control and say Congress just meant 
they can't control safety and security. We will wall that off.
  How are you going to wall it off when you have foreign ownership of a 
U.S. airline, foreign management and a U.S. airline, foreign board of 
directors of a formerly U.S. airline, and you are going to wall off 
safety and security? Oh, come on, give me a break. As the chief 
operating officer of Continental said, hey, they are against this. They 
said, hey, I am head of safety, I am the COO, safety and security 
report to me. I can get someone to do whatever I want in that job, or I 
will fire them.
  That is an extraordinary risk. It risks our civilian reserve air 
fleet, where we move our troops overseas. Just imagine a future 
deployment, say to maybe the Taiwan area with a problem with China, and 
the U.S. troops could be flying on an airline that was owned and 
controlled by Chinese communist government interests under this rule, 
which the Bush Administration wants to push through. Or it could be a 
UAE crew from Dubai, because they are the fastest expanding long-haul 
airline in the world, with all of their billions of surplus dollars.
  We cannot rest easy, because the Bush Administration is continuing to 
dismantle critical infrastructure. We need a general review of critical 
infrastructure in this country, and we need to safeguard it. They are 
saying, no, we shouldn't do that. They are hoping to put the Dubai deal 
off, you know, and that we will not pay any attention to the threats at 
our ports or the threats to our airlines and aviation industry, or 
maybe even under the Bush administration, we will sell our nuclear 
plants to foreign interests.
  Wouldn't that be spiffy if we allowed foreign interests to own our 
nuclear plants? That would be really, really great for security here in 
the United States of America. America should not be for sale. It is a 
symptom of a failed trade policy, and this Bush administration just 
wants to do more of the same. It is time for change. It is time for new 
trade policy. It is time to keep bringing jobs home. It is time to make 
America secure, and it is time to secure our assets.

                          ____________________