[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 2234]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            THE TRANSEA ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration recently 
approved a deal, as we all know, that allowed the operation of six U.S. 
ports to be taken over by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned company 
controlled by the Government of the United Arab Emirates, a $6.8 
billion contract.
  The administration's handling of this deal has drawn criticism from 
Republicans and Democrats alike, and rightly so.
  The 9/11 Commission's final report warns of the United Arab Emirates' 
record of support for terrorism and its links to September 11, both 
strategic and financial.
  The Congressional Research Service noted the UAE was named as a point 
of shipment for illegal nuclear components sold by Pakistan.
  The U.S. Coast Guard told the administration, referring to the United 
Arab Emirates-controlled ports, that, ``There are many intelligence 
gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or PNO assets to support 
terrorist operations.''
  These and other more serious concerns may have been overlooked, as 
the administration rushed its review of this deal, but what this 
instance really highlights is a much broader and longer-term concern, 
the lack of a systematic process for the review of homeland security 
issues associated with America's international trade policy.
  In a post-9/11 world, trade agreements are no longer just vehicles 
for economic development. Trade agreements, to be sure, lower tariffs 
in open markets, but they also can lower our defenses as they open our 
ports and open our infrastructure and open our transportation and 
supply lines.
  In the post-9/11 world, America's trade policies and America's 
homeland security policies cannot exist separate from each other and in 
isolation. The risk is simply too great.
  For example, the United States Trade Representative right now is 
currently negotiating a trade deal with the United Arab Emirates. That 
trade deal would already have been in effect if it had been negotiated, 
passed by the Senate, passed by the House and signed by the President. 
It would likely have been declared illegal and unfair trade practice 
for us to cancel that $6.8 billion deal.
  The administration has it exactly backwards. Security needs to go in 
these trade agreements before they are signed, not pass a trade 
agreement and then hope for the best to protect the homeland.
  Other trade pacts negotiated by the Bush administration have given 
foreign governments, and even foreign companies, the right to sue the 
U.S. for government actions that cost the company money. There is no 
reason to believe that such suits could not be filed in some cases to 
block homeland security policies. Those suits would be heard by an 
international tribunal meaning that the U.S. would no longer have 
independent control over our own national security decisions.
  Before we implement the UAE agreement, the one that the U.S.T.R. is 
negotiating today or any other free trade agreement, we should have a 
full understanding of homeland security consequences.
  That is why I introduced today the Trade-Related America National 
Security Enhancement and Accountability Act, the TRANSEA bill. My bill 
would do several things: require a systematic homeland security review 
of trade agreements, with sign-off from the U.S. Trade Representative, 
the Homeland Security Department and other responsible agencies, and 
with reporting to Congress.
  Second, it would require that all future agreements include a 
national security waiver, allowing the President to suspend an 
agreement or any provision of an agreement if the President determines 
that the agreement creates a homeland security vulnerability.
  Third, it would create an independent trade security commission to 
watchdog trade policy from a homeland security perspective and report 
to Congress on potential threats.
  Last, it would to allow Congress to force action if the 
administration fails to respond to a homeland security warning from the 
commission.
  It is absurd to require that our constituents remove their shoes at 
the airport, but not require that multibillion dollar trade agreements 
undergo systematic homeland security review.
  The TRANSEA Act is an important step toward a policy that reflects 
the realities of a post-9/11 world. I urge my colleagues to support 
this important legislation.

                          ____________________