[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2811-2812]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS INFILTRATING OUR U.S. PORTS

  Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House 
for 5 minutes at this time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, in the world we live in today, there is nothing 
more important than American security. This is one reason I was 
surprised to learn there is a plan to let a foreign government, through 
its government-controlled company, run major ports throughout our 
country, including part of the port of Beaumont in my district in 
southeast Texas.
  We hear that the UAE ports deal will not jeopardize national security 
because this government company will actually help us with homeland 
security. My question is: Are we now going to outsource national 
security as well?
  The recent disturbing decision to allow the United Arab Emirates to 
have a stake in operations in U.S. ports is a dangerous decision that 
defies common sense.
  History has shown that friends of the United States come and go. 
Those who are our friends today may not be our friends tomorrow. The 
UAE, although alleged friends today, have not been our friends in the 
past; and there is nothing that proves that they will continue that 
friendship in the future.
  The UAE recognized the Taliban. It laundered money that financed the 
9/11 terrorists, and it continues to participate in the Arab boycott 
against our ally, Israel. This country harbored terrorists that played 
a role in killing 3,000 people on September 11. We cannot ignore their 
perilous past.
  Mr. Speaker, last time I checked, we were at war against the Taliban. 
I find it extremely hard to believe that we would want to give a 
country that supported our enemies access to our ports. If this deal 
were to go through, these same foreign entities would have access to 
U.S. manifests showing what cargo is being shipped and where and when 
it is going. According to a recent Zogby poll taken in October 2005, it 
found that over 70 percent of those who live in the UAE do not even 
like the United States. If this arrangement goes through, who is going 
to stop a potential terrorist from posing as someone else, going to 
work for one of these ports, and gaining access to information with the 
intent to harm Americans? We do not need to take this risk with 
national security.
  Currently, only 5 percent of the more than 14 million containers 
entering through our Nation's ports are screened. Clearly, our ports 
are already vulnerable. In a day and age where we are allowing 95 
percent of the cargo to come and go through our ports without 
inspection, it is hard to believe that we are willing to give security 
to a foreign entity, much less one that has anything but a strong 
record in preventing terrorism. Even the U.S. Coast Guard, which is in 
charge of port security, seems uneasy about letting this take place.
  Many Americans across our land are opposed to this foreign operation 
in our homeland. The port of Beaumont in Texas, one of the operations 
proposed to be run by this UAE deal, ships one-third of the military 
cargo going to Iraq and Afghanistan. This is more than any other U.S. 
port. Now we want to give a foreign government access to U.S. military 
shipping information? I think not.
  We cannot allowed our ports to be infiltrated by foreign governments. 
And this is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of national security. 
For this reason, I have joined colleagues from across the aisle in 
introducing a bill that will stop this UAE operation from going 
through. I have joined the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz) in introducing legislation to prevent this dangerous and 
deceptive deal. This deal should become a ``no deal'' before it becomes 
an ordeal.
  Mr. Speaker, just last week we introduced the Port Security Act of 
2006. This is the House version of legislation already introduced in 
the Senate. This bipartisan legislation will prohibit foreign state-
owned companies from controlling operations at U.S. ports and stop the 
UAE deal by mandating a congressional review of existing foreign

[[Page 2812]]

state-owned companies that are operating in American ports. There is an 
innate and inherit problem, not to mention a serious national security 
risk, with letting state-owned foreign companies buy interests in 
American ports.
  I am not opposed to foreign privately owned companies operating in 
our country. I understand we live in a global economy. Foreign 
ownership of a hotel or car company is one thing, but foreign 
government ownership in port operations, especially those that handle 
military cargo, is absurd.
  There are entirely too many issues that need to be ironed out before 
we start offering our ports and our national security up to foreign 
governments for sale or for lease. This decision is unwise. It is a 
risky business. This ought not to be. And that is just the way it is.

                          ____________________