[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3211-3213]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 3212]]

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 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

[[Page 3213]]

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.
  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.

                          ____________________