U.S. Sea ports

     PORT SECURITY -- (House of Representatives - April 04, 2006)

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized for 5 minutes.

   Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, members of the public might be surprised to learn that we are defending United States ports against the threat of nuclear weapons for the most part with a faith-based honor system.

   Here is how it works: there is something called the C-TPAT program. Now, foreign interests, so far 10,000, have indicated interest, file paperwork with the Department of Homeland Security. Now the Department of Homeland Security is a little understaffed. We have to have tax cuts for the rich people. So they do not have enough people to process these things. But once you file that form with them, you are considered to not be a threat because you filled out the paperwork. So far 5,800 have filed. About a third of them have been visited once. One site visit and then you are certified for 3 years. One site visit.

   So all you do is you get all the terrorists with the AK-47s and the kafias to get off the property for a day and you say, look, good place, security plan, legitimate business, you get the stamp of approval. Now you are no longer considered a high risk in terms of what you might put in a container. What you then have to do is when you want to ship a container to the United States, you have to send the shipping invoice a day in advance before it is put on the ship. So what you do is you say this container contains 200 birdbaths, because, of course, you would not say 199 birdbaths and one small tactical nuclear weapon. You would not do that. But we do not check those containers until they get to the United States of America, and then we check a very small percentage of them here using high technology.

   Now, today we have the Assistant Secretary, Mr. Jackson, in, who told us what their future plans are. Now, remember we have this threat. Things are coming to the United States of America. We do not really know what they are, on this honor system. We have not inspected those facilities. Even if they had been inspected, they were only inspected one day every three years. They have set a goal here, and he said that their goal is 100 percent inspection of all containers as they depart a U.S. port headed into our country.

   First I thought that was a misprint. I thought his staff screwed up his testimony here. No, he meant it. He is saying we know that these containers, when they come to the United States, might have a nuclear bomb inside; so their goal is that they will check all those containers with our technology within a very few years before they leave the port to an interior city. He did not really respond when I asked if that meant our ports have become sacrifice zones.

   They are so uncertain of the faith-based honor system, the C-TPAT system, and what is going on overseas that they want to put in place technology at taxpayer expense, technology to check 100 percent of those containers for nuclear weapons before they go from U.S. ports to inland U.S. cities.

   When I asked him if maybe we might extend that perimeter overseas and require that all containers be inspected overseas for nuclear weapons, he was saying that would be very difficult, but he actually admitted it might be possible given the technology recently modeled in Hong Kong.

   But the Republican majority on the committee said no way, we are not going to allow the inspection of those containers overseas. It would slow down those Chinese goods flooding into the United States of America and other things manufactured overseas. It would hurt commerce. There would be trucks lined up for miles back into mainland China with goods on them waiting to come to Wal-Mart here.

   This is fairly extraordinary to me. The Republican majority and the Republican administration are admitting that there are potential threats in these containers. They have put in place a faith-based honor system, but they are working hard to see that we will check those containers after they have arrived at an American port before they go to another American city. Those of us who live a little bit inland will be thankful for that, but I really do not agree with the philosophy that turns our ports into sacrifice zones.

   No. We need to check 100 percent of these containers for threats meaningfully with high technology equipment overseas before they come to the United States of America.
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS INFILTRATING OUR U.S. PORTS -- (House of Representatives - March 07, 2006)

  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 billthat 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 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.