Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, AND HURRICANE RECOVERY, 2006 -- (House of Representatives - March 15, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, while I understand the sentiments and the security concerns of the Members here today on this ports issue, I feel strongly that free trade is a core American value that is worth fighting for. I look forward to making the case for free trade and for economic engagement with our moderate Arab allies here today.

But first, let's consider what we are and are not voting on today. The U.S. Congress cannot stop this sale, as this provision would seek to do. We simply do not have jurisdiction beyond our shores. In fact, the sale has already happened and the shareholders will be paid over the next couple of weeks. While I appreciate the desire of Members to stop the sale, the fact is that this language does nothing of the sort.

I'm not sure what the goal is. The language certainly does not stop the purchase by Dubai Ports World, and--even more important--does nothing to improve the security of our ports. I would argue that this provision does not improve our security but will damage us economically, militarily, and diplomatically.

It seems as if we are operating in a fact-free zone here.

The facts are that companies based in many other countries are already managing most of the Nation's ports. Will we be seeking to overturn these contracts next?

The fact is that no American company chose to bid on Peninsular and Oriental. There is only one American company large enough to take on this kind of contract, and my understanding is that firm is already at capacity. Would we simply wish an American ports management company into creation?

Let's talk a little about port security. We know that no matter who manages port operations, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Customs Service, and U.S. longshoremen continue to be responsible for port security, the checking of cargo, and the handling of cargo.

Stephen Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations testified before Congress: ``We need to know what's in the box more than we need to know who is moving them around a container yard.''

So if our concern truly is port security, why are we not focusing on supporting that overall effort?

The fact is that Dubai Ports World is of course involved with the Jebel Ali port, one of the largest and among the most advanced ports in the world. According to The New York Times, it is the world's 11th largest port and annually handles more than 7.5 million containers, many of them going directly to and from the United States. On a number of issues, they have cooperated with the U.S. government to allow for our inspections.

Robert C. Bonner, formerly with Customs, was quoted in The New York Times: ``Dubai has acknowledged the absolute importance of securing cargo against terrorists.''

On cargo security, we ought to be concerned about what's being onloaded in foreign ports just as much as we are concerned about what's being offloaded on our shores. Once a dangerous ship arrives, it's far too late for concern.

So if we trust Dubai Ports World on the first crucial half of a cargo transaction--the loading--why would we not trust the company to be involved in U.S. cargo operations in a strictly management capacity?

Nonetheless, the company has moved forward to sell the operations to a U.S. buyer. DPW announced yesterday it has retained credible, well-known legal and financial firms to handle this transaction. The company has agreed to abide by a voluntary commitment to hold U.S. ports separate until the sale is complete.

And still, it seems that it's not enough. I would ask: What more would we have DPW do? When will this be dead enough to satisfy the U.S. Congress?

The action, I am sad to say, sends exactly the wrong message to the world about the climate for international businesses in the United States. It sends the wrong message about our willingness to engage in transactions that create growth and jobs here at home. It tells the world that we are an unreliable trading partner.

While we are sometimes obsessed with the so-called ``outsourcing'' of American jobs abroad, why are we not similarly concerned about our ability to ``insource'' jobs through foreign direct investment?

Moving to the military aspect of our relationship with Dubai, today we may blatantly insult a moderate Arab ally that has generously allowed the use of its port and airfield facilities for our military. General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called the U.S. military relationship with the UAE ``superb.'' Dubai provides servicing and port security that is good enough for the U.S. Navy.

I worry how that relationship will proceed in the future, and I believe that this entire affair will end up as diplomatic disaster for the United States throughout the moderate Middle East.

Lawrence Lindsey recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal: ``The UAE isn't any old Arab country. It sits astride the Strait of Hormuz through which a fifth of world oil passes. Iran sits on the other side....... From a global perspective, efforts by the U.S. Congress to alienate the UAE at this time look about as sensible as Russian roulette.''

There are many other respected voices who have spoken to the economic, security, and global issues raised in this controversy.

Robert Samuelson, the renowned economist, wrote recently in The Washington Post about how this action will damage American interests. In addition to the damage done to our relationship with the UAE and other allies in the Middle East, Samuelson holds the view that it has weakened worldwide confidence in the dollar.

Samuelson concludes, ``Every country has the right to protect its security interests. But those interests must be defined coherently and not simply as the random expression of political expediency.''

James Glassman of the American Enterprise Institute testified before a Financial Services subcommittee: ``Our ties through trade, in fact, have made us more safe as our trading partners become more prosperous, open and democratic. But our politicians and pundits should know that we can't pick and choose. If we decide to deny firms from developing nations--Arab, Asian or otherwise--from investing in the United States, those firms will go elsewhere. And we will pay the price--in higher interest rates, higher mortgage rates, higher inflation, lower stock prices, less participation in a world [that is] growing more and more creative and exciting.''

Since World War II, the United States has enjoyed economic growth and an increase in economic standard of living that has never before been achieved in world history. This has gone hand-in-hand with our values of democracy and freedom of thought. We have watched other nations fail because they were too closed, either economically or politically or both. One of the critical factors in our stunning success has been free trade and the free movement of capital throughout the world.

I can't say it any better than Thomas Friedman, who wrote: ``People across the world still look to our example of pluralism, which is like no other. If we go Dark Ages, if we go down the road of pitchfork-wielding xenophobes, then the whole world will go Dark Ages.''

``There is a poison loose today, and America--America at its best--is the only antidote. That's why it is critical that we stand by our principles of free trade and welcome the world to do business in our land, as long as there is no security threat.''

This is a feel-good vote in the heat of the moment that I think the House will live to regret. It's time for us to decide whether we are going to continually respond to 9/11 with a reactive fear, or whether we're going to move forward and engage the world with confidence. Today, I will vote for the latter.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov