Mr. President, I have been watching the developments on the Senate floor with, let's say, much surprise. It is very hard for me to understand why this Senate would not want to go on record in opposition to the Dubai ports deal when we have…
Mr. President, I have been watching the developments on the Senate floor with, let's say, much surprise. It is very hard for me to understand why this Senate would not want to go on record in opposition to the Dubai ports deal when we have an opportunity to do that, to dispose of that amendment by Senator Schumer and go right back to the ethics reform bill that is before the Senate.
I thank Senator Schumer for his courage because I know how it is around here sometimes. You need courage to say: Look, this is so important I am not going to back down. Senator Schumer explained that he and his colleagues from New York and New Jersey and Connecticut suffered the biggest blow on 9/11, although, believe me, the whole country suffered a blow--certainly in Pennsylvania directly and in my home State of California, where all those planes were going. We lost many people on that day.
But Senator Schumer explains that when you tell the people at home: I am going to do everything in my power so that we never have another 9/ 11, you better mean it. You better mean it. That means you have to step up to the plate. If you believe this deal presents a danger to our security, you have to step up to the plate, you have to use every legislative prerogative at your disposal, and you have to say to your colleagues: I am sorry, we are going to take 5 minutes out, we are going to take 10 minutes out, we are going to take 15 minutes out of this bill, and we are going to vote on this.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, God bless them--I know they must have a reason for this--they have stopped us from voting. They have stopped us from voting to stop this Dubai ports deal. Why is it important? There are so many reasons. This deal involves a port operator that is fully owned and controlled by a foreign country. Do we, in a post-9/11 world, want to have our very important infrastructure controlled by another country? I say no. Pre-9/11 we didn't think this way so much.
We had a situation, Senator Feinstein and I, in Long Beach, the Los Angeles port, where China took over the running of a terminal. We were very concerned. This was in about 1997, well before 9/11. We were concerned then, and we asked for a special report from then-Secretary of Defense Cohen and Sandy Berger--he was our National Security Adviser. We asked them to do a written report to us before we let that go through. I believe now it ought to be looked at again. Not only that, but for all of the other ports that are being operated by foreign countries, we ought to have a look back. We ought to see if that is the right thing to do.
But one thing I know for sure, today, this deal has to stop. We have a chance here, thanks to Senator Schumer, who took a lot of abuse-- maybe not publicly but privately--for having the courage to do this. We have to have a vote. It is amazing to me that those on the other side would stop us.
This is the same group who said to the Democrats: You better step back and let us have a vote on every judge we want, you better step back and let us have votes on all these things, and they will not let us have a vote on the most sacred responsibility we have, which is to keep our country safe.
Let the American people understand what this is about. It is not as if we have done so much for port security in this Congress. We have gotten failing grades for what we have failed to do on port security. It is not for lack of trying.
I want to show you how many amendments we voted on, to try to increase port security, and what happened. In the 107th Congress, $585 million increase for port security in the fiscal year 2003 appropriations; another vote, $500 million increase for port security; another vote, $200 million increase for the Coast Guard; $1 billion for port security. Guess what happened in the 107th Congress. Every one of those amendments went down. Every one of those amendments went down because my colleagues on the other side pretty much voted party line, voted down.
What happened in the 108th Congress? An amendment for a $460 million increase for port security plus a $70 million increase for the Coast Guard for homeland security was voted down; $450 million increase for port security, voted down; $100 million increase--we went at it again and again--voted down; $324 million increase for the Coast Guard, voted down; $80 million increase for the Coast Guard, voted down; $150 million increase for port security grants, voted down.
My colleagues on the other side voted down every one of these while they voted for tax breaks for the most wealthy Americans who already earn $1 million a year.
I hope the American people are catching on to what is going on. Had we done some of these things and you had the country, the United Arab Emirates, that had connections to 9/11--two of the hijackers were from there. We know that money was laundered for the operation through Dubai. We know that Dr. Khan, the Pakistani scientist who turned on the civilized world and smuggled nuclear components to Iran, to North Korea, and to Libya--how did he smuggle those? Through the port of Dubai. And what we are going to do is reward these people, is give them the right to operate a terminal.
Then you hear from my colleagues: Oh, the terminal operator has nothing to do with security.
Wrong. We have a letter from the No. 2 man at the Port Authority in New Jersey and New York. Do you know what he said? The terminal operator is one of the major players in port security. They are the ones who decide who gets hired. They are the ones who do the background checks.
I have that letter. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.
Mr. President, here is the letter. They hired two security guards--that would be the Dubai people--and purchased the technology that will protect the terminal properties. They have control over who can enter and exit a facility. They have their own systems for checking and identifying workers.
Let me tell you that the terminal operators, according to the people who know best, are very much into the loop of security. As a matter of fact, they are deemed one of the main players. That is what they are called--main players in port security consisting of Customs, Border Patrol, Coast Guard, Immigration, Customs enforcement, and the terminal operators.
If anyone says to you it doesn't matter who loses the terminal, you just relate to them that we know better. When Senator Stevens had the CCO of Dubai Ports World before our committee, I said to him: What do you think about the fact that this Dr. Kahn got all of these smuggled nuclear components through Port of Dubai?
Do you know what he said? This is the chief corporate officer of Dubai Ports World. He said, ``We don't know anything about it. We never look at containers.''
Can you imagine? So here it is. We have a chance to stop this Dubai Ports deal in its tracks. To do so is in the best interests of the people of this country. To do so would be reflective of what the House of Representatives did yesterday in their Appropriations Committee. To do so is our highest responsibility to the people of this country. To do so is common sense. To do so is to stand for the security of this country.
This deal is greased. The underlying bill that Senator Schumer attached this to, you and I, Mr. President, could live by the rules of this bill. And I intend to do it whether it is passed today, tomorrow, or next week. But we have to stop this deal from going forward. Listen, that deal was greased. That deal was greased. The President is all for it. He said: I didn't know anything about it. But 50 seconds later he was all for it.
This is our only chance today, unless there is an agreement to have a stand-alone bill. I hope colleagues will fight for the right to vote for this important amendment. Thank you very much.