Pete King

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support the Foreign Investment Security Improvement Act of 2006, a bill to make certain that there is a full and complete investigation into the national security implications of the proposed acquisition of U.S. port terminal operations by Dubai Ports (DP) World--and to ensure Congress' crucial oversight role with respect to this transaction. I introduce this legislation today with support of my Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, the Honorable Benny Thompson, and 80 bipartisan colleagues. This legislation, and the message it sends about the importance of the national security concerns with the proposed deal, is crucial given what appears to be the cursory review of the serious national security questions that exist regarding the acquisition of port terminal operations by a company that is wholly-owned by the Government of Dubai. Serious National Security Concerns Exist Over DP World Acquisition On February 13, 2006, shareholders from Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Navigation Co. (P&O) approved an acquisition proposal from DP World, a port operations company owned by the government of Dubai, a member of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The deal would position DP World to conduct terminal operations at six U.S. ports: the Port of New York and New Jersey, the Port of New Orleans, the Port of Miami, the Port of Baltimore, the Port of Philadelphia, and the Port of Newark. I have serious concerns over the national security implications of the proposed takeover of U.S. port operations by a government who less than five years ago was documented as having significant ties to terrorism. As the 9/11 Commission reported, money used to carry out the September 11th attacks was funneled through UAE banks, many of the hijackers traveled to the U.S. from the UAE, at least one of the hijackers was born in the UAE, and the UAE was used as a crossroads for the shipment of nuclear material to Iran. I recognize that the UAE has provided significant assistance to our efforts in the War on Terror since 9/11. I commend the UAE for its willingness to be an ally in the War on Terror, including military cooperation, intelligence sharing and money laundering prevention and I encourage its continued efforts in securing our world. However, these positive commitments do not mean that we should ignore the real security concerns that exist with respect to this transaction. Late last year, DP World and P&O requested that the Committee for Financial Investment in the United States (CFIUS) review the transaction for national security concerns. CFIUS, an interagency committee chaired by the Department of Treasury and with members from twelve other agencies, was established by Executive Order in 1975 and assigned to carry out the national security reviews mandated under Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950. Current law requires CFIUS to review proposed foreign acquisitions to evaluate national security concerns during a 30-day initial review period. If national security concerns remain after this initial review period, the statute requires a more thorough 45-day investigation, followed by a Presidential evaluation of the proposed transaction. In the case of DP World, the Committee incredibly raised no national security objections to the proposed deal after a 30-day review period, and the more detailed 45-day investigation was not triggered. Members of Congress, state and local officials responsible for port security and the public at large were understandably shocked to first learn from press reports that this transaction had been approved in thirty days, without a formal investigation and without any attempt by the Administration to provide basic information on the deal in advance. I was also shocked to learn that the CFIUS approval was made by mid- level officials and that senior decision makers in the Administration-- including the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Homeland Security and the President of the United States-- were not informed until they became aware of the CFIUS approval via press reports. It also appears that state and local officials who oversee the affected ports were never consulted or otherwise informed of the DP World acquisition. In response to considerable public pressure over the past few weeks, the Administration and DP World have come forward to offer only limited information on the details of the 30-day CFIUS review, the national security concerns examined, and the measures taken to address those concerns. For informed judgments to be made, significantly more information is needed. DP World and the Administration recently announced an agreement to subject the DP World deal to a 45-day CFIUS investigation. While this announcement is a step in the right direction there remain a number of serious questions about the company and its security practices that must be answered before the deal can proceed. Congress must be made aware of the findings so that we can be certain our nation's homeland security is not being undermined. As this 45-day investigation begins, more questions exist than answers. I stress that this 45-day investigation must not be viewed as a 45-day campaign to ``educate'' Congress on the limited work that has already been done by CFIUS. I am troubled by recent statements of senior administration officials that suggest that the focus of these 45 days should be on addressing so-called misconceptions of Congress. Rather, this 45-day review must be vigorously pursued by all relevant federal agencies to scrutinize the work that has been done on the proposed DP World transaction, conduct additional reviews where appropriate, and extract additional commitments from the company where necessary. Consistent with the legislation I introduce today, I expect CFIUS to review U.S. Coast Guard assessments of foreign ports where DP World operates, perform background checks of DP World officers and security personnel, and to provide a thorough review of national security and port security impacts--in consultation with state and local officials responsible for port security. It is essential that CFIUS recognize the significant concerns that exist regarding U.S. critical infrastructure--an area of national security that has not traditionally been recognized in the CFIUS process. I expect CFIUS to fully investigate the financing and control of DP World, including the involvement of UAE and Dubai government officials in company operations particularly current and former government officials that may have ties to terrorist organizations and/or the Taliban. I expect that CFIUS will review the company structure and the potential for terrorist sympathizers to infiltrate company operations--including port operations in the U.S. We must take all appropriate steps to ensure that al-Qa'ida and other terrorist organizations are not learning about our vulnerabilities based on access to DP World operations. Finally, I urge CFIUS to make clear that this 45-day investigation is a serious, thorough review that will address all relevant national security concerns and to assert the right of the President to block the deal or extract additional assurances should national security concerns require such actions. It is crucial that the President make clear that CFIUS will not prejudge the results of this investigation. Congress Must Stand Ready to Act While I am encouraged by recent developments taken to voluntarily begin an investigation, I believe Congress must nonetheless stand ready to act pending the results of the 45-day investigation. The Foreign Investment Security Improvement Act of 2006 would impose an immediate suspension of existing CFIUS approval of the DP World transaction granted on January 17, 2006; require a 45-day CFIUS investigation of the DP World transaction, to include (1) a review of U.S. Coast Guard assessments of foreign ports where DP World operates, (2) background checks of DP World officers and security personnel, (3) an evaluation of the impact of port security by DP World's control of U.S. port operations, and (4) consultation with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Secretary of Homeland Security and State and local officials, an evaluation of the impact on national security of DP World operations at affected U.S. ports. Following the 45-day review, the bill would require, within fifteen days, a report to Congress providing the detailed findings of the investigation and the Presidential determination. Congress would then have 30 days to reverse an approval of the transaction through legislation. At a minimum, CFIUS should use this legislation to inform its investigation and subsequent notification of Congress. As Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I intend to work with my Committee Members to aggressively scrutinize the findings of CFIUS following its investigation, including a thorough review of the intelligence assessments utilized. Broader Concerns Exist With the CFIUS Process While the legislation introduced today only addresses the short-term concerns with the CFIUS review of the DP World transaction, I believe the current controversy has revealed that the larger CFIUS review framework is broken. Beyond the review of the proposed DP World transaction, I want to make clear that I intend to work with my colleagues in the Congress to conduct a comprehensive review of the CFIUS process and ensure that the Federal Government's review of foreign investments properly account for the security concerns of a post-9/11 world. I specifically note several concerns that I have with respect to the CFIUS process: The current statute was enacted at the end of the cold war in the 1980s, when encouraging foreign investment was a priority. The 9/11 attacks changed our thinking and highlighted the need to more carefully scrutinize national security concerns. Current CFIUS practices effectively nullify the statute's requirement for a more extensive investigation where national security concerns are raised with respect to a transaction involving a foreign government- controlled entity. Current CFIUS practices create an incentive to avoid the formal 45- day investigation and subsequent Presidential decision because of a perceived negative impact on foreign investment and a conflict with the U.S. open investment policy. The compressed 30-day initial review period effectively provides CFIUS with only 23 days to review all national security issues presented by a proposed transaction. ``National security'' is defined narrowly under CFIUS regulations, and does not explicitly embrace concerns over U.S. critical infrastructure. While the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense have moved to utilize an expanded view of national security, there is concern that many of the CFIUS members rely on an overly constrained ``pre-9/11'' view of national security. From 1997 through 2004, CFIUS received notices for 451 proposed or completed acquisitions. The committee initiated only eight investigations during that period. Enforcement of assurances provided during CFIUS review is the responsibility of the agency requesting those assurances. It is not clear whether sufficient resources are devoted to ensure parties to a transaction live up to their commitments. Congress is only notified when a full 45-day investigation and Presidential decision are completed. The lack of notification has led to the situation where the concerns of senior Administration officials, Members of Congress and the general public cannot be expressed until after a deal is done. This lack of transparency must change. Possible long-term CFIUS reforms to consider include the following: Elevate the Secretary of Homeland Security to serve as co-chair of CFIUS (the Secretary of the Treasury is the current chair) to increase emphasis on security issues; Abolish the current statutory interpretation by CFIUS by imposing a standard 75-day review, rather than the two-tiered 30/45 day structure, providing additional time for review and removing the negative stigma associated with an investigation; Expand Congressional notification and oversight with respect to CFIUS reviews; Revise the statutory factors to be considered in CFIUS national security reviews to include critical infrastructure concerns; and Require vigorous agency oversight and enforcement of letters of assurance provided by parties to a transaction. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Ranking Member, Mr. Thompson, for his support in developing this legislation, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that our national security is not undermined by the proposed DP World acquisition. I urge the Administration to be diligent in investigating this transaction and to recognize Congress' important role in safeguarding our national security.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his close cooperation and his staff and members of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Speaker, I speak out strongly against the motion to recommit. In many ways, it copies what we did in the Homeland Security Committee except it leaves out the most important sections. There was nothing in the motion to recommit about mandatory detention, expedited removal, and it dramatically weakens the repatriation sanctioning authority. By doing that, it takes away the entire strength of the underlying bill. The bill that came out of the Homeland Security Committee by unanimous vote, unfortunately, the motion to recommit dramatically weakens that.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, these are issues that must be addressed, and I will assure the gentleman that, as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, that I will work on these issues and address the very real concerns that you have. I would ask in that context you consider withdrawing the amendment with that pledge I make to you.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and there is no one who is not on the committee who has done more work than the gentleman from Arizona to really work on the issue of terrorism in the intelligence area, in the homeland security area, and I strongly support this amendment. It is in keeping with the spirit of the law. It is in keeping in the spirit that we should be searching for as we try to stop illegal immigration, stand behind those on the borders who are protecting us against this massive increase of illegal immigrants. So I am proud to stand by and endorse the amendment of the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I just want to emphasize that I stand in strong support of his amendment. This is just one more example of the outstanding contributions to public service made by the gentleman from Texas. I support it and urge its adoption.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and let me express my strong support for this amendment and thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for the contribution he has made, for the dedication he brings to this issue. I also would say, parenthetically, if someone with his accent and my accent are supporting this bill, it shows how extensive and wide- ranging the support is for this bill. It shows that all Americans, from one end of the country to the other, one accent to the other, stand behind a bill which is good, an amendment which really adds substantially to the bill and does provide the level of integrity and honesty and interaction that we need. With that, I express my strong support for the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) for this very fine amendment. It is important to the bill. It is a well-intentioned and well-drawn amendment. I am willing to accept the amendment. I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful consideration and for all that he does on this very, very vital issue.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this has been a very lively and interesting debate. I would hope that as we go through the amendments and into tomorrow, we would keep focusing on the fact that everyone here is well-intentioned. We face a crisis on our borders. We face a national crisis. We face a crisis involving international terrorism, and we must fix it. We must take significant first steps. That is what this bill is. We can have honest disagreements, but it is wrong, I believe, to be impugning motives, to be suggesting someone is anti-immigrant. For instance, the gentlewoman from California is talking about section 404. What that does is give the Secretary of Homeland Security the right, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to take action if the Secretary deems it necessary. That to me is an appropriate power, an appropriate discretionary power to be given to the Secretary of Homeland Security at a time when our homeland security is being threatened. It is irresponsible to not give the Secretary that power, and that is what this is about. It is a power, by the way, which the Secretary of State has had for many years. As we go forward, let us keep in mind that this country was built by immigrants, that immigrants are essential. They are the life's blood of our Nation. All of us are descendents of immigrants. At the same time, for our country to survive, for our country to be secure, for our country to be safe we must be as certain as we can be that the immigrants entering this country deserve to be in this country, that they are no threat to this country. As long as we have this mass entrance of millions and millions of illegal immigrants, we do not have that security that we need. We do not have the sense of safety that we need, and we are not protecting ourselves to the extent we must if we are going to avoid having another September 11. I lost many people in my district on September 11. I do not want another 9/11 commission to come back in several years and say why did you not close the borders, why did you not allow another 9/11 to go forward, to happen? Why could you not stop another 9/11? Because you did not have the guts to take the tough action. We are being confronted here by many forces including big business. Big business does not want this. We also have advocacy groups that do not want it. We cannot yield our responsibility to any outside pressure groups, whether they be big business or advocacy groups. I urge the adoption of this legislation as we go through this process.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), the new member of the committee, who, also, is back from surgery.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Nothing in this act should be understood to divert existing responsibilities for maritime border security or more generally any component of security in the maritime domain from the Coast Guard to any other entities in the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. KING of New York. I would say to the gentleman that it is my intent that maritime border security strategies called for in H.R. 4437 should be developed under the framework of the Strategy for Maritime Security and in a way that complements the maritime security strategies that are being implemented under that plan

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume and yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard Maritime Transportation, for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Management, Integration and Oversight.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Attacks.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I, once again, admire the passion of the gentleman from New Jersey and assure the gentleman that I hold in high esteem the contributions immigrants have made, are making and will continue to make to this country. I believe, however, that it is essential that we put it on a legal basis in fairness to those who are coming here legally and also because of the situation that developed after 9/11. Having said that, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from New Jersey, and he and I, in our own way, will be able to resolve some of our differences. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security, and the former attorney general of California.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's reference to Santa Claus shows what a pleasure it is to deal with the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) who is a former Federal prosecutor, a member of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. The bill before us today incorporates both border security and immigration enforcement provisions and is the result of a strong collaborative effort by the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on the Judiciary to address these important issues. The Committee on Homeland Security began this process last month when we introduced the bill, H.R. 4312, entitled the Border Security and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005. This measure focused on border security provisions and reflected a truly bipartisan effort among members of my committee to solve lingering problems in our border defenses. I particularly appreciate the strong and able leadership of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), our ranking member, in achieving important goals in this bill. I also want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez). Thanks to their cooperation, we were able to pass H.R. 4312 on a voice vote with absolutely no opposition. I also want to thank my friend, Chairman Sensenbrenner, and his staff for their diligence and willingness to cooperate with us in expanding and improving this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I will focus in my remarks on the border security aspects of the bill because, since September 11, it has become more and more apparent that our borders are in crisis. In addition to whatever social issues there are with immigration or whatever criminal issues there are with immigration, there are now, since September 11 brought home to us dramatically, the terrorism aspects of illegal immigration. The homeland security provisions of this bill try to, and I believe do, very effectively address the issue of terrorism that must be confronted if we are to survive as a people. This legislation requires 100 percent coverage of our land and maritime borders, including physical infrastructure, border patrol personnel and the use of all available technology. It also requires a joint and collaborative effort between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense to use all available military technology to ensure that our borders are controlled and sealed. Most importantly, I believe, and as importantly as any other provision, it ends the policy of catch and release, which has been discussed in the previous hour; and it mandates expedited removal. We no longer have the luxury; and if we are talking about, I know the gentleman from Michigan before was talking about, who has been in control and who has not been in control, I would be the first to say that we are dealing with a bipartisan problem which is why it requires a bipartisan effort. That was the bill that we attempted to pass out of the Homeland Security Committee, because we have to end such policies as catch and release and expedited removal. I would hope that, as the debate goes forward, both sides acknowledge the good faith of the others. This is too serious an issue to be trivialized or demagogued. It is too serious an issue to be looked at in any kind of casual way. I listened very carefully to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich). I understand his concerns about there not being guest worker provisions in this bill; but I believe that if the American people are to take us seriously, they want to see us address the issue of border control before we go on to any other expansion of rights or any other legalization of those who are here already or even setting in process a motion where we make it easier for workers to come into this country. We have to show we can control the borders before we go further, and that is the purpose of this bill. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that as the grandson of immigrants who grew up in an immigrant neighborhood in New York City, I yield to no one in my admiration of what immigrants have contributed, are contributing, and must continue to contribute to our country; but it has to be legal immigration. I say that. Some of the things that maybe were looked at or not looked at prior to September 11 can not longer be ignored. They have to be addressed. We have to address head on the issue of illegal immigration because of its ties to international terrorism. So while I grew up in a neighborhood of immigrants as a child, I also saw many of my neighbors killed on September 11. So neighborhoods have changed; things have changed. What was tolerated before September 11 maybe in some quarters can no longer be tolerated now. We no longer have the luxury of looking the other way. We have to address head on this issue of illegal immigration. That is what this bill is about. Certainly the aspects passed from the Homeland Security Committee, that is what they were about, combating illegal immigration and thereby also undercutting international terrorism. I would ask the debate go forward in a reasonable way where we can exchange ideas, confront the issues that are confronting our Nation on this issue of illegal immigration. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, the Castle amendment is extremely well written. I am proud to endorse it. I also would emphasize that the points raised in the amendment do refer to points that we have been asking DHS to provide us information on. This amendment will give us more of the muscle that we need to ensure DHS is in compliance. I thank the gentleman for his amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), my good friend, for yielding me time. I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 4437. Let me just say at the outset, because I know this will be a very heated debate over the next several days, let me say I have had nothing but the utmost cooperation from my good friend, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee. We did report out a piece of legislation which did pass by voice vote. And while there were differences along the way, they were resolved equitably. I wanted to commend Mr. Thompson from Mississippi for that and put that on the record. This legislation, which incorporates both the bill adopted in the Homeland Security Committee and then the bill adopted in the Judiciary Committee under Chairman Sensenbrenner, is a wide-ranging bill. All of us realize that more has to be done on the issue of immigration. This is probably the first step in a three-legged stool. Much more has to be done. This is a very, very significant first step in protecting our borders, because until the borders are protected, we cannot have any type of meaningful immigration reform. Just several of the high points is that it requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to do whatever has to be done to secure the border, using whatever physical infrastructure is required, whatever technology is required, whatever personnel is required. It also for the first time requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense to utilize military technology to control the borders. This is a significant first step and I believe very, very important. It also ends the practice of catch and release, whereby hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants coming across the border would be captured and then released back into society and asked to return at some time for a hearing. Many, of course, never did. And the last several years we saw a significant increase in immigrants coming across the southern border illegally other than Mexicans, OTMs, which raises significant homeland security and national security issues. This has gone beyond just being an immigration issue, just an issue with social aspects. It also has very, very severe homeland security, internal security and national security issues. The attacks of 9/11 made us aware of that. That is why I urge adoption of the rule and the underlying legislation.