Cross posted from dKos.
If you'd like to chat with Eric about this very important issue, or about anything else for that matter, you can do so here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/26/145736/484Ports Deal a "Shameless Sell Out of American National Security"
by Eric Massa
Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 12:57:36 PM PDT
The recently revealed deal to sell control of six major ports in the Eastern U.S. to a state-owned company in Dubai, United Arab Emirates is a shameless sell out of American national security to well-connected foreign corporate interests. This Congress, including my opponent here in New York's 29th District, Randy Kuhl, has already built a record of blindly supporting free trade at a high cost to working Americans and voting against increased security for U.S. ports.
As a former Navy Commander who served in the Persian Gulf, as an Aide to the Commander of Military Sealift Command and, later, as an Aide to General Wesley Clark while Clark led NATO forces in Europe, I am running for Congress in New York's 29th District to end abuses like this that threaten the economic and physical security of Americans.
While I have consistently voiced deep concerns about the economic ramifications on working families of outsourcing jobs overseas, the port security controversy has taken the issue of outsourcing to a whole new code red level of concern exacerbated by the apparent secrecy of the rubber stamped deal and by what's at stake.
Isn't it dangerous enough that the obsession of this Adminstration and Republican Congress with free trade -- including that of my opponent Randy Kuhl who voted for CAFTA -- is hurting working Americans economically? Now they are helping corporations build profits at the expense of Americans' safety. That's shameful and it must stop.
Indeed, deals that some thought could threaten U.S. economic interests have been very closely scrutinized -- as in Lenovo's purchase of IBM's personal computer business -- or squashed -- as in China's failed bid to buy American oil company UNOCAL -- in recent months. Yet the lack of apparent concern about selling control of crucial U.S. infrastructure to a government that harbored 9-11 terrorists can be credited only to a subjugation of national security to free-for-all trade and corporate profits.
In fact, Bloomberg reported this week that, last October, the Government Accountability Office said in a report that the Treasury Department, which serves as the lead agency on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), "uses its position at the helm of CFIUS to tilt reviews in favor of investors at the expense of security concerns raised by the departments of Defense and Homeland Security." (Bloomberg, "Kimmitt Failed to Make Good on Pledge, Fueling Port-Sale Uproar," Alison Fitzgerald, 2/24/06)
With the embattled ports deal affecting shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia and Baltimore, the Northeast, including New York State, appears poised to bear a significant portion any increased security risk as a result of the transfer of ownership, should the deal survive Congressional scrutiny. President Bush has already threatened to veto any legislation to block the deal.
With more information coming out about the Bush administration's decision to allow the sale of control over our nation's ports to a company from the United Arab Emirates - one of three countries in the world that recognizes the terrorist-run Taliban as the true government of Afghanistan and a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya -- the more it becomes clear that this is just the latest worrisome wrong-headed priority from Republicans.
But while President Bush is on the hot seat over the approval of the deal to sell the shipping operations, with even members of his own party expressing grave reservations, the Republican led Congress has built a dangerous and shortsighted record of its own, having failed to pass, at least twice since 9/11, measures that would improve security at our ports, despite the fact that the 9/11 Commission report concluded that terrorists have the "opportunity to do harm as great or greater in maritime and surface transportation" than the 9/11 attacks.
In 2005, Republicans, including my opponent, Randy Kuhl, defeated an alternative Homeland Security Authorization proposal that would have committed $41 billion to securing the nation from terrorist threats - $6.9 billion more than the President's budget. The proposal called for an additional $400 million in funding for port security, including $13 million to double the number of new overseas port inspectors provided for in the President's budget. The proposal addressed the holes in securing the nation's ports by requiring DHS to develop container security standards, integrate container security pilot projects, and examine ways to integrate container inspection equipment and data. Finally, the plan required DHS to conduct a study of the risk factors associated with the port of Miami and ports in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, including the U.S. Virgin Islands. 196-230. (HR 1817, Roll Call #187, 5/18/05)
And, in 2003, Republicans voted to kill a Democratic amendment that would have added $2.5 billion for homeland security, including $250 million for port security grants, $800 million for first responder grants, and $150 million for research to develop capabilities against chemical weapons. (HR 1559, Vote #104, 4/3/03)
Alarmingly, the President's 2007 budget, despite many warnings, is no different. "Unfortunately, it is a budget that contains the same assumptions about national security that existed pre-9/11. Since 2001, terrorist groups have attacked an oil tanker and facilitated attacks by smuggling its members in shipping containers. Yet, the Administration continues to under-fund port and cargo security," according to an analysis by the Committee on Homeland Security Democratic Staff.
President Bush and Congressional Republicans, including my opponent, claim they want to protect Americans. It is fundamentally wrong to make this promise then fail to fully fund measures that can protect Americans in America or fully disclose measures that may subject them to increased risks at home.
So while we are sure to see many Republicans call for more funding for port security in coming days, including those who voted against these Democratic proposals, this Johnny-come-lately approach does not overshadow the fact that Democrats, not Republicans, were the ones who were watching Americans' backs.
For more information about my campaign, please visit www.massaforcongress.com. I need your help to end these secret back room deals and abuses that I, and all of my fellow veterans, fought so hard to secure.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(432 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
