There has been so much attention focused on this issue lately, and I want to assure you that I think that the decision to approve this deal was irresponsible.  As a result, on March 2, 2006 I introduced the House version of legislation introduced in the Senate by Senators Clinton, Menendez and Bill Nelson that would halt the U.A.E. port deal, force a Congressional review of all existing foreign government owned port operators, and outlaw any future deals like this.

To put it very simply, we cannot allow U.S. port operators to answer to a foreign government.

If there is one silver lining in the justified uproar over the U.A.E. port deal it is that hopefully now we can have a real debate in this country about the need to better fund our nation's port security.

America's seaports handle over 95% of our nation's foreign trade worth over $1 trillion a year.  The Port of Miami is the largest container port in Florida and processed almost 9.5 million tons of cargo in 2005 while Port Everglades continues to expand as it exceeded the five-million ton mark for the first time in history last year. 

America's ports are often the gateway into and out of our country, but these two ports are also the doorsteps to our community here in South Florida.  They provide many business and commerce opportunities for our region, but they also present numerous security challenges. 

The 9/11 Commission pointedly expressed concern about the security at our nation's seaports.  Specifically, the report held that "While commercial aviation remains a possible target, terrorists may turn their attention to other modes.  Opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in maritime or surface transportation." 

After the 9/11 Report, the Port Security Grant Program was initiated to provide for improvements in dockside and perimeter security.  In fiscal year 2005, the Port of Miami received nearly $3.4 million in Port Security Grants while Port Everglades got $600,000. 

Even though this Administration talks tough on terror, our President's fiscal year 2007 budget ELIMINATES these grants.  Rather than ensuring the security of our ports, President Bush has proposed a new $600 million Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program.  Ports and ferries would be forced to compete with railroads, highways and others for scarce security funding.

I have supported numerous Democratic initiatives to increase port security funding such as an amendment for an additional $300 million in funding for port security that was rejected by House Republicans during a Homeland Security appropriations conference meeting on September 29, 2005.

The Coast Guard is a great example of not adequately funding homeland security in our post 9/11 world.  The men and women of our Coast Guard are the first line of defense on our coasts and while their responsibilities have dramatically increased in the past four years, their fleet size has only increased by two percent each year.  The President's budget this year allows for a meager increase of 500 people in our entire national fleet - the equivalent of Florida getting 10 additional Coast Guardsmen this year.  An administration that so often boasts of their dedication to the security of our homeland, continues to make dangerous decisions about how to allocate our homeland security resources.

This brings us back to the approval of an entity of the government of the United Arab Emirates to become the largest terminal operator at the Port of Miami.  Port terminal operators are responsible for cargo inspection, loading and unloading, the security of the port facility, and the hiring of personnel. 

While I believe that we should support globalization in our markets, the allowance of a company owned by a foreign government to run operations in our nation's ports without due diligence and an exhausting security investigation is an alarming and unnecessary risk. 

The Administration didn't heed the Coast Guard's cautions by initiating a 45-day investigation into the approval of such a sale, as outlined by law.  It took the Congress' expressed concern and the outcry of millions of Americans many from our community, to delay the sale and initiate a further examination into the company and the sale. 

President Bush and Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff said that we should trust them on the safety of this deal.  The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that "The vast majority of the money funding the Sept. 11 attacks flowed through the U.A.E.," and the U.A.E. continued to recognize the Taliban government in Afghanistan, despite the objections of the U.S. and the world community.   With all due respect, "trust us" is not good enough on this deal or any that raises this many national security questions.