Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
New Security Fears Over Ports Deal; UAE Strong Opponent of Many U.S. Policies; U.S. Coast Guard: Stretched Too Thin?; Duncan Hunter Interview; Ed Markey Interview; John Kyl Interview; Violence Increasing Along Mexican Border; Lucy Duncan Scheman Interview
Aired March 01, 2006 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT, news, debate and opinion for Wednesday, March 1.
Live in New York, Lou Dobbs.
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everybody.
Tonight, members of Congress are raising new concerns about the national security risk posed by the Dubai ports deal which this administration fully supports. One congressman says radical Islamist terrorists could smuggle a nuclear weapon into this country by ship.
We'll be going live to Capitol Hill. My guests tonight include three top congressional critics of the Bush administration's homeland security policies. It is a bipartisan group -- Senator Jon Kyl, Congressman Duncan Hunter and Congressman Ed Markey.
Also tonight, lawmakers introducing legislation to stop Dubai and any other foreign government from owning port facilities in the United States. We'll have that special report.
And one of this country's leading port security experts, Lucy Duncan-Scheman, will be here. She says the United Arab Emirates could control ports that are vital to our military and our ability to fight wars overseas.
President Bush calls the United Arab Emirates one of our closest allies in the global war on terror. But the reality could be very different from that statement. The United Arab Emirates is anything but a good friend of this country in all respects.
We'll have that special report.
And new revelations breaking tonight about how the Bush administration ignored warnings about the impact of Hurricane Katrina. We'll have a report.
All of that and a great deal more ahead here.
We begin with new concerns that the Dubai ports deal could make it easier for radical Islamist terrorists to attack the United States. Congressman Ed Markey says terrorists could smuggle a nuclear weapon into this country most likely by ship, because private firms are partly responsible for security at our ports. At the same time, Homeland Security Committee chairman Congressman Pete King is making new charges about the way the Bush administration reviewed this ports deal.
Ed henry has the story from Capitol Hill -- Ed.
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Lou, explosive new charges from Republican Peter King, who is declaring to CNN that the initial review of this port deal, contrary to various claims by senior Bush officials, did not really probe whether DP World had ties to terrorism.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY (voice over): Republican Peter King alleges when the controversy first broke he spoke to officials at the Treasury and Homeland Security departments involved in approving the deal.
REP. PETER KING (R-NY), CHAIRMAN, HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE: And I started asking questions about, did you check the al Qaeda connections of the companies, of anyone who was there before 9/11 who's still there now who could pose a problem? And I was told, "Well, Congressman, you don't understand, we don't conduct a thorough investigation. We just ask the intelligence director was there anything on file. And he said no."
HENRY: When pressed on Bush administration claims that there was a thorough review of security implications of the deal, King responded sharply.
KING: Now, they should be educating themselves. They should be doing the investigation that the should have done during the first 30 days, when there should have been an automatic 45-day investigation.
No, I can't emphasize enough, there has been no investigation into terrorism whatsoever on this contract.
HENRY: The new allegations come as Democrats pivot off the port controversy to charge the White House has dropped the ball on homeland security.
SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), DELAWARE: This is not a shop that is all prepared to guard America against an attack. We are abysmally, abysmally negligent in the way in which we have dealt with homeland security.
HENRY: Democrats note al Qaeda wants to detonate a nuclear device in America, and the best way to get it into the country is through a port.
REP. ED MARKEY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: That's why this is such a critical issue. But it's part of a pattern where, whether it be chemical plants, nuclear plants, cargo, airlines, the Bush administration has allowed the industries to decide how much security is provided for the American people. HENRY: While the language may have been less strident, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was hit with a similar charge by Republican senator Susan Collins, a sharp critic of the port deal.
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: Regrettably, the administration's budget short-changes port security. It does not dedicate a separate funding stream for port security grants, whereas our bill would provide $400 million for that purpose.
HENRY: Chertoff pushed back by pointing out there are limitless demands for security, but limited funds in the federal coffers.
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: The city of New York, I think, has 30,000, 40,000 police officers. I'm sure if it had 400,000 it would be even safer. We always balance. And the way we balance in this department is risk management.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY: And Congressman King is meeting behind closed doors in the Capitol right now with officials from the office of Secretary Chertoff, as well as the office of the director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte. Congressman King is telling CNN that basically these officials involved in the process of approving this deal say that they initially went to Director Negroponte and basically asked him whether he had anything on file in terms of any potential ties between this company and al Qaeda, and he came back and said no. But these officials basically charge that it was a cursory review, that they didn't really ask for a broader investigation by Director Negroponte.
I can tell you, Negroponte's office is telling CNN that his review of this matter is classified. So he cannot directly respond to Congressman King, but they point out that Director Negroponte yesterday testified on Capitol Hill during this 45-day review that's open now. He is prepared to answer any question anyone has -- Lou.
DOBBS: Well, a number of people than far more than, say, a week ago, will have a lot of questions as more details are revealed about what is turning out to be a highly inadequate process, if it can even be characterized that strongly.
Ed Henry, thank you very much.
HENRY: Thank you.
DOBBS: A rising number of congressmen are concerned about the Dubai ports deal. And today, some of them introduced legislation to stop any foreign government from buying port facilities in the United States. This legislation is part of what is a mounting campaign on Capitol Hill to prevent Dubai Ports World and other government-owned companies from buying key infrastructure assets in the United States.
Lisa Sylvester reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The Bush administration and Dubai Ports World have agreed to a 45-day review. But many on Capitol Hill believe the outcome of that investigation has been predetermined. So a bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing for its own 45-day hold to investigate the security implications.
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), MINORITY LEADER: We know that the administration does not want this 45-day extension. The president has spoken last night -- I don't know if you saw it -- as if this deal is done.
SYLVESTER: Legislation introduced would give Congress the authority to veto the deal and force the sale to be dissolved, if necessary.
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: Should we feel that security needs are not taken into account, that the Senate and the House get the right of disapproval.
SYLVESTER: Another bill sponsored by representatives Clay Shaw and Ben Cardin would bar foreign government-owned companies from operating U.S. port terminals. It would not applying to current operators, but would affect any company seeking new leases, including DP World. The lawmakers say ports are too important to hand off to any foreign government when allies can turn into adversaries.
REP. CLAY SHAW (R), FLORIDA: Thirty years ago, we wouldn't have been too concerned about Iran doing business in this country or maybe running a port. Prior to World War II, Germany was Great Britain's largest trading partner.
SYLVESTER: Congressman Cardin noted many countries ban foreign government entities from operating their ports.
REP. BEN CARDIN (D), MARYLAND: I don't know why only America, when we try to do things that we think is right for the people of this country, we're held to a different standard than other countries. We have not only the right, we have the responsibility to protect the safety of the people of this nation.
SYLVESTER: Several bills with several approaches, but the White House remains opposed to anything that would block the sale.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: And that means trying to win not just enough votes to pass new legislation, but to have enough votes that could overcome a presidential veto -- Lou.
DOBBS: If indeed such legislation is ultimately passed and whether the president decides to exercise, for the first in his five years in office, a veto.
Lisa, thank you very much for that excellent report.
President Bush tonight is in India, and he is focusing on geopolitics rather than the political controversy over the Dubai ports deal.
On the way to India, the president made an unannounced visit to Afghanistan. The president met with our troops at Bagram Air Base outside Kabul. He also met with Afghan president Hamid Karzai.
President Bush repeated his declaration that our troops will eventually kill or capture Osama bin Laden. Our troops have been hunting him for nearly five years.
President Bush has repeatedly insisted that the United Arab Emirates is one of this country's closest allies on the global war on terror. The United Arab Emirates, however, is a strong opponent of many important U.S. policies.
Kitty Pilgrim has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): At the U.N. General Assembly, UAE support of U.S. positions ranks near the bottom, 176 out of 189 countries. On what the State Department terms major issues, like nuclear proliferation, the UAE ranks lower than France, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Sudan and North Korea.
ELISE LABOTT, CNN STATE DEPT. PRODUCER: Do you feel this is an ally that's on your side with your international agenda?
ADAM ERELI, STATE DEPT. SPOKESMAN: Very definitely. The UAE has a -- it has a strong record on -- of being on the right side of fundamental issue.
PILGRIM: U.S. officials left flat-footed when asked why the UAE appears to tolerate the activities of Victor Bout (ph), a notorious arms dealer who supplied weapons to the Taliban.
REP. SUE KELLY (R), NEW YORK: At any point during your deliberations, was it discussed that international arms trafficker and U.S. designated terror financier Victor Bout appears to continue operating freely in the UAE despite -- despite repeated U.S. requests that he not?
ROBERT KIMMITT, DEPUTY TREASURY SECRETARY: Again, I would have to come back to you with that answer. What I will tell you is the departments and agencies, in addition to the intelligence community who are responsible for both our counterterrorism and counter- proliferation efforts, were at the table when these issues were discussed.
PILGRIM: The UAE supports the Arab League boycott of trade with Israel, but even now U.S. negotiators are still offering a free trade deal to Dubai and green-lighting the deal on the Dubai port deal.
SEN. NORM COLEMAN (R-MN), SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION: There's still a very fundamental question. Friend or not, does it make sense in a post-9/11 world to have the UAE or to have China or even Singapore own and operate American ports? (END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Yet, the administration insists the United Arab Emirates is a good friend worthy of trust and trade. Meanwhile, Dubai has long been suspected of laundering terrorism money, and its ports have been a conduit of black market nuclear technology -- Lou.
DOBBS: As our vetting of this deal continues, I'm sure it's superfluous given the deep, thorough investigation that the administration has already conducted. It is wonderful to watch the United States Congress begin to fulfill its oversight role.
Kitty, thank you very much.
Kitty Pilgrim.
The Dubai ports deal will actually close tomorrow unless a court in this country or Great Britain blocks or delays the acquisition. But Dubai Ports World has agreed to delay the takeover of port operations in the United States in order to allow more time for members of the U.S. Congress to satisfy their concerns about national security and the national interest. That means managers from the British company P&O will continue to operate ports in this country that are affected by the deal.
As of today, the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States has not begin that new review of the Dubai ports deal. The process will actually begin when Dubai Ports World files its application for a new review with the Treasury Department. CFIUS then starts a new 30-day preliminary investigation. But in practice, this is likely to be much shorter, because CFIUS has already reviewed the deal once.
After that preliminary investigation, CFIUS will then begin an additional 45-day review of the transaction. When CFIUS has completed that additional review, President Bush will have 15 days to accept or reject the committee's recommendation. One part of the -- several things that remains unclear is just how the United States Congress will respond, how it will act.
Congress could well pass legislation, some of which has already been introduced, to block this deal and could proceed if the president allows the transaction to go forward. As soon as CFIUS begins its new 45-day review, we'll begin our countdown clock here to monitor the progress of this new, intensive, thorough investigation by both the administration and the U.S. Congress.
Still ahead here, the Coast Guard pleading more money to protect our ports. Is Congress finally listening?
Also, a powerful governor fighting to block the Dubai ports deal. Details of today's last-minute court battle.
And two top lawmakers locked in a battle with the White House over the Dubai ports deal. Congressman Duncan Hunter, Republican, the chairman of the House Armed Service Committee, and Congressman Ed Markey, Democrat, will be my guests.
And tonight, new revelations that the Bush administration absolutely ignored dire warnings about the impact of Hurricane Katrina days before the storm struck.
We'll have that report and a great deal more still ahead here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: New revelations tonight on the Bush administration and its response to early warnings on the impact of Hurricane Katrina and how the White House apparently ignored warnings that the hurricane could have a devastating impact on the Gulf Coast. It turns out President Bush failed to react to warnings from many officials that the hurricane could breach levees, threaten lives in the New Orleans Superdome and overwhelm rescuers.
During a final briefing about the hurricane one day before Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, The Associated Press tonight is reporting President Bush did not ask a single question. The Associated Press obtained videotape and transcripts that shows some federal officials anticipating the disaster and discussing it. But those officials were, at best, extremely slow to gather adequate resources to respond to the hurricane disaster.
President Bush assures us the Dubai Ports World deal won't affect national security. He and his administration say the Coast Guard is responsible for security at our nation's seaport. But as we have reported here now for two weeks, that is not entirely true. But the Bush administration now plans to cut the Coast Guard budget, despite its assertions.
Casey Wian reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The Bush administration is proposing a slight reduction in the Coast Guard's discretionary budget next year, even though huge holes remain in the nation's port security. Coast Guard officers faced a skeptical, often angry congressional committee.
REP. CORRINE BROWN (D), FLORIDA: But it's always the Bush administration is misleading the public. There everybody has a comfort level when we think that the Coast Guard is responsible for port security, but you cannot do it when your operation of budget has been cut.
VICE ADMIRAL TERRY CROSS, U.S. COAST GUARD: And maybe I should correct one thing. Since 2001, the Coast Guard's grown by about -- about 5,000 people. And we've seen our operating budget increase by a little over 65 percent.
WIAN: But so have its responsibilities, including approving homeland security plans for port terminal operators. Coast Guard oversight is one reason the White House defends the proposed operational takeover of several U.S. ports by the United Arab Emirates.
CLARK KENT ERVIN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: But it's misleading because it fails to point out that all that means is that the Coast Guard is going to be in charge of continuing to do what it does, and that is simply promulgating security standards and checking the plans of the port terminal operators.
BROWN: I can say anything on a piece of paper. But if there is not oversight, if you can't go in there and verify, there is a problem.
CROSS: Ma'am, we can go in and verify. And to date -- or since July of '04, we've detected over 700 violations of which 44 of those were deemed to be major violations.
WIAN: The Coast Guard says in those cases operations are halted until the terminal complies with port security requirements. That didn't satisfy lawmakers.
REP. BOB FILNER (D), CALIFORNIA: I don't have any confidence that we're meeting these -- these security concerns.
CROSS: I think we're a lot more secure in our ports than we were prior to 9/11. I won't -- I won't dispute the fact. In fact, I often say that we have much -- much work remains to be done.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WIAN: Congresswoman Brown of Florida actually praised the Coast Guard for being the lone bright spot in the Department of Homeland Security. She says the Coast Guard is doing the best job it can with limited resources -- Lou.
DOBBS: You know, to put that in context, Casey, the Coast Guard has just under 40,000 people in uniform serving this nation in our ports and our seas, waterways, doing an amazing job, as you report. To put that in context, the police department of New York City has just under 40,000 sworn officers. It is remarkable what we are asking the men and the women of the Coast Guard to do under extraordinarily difficult circumstances.
Casey Wian.
Thank you for the report.
New Jersey's governor, Jon Corzine, has suffered a setback in federal court. Today's court hearing resulted in opponents of this dangerous deal having to be put on about a 45-day wait.
Bill Tucker has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): New Jersey came out of court empty handed. The state turned down on its request that the court issue an order for an investigation into Dubai Ports World's takeover of the terminal operations in Newark. That request denied because of public comments by the administration and company officials agreeing to a 45-day review.
Federal district court judge Jose Lanaras (ph) also denied New Jersey's request for documents resulting from the investigation. For now. And he invited both attorneys back to court should the deal be approved.
ZULIMA FARBER, N.J. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I am equally gratified that the judge made clear that the only reason he was denying that request today is because we await the result of the 45-day investigation. The judge is more optimistic about the efficacy of that 45-day investigation that CFIUS and DPW have promised than I am.
TUCKER: Public proclamations by President Bush that he is certain that the deal will be approved after a new 45-day review has raised the level of skepticism in the attorney general's office, and in other offices as well.
ROCCO MALANGA, HOMELAND SECURITY, NEWARK: We are watching this very closely. And we're concerned, because we don't want this whitewashed. We don't want it swept under the carpet.
We want a full -- and we want a disclosure. We want to see the result of the review.
TUCKER: The Port Authority of New York, New Jersey has filed a separate lawsuit to stop the United Arab Emirates from taking over the lease in the Port of Newark, saying that under the terms of its lease that it has the right to review management changes at its ports.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: In London, a ruling in a high court is expected tomorrow at 9:00 am Eastern Time on whether the DP World's takeover of P&O can proceed. The takeover challenged there by Eller & Company, which would become a forced partner with DPW in the Port of Miami -- Lou.
DOBBS: Thank you very much.
Bill Tucker.
Still ahead here, the Dubai ports deal may be just beginning. Foreign governments, however, can't wait to buy up more of our nation's vital national security infrastructure. We'll have a special report for you.
And Congressman Duncan Hunter and Congressman Ed Markey, two powerful lawmakers fighting for your security, and they're fighting, Democrat and Republican, against the Dubai ports deal. They will be my guests coming up next.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) DOBBS: If the United Arab Emirates were to succeed in taking over key U.S. port terminals, there is nothing whatsoever to stop foreign governments from owning facilities at our airports, owning our airlines, and even nuclear power plants.
Christine Romans has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is owned by the UAE government.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): On Capitol Hill, a grilling for four agencies who approved the Dubai ports deal.
REP. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: Here's my question. According to the 9/11 Commission, UAE top officials and royal family members associated with Osama bin Laden. Can you tell us absolutely that these very same people will not be running six major American ports in the United States? Can you tell me that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I will pledge to get that information back to you, Mr. Sanders.
SANDERS: All right. Can anybody else tell me that we will know for a fact that some of these very same officials will not be running this company?
I'm not hearing it. And to my mind, it is beyond comprehension that if you cannot answer that simple question, I cannot understand why we would go through with this transaction.
ROMANS: So much for government scrutiny when foreign governments buy critical U.S. assets. Just last year...
KIMMITT: There were 65 notifications, of which 12 were government owned or controlled.
ROMANS: The Treasury Department won't disclose what governments or what assets they acquired. But many now fear an American giveaway is well under way.
The governments of China and Singapore already control American ports. An Indian government-owned company bought the U.S.-built undersea cable grid for pennies on the dollar.
Saudi Arabia and Venezuela own vast refining operations in this country. A Chinese government oil company last year attempted to by UNOCAL, a company whose assets include rare earth minerals critical to our military.
DAVID SIROTA, AUTHOR, "HOSTILE TAKEOVER": What we see is our international economic policy is basically allowing more and more countries to own pieces of America.
ROMANS: There are some guidelines for airlines, telecommunications companies and oil pipelines. But just about anything else is up for grabs.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS: Many fear it's a policy that's becoming dangerous. So, senior House Republicans are preparing a bill to require majority U.S. ownership of all assets crucial to U.S. security: national economic security, national public health or safety, not just ports. They want to broaden this out.
And Democratic congressman Ed Markey proposes that any takeover by a government of U.S. critical assets must be approved directly by the president and by Congress -- Lou.
DOBBS: The Bush administration appropriately is being heavily, severely criticized for this process. But the fact is, this Congress has failed in any aspect until this point to fulfill its oversight responsibilities and to look at what is happening.
The American people, this is highlighting what is going on in this country. But the fact is, it's been a long process. Most Americans don't even realize that a Chinese government-owned company effectively has control of the Panama Canal, don't realize the degree to which this government has encouraged, this administration has encouraged foreign government ownership, foreign corporate ownership of key infrastructure in this country.
It's just remarkable. And this Congress, to this point -- at last maybe this -- maybe we're witnessing an awakening on Capitol Hill. The fact that November is rolling around with midterm elections maybe helping. But maybe we're witnessing an awakening where the U.S. government is going to begin to operate again with checks and balances and each branch taking a responsible view of its -- of its duties.
ROMANS: You're very right. It didn't happen overnight. And it was a bipartisan effort to get us to this mess.
DOBBS: Christine Romans.
Thank you very much.
That brings us to the subject of our poll tonight. The question: Do you believe there should be a law prohibiting the sale of strategic U.S. infrastructure to foreign governments and to foreign government- owned companies? Cast your vote at loudobbs.com. we'll have the results here later in the broadcast.
As I just mentioned, another piece of critical infrastructure in this hemisphere is the Panama Canal. As the U.S. turned control of the canal zone over to Panama, the communist Chinese government moved in. Ports at each end of the canal are now being operated by the Hong Kong Hutchison Whampoa.
U.S. Army intelligence reporting the Hutchison Whampoa organization to be Beijing's communist government. The company's chairman has links to the Chinese military. communist China directly owns a significant stake in Hutchison Whampoa. Yes, we are paying attention. And it appears that Congress is about to. In a moment, I'll be talking with the powerful chairman of the House Armed Service Committee, Congressman Duncan Hunter, a man who has been looking at this issue for almost ten years.
But first, some of your thoughts.
H. Reynolds in Texas wrote in to say, "I may be dumb, but I have to ask how we can have an unbiased security evaluation of the port deal by agencies that all work for a president who has already said he will override all opposition." A fair point.
David in Michigan: "Lou, why would our president threaten his only veto on a deal he says he knew nothing about?" Another good question.
Susan in New York: "Why doesn't the president just put a for sale sign on the country and sell us off to the highest bidder?" Rhetorical question.
David in Tennessee: "Dear Lou, maybe we need to remind Congress and the White House who really pays for their healthcare, their salaries, and their pensions."
And Brian in California: "The review is a farce. Bush has already made up his mind to sell out America again."
We'll have more of your thoughts later in the broadcast. Send us your thoughts to loudobbs.com.
The chairman of the House Armed Service Committee is Congressman Duncan Hunter. He says the Dubai ports deal could help terrorists identify critical weakness in port security. And in a letter to President Bush, Congressman Hunter said "a foreign owned company operating these ports would likely use its position to improve its understanding of security vulnerabilities at those ports."
Congressman Hunter joins us tonight. Good to have you with us, Mr. Chairman.
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA), ARMED SERVICES CHMN.: Hey, Lou. Good to be with you.
DOBBS: Have you received a response from this administration to your letter?
HUNTER: I haven't received a response, Lou, but I want to correct one thing.
DOBBS: Sure.
HUNTER: You said that Congress has not intervened, has not taken a position. And, actually, I offered an amendment that we put into law when the ...
DOBBS: In 1998. HUNTER: ... when the Chinese communist government was buying or trying to buy the naval base at Long Beach, the closed naval base. We stopped that, even though the Clinton administration supported it.
We put that in as an amendment to the Armed Services Bill and we stopped them. We tried to stop Hutchison Whampoa, which actually was the second highest bidder, an American company from Arkansas was the highest. We understand that money was exchanged.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: We want to put this in context. You're referring to 1998. The company was COSCO. The target was Long Beach. And you successfully got the legislation passed through the House. Ultimately, it was agreed to by the Senate and you stopped it.
HUNTER: And the president signed that.
DOBBS: The rest of the story is the Clinton administration created an artifice by which it had the company aligned with a U.S.- owned company, Stevedore and Company, which gave them access to the very same facilities subsequently.
HUNTER: Well, actually, Lou, you've got all of -- COSCO is an operation that is owned by the Chinese government. It operates in every port in the world. But what we did stop was we stopped the actual transfer of the U.S. naval base to the People's Liberation Army, which owns COSCO. When we stopped that and we banned ...
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: Don't tell me that, Mr. Chairman. You're not suggesting that COSCO is owned by the communist Chinese government.
HUNTER: Absolutely.
DOBBS: I am shocked. I am shocked. Can I ask you a question?
HUNTER: The gambling is going on here. But we did stop them.
DOBBS: Let me ask you a question. I'm laughing, because I am so mad. Or I'm going to cry. How in the world could the United States Congress -- and I was talking in recent terms when I said Congress had failed in its oversight responsibilities and I will say that and I think I can defend that factually over the course of the past five years.
The fact of the matter is, this has been a process of selling off U.S. key strategic assets including port facilities for years. We haven't even one percent of the entire container fleet afloat on the world seas.
And we call this a superpower and this government, this administration, is talking about the strength of free trade, so- called, and the strength of this country in the fight against the global war on terror. Mr. Chairman, how in the world does that make any sense at all?
HUNTER: Well, Lou, first, all administrations, including the Clinton administration, were enamored with free trade, which I don't agree with. But what we need to do is identify critical infrastructure, and that goes beyond the ports, whether its power grids, transportation lines.
We identify critical infrastructure. And rather than requiring another review, we simply ban anyone who is not a United States company, which has a board of directors, which is approved by DOD and by Homeland Security from owning that particular critical asset.
DOBBS: Hallelujah.
HUNTER: That's what we need.
DOBBS: Now, you know what some idiot is going to say, Mr. Chairman? Some idiot is going to say that's protectionism.
HUNTER: Well, you know, I think America is worth protecting.
DOBBS: I couldn't agree with you more. How is it we've gotten to a point where there is even an issue about a foreign government owned company or a foreign government owning U.S. key strategic assets?
(CROSSTALK)
HUNTER: Lou, it's the same as when we had the Port of Long Beach, the port officials coming in with their eyes glazed over, having talked to the local lobbyists, and they talked not about the Chinese -- the People's Liberation Army owning the naval base, they talked about a corporation, and this idea of free trade, that if you mask one of your military services by calling it a corporation, which the Chinese do regularly, you can do anything with free traders and with capitalists, because somehow that glazes our eyes and it blinds us.
And so we have to pull back. Let's take a new perspective. Let's look at critical infrastructure. Let's stop it.
DOBBS: We're out of time, but I have got to ask you one quick question. Amen. One quick question.
HUNTER: Sure.
DOBBS: We haven't heard much from the speaker of the House, your leader, your new leader. We haven't -- we've watched Senator Bill Frist exercise a one-week profile in courage and he apparently has moved on. Are we going to see this Congress really use oversight and really the leadership of both houses and Congress move vigorously into this deal and if, on the merits, block it?
HUNTER: Well, Lou, I can tell you, the one time we've stopped something which was my amendment to stop the Chinese from getting the naval base at Long Beach, all the of Republican leadership supported that strongly. I think we'll get it.
DOBBS: Thank you very much, Duncan Hunter.
HUNTER: Good to be with you.
DOBBS: Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
Coming up next, Congressman Ed Markey, Democrat, he's also fighting to block the Dubai ports deal and to protect our nation's security. He'll be my guest.
And also, how did security in our nation's ports break down so far so fast? I'll be talking with one of the country's leading port security experts.
And our nation's border emergency is intensifying -- staggering new reports on the number of incidents of border violence. I'll be joined by Senator Jon Kyl next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Congressman Ed Markey has been fighting for years for better ports security funding. Congressman Markey today said the easiest way to smuggle a nuclear weapon into this country is through our ports, and says agents of a foreign government cannot be allowed to control our nation's port facilities.
Congressman Markey joins us here tonight. Good to have you with us.
REP. ED MARKEY (D-MA), HOMELAND SECURITY CMTE.: Thanks, Lou.
DOBBS: You have introduced legislation on port security. You have put forward legislation to inspect containers, cargo containers. How did we get here?
MARKEY: Well, we got here because the Republicans have been nickel and diming homeland security. So, last year I made the amendment that said that all cargo coming in, in ships overseas would have to be inspected, 100 percent of the cargo coming in.
Every Republican on the homeland security committee voted against my amendment, knowing that 95 percent of the cargo that comes to America isn't inspected at all. In fact, there's an easy pass which is given to those shippers to just put the cargo onto the ship.
They know it's hitting the American ports and it's not going to get -- but the Bush administration has said 'in industry we trust.' They don't want to spend the money, but the consequences for American security is grave.
DOBBS: You said Republicans. There were some exceptions on the committee, correct? Republican exceptions.
MARKEY: Not on this amendment. On my amendment that would require all of cargo being put on ships, every Republican voted no on that amendment.
DOBBS: What about Chris Shays, Jenny Brown?
MARKEY: I did not have a single Republican voting for me. Maybe they weren't there that day. Nobody voted for it on that day.
DOBBS: Maybe that is what did happen. We'll check that out. On November 17th, you reintroduced the amendment as a stand-alone piece of legislation. It's still alive or is it?
MARKEY: It's alive as a bill can be in a Republican Congress. Again, the Coast Guard is only getting 20 percent of the money that it asked for from the Bush Administration in order to protect our ports. They continue to say to the airline industry, you can put 95 percent of the cargo on passenger planes without screening it, 95 percent of the cargo on ships without screening it.
DOBBS: And have your grandmother take off her shoes and move forward. Let me ask you this, too. Duncan Hunter was just on, as you know, Congressman. He had to stop the Long Beach deal. The Clinton administration, I do want to point out, the Clinton administration strongly moved ahead with the same nonsense we're watching here.
I think most Americans are only interested in this administration, this leadership in Congress, because it is what is controlling our future. But the fact is, this process has been under way under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Anything in the name of so called free trade, never mind that free trade costs us trillions of dollars and millions of jobs.
MARKEY: I agreed with Duncan Hunter back in 1998 to block that Chinese Red Army deal. I voted with him on that.
But today, the issue really isn't going to be, Lou, whether or not we kill this Dubai deal in 45 days. The question is going to be on the day after that, when another company gets that responsibility, will the Republicans vote for the money to screen the 95 percent of the cargo which comes into our country?
Will they be willing to ensure there's no nuclear bomb on any of these ships? I bet they're not willing to spend the money. So, the Dubai deal will become the red herring which will obscure the fact that they refuse to spend the money to screen.
DOBBS: We'll see if that is experience talking, Congressman, or whether it's some cynicism, again, based on some experience. Congressman Ed Markey, thank you for being here.
MARKEY: Thank you. Appreciate it.
DOBBS: We hope there's no place for cynicism or skepticism. We'll see.
A reminder now to vote in our poll please. The question is, do you believe there should be a law prohibiting the sale of strategic U.S. infrastructure to foreign governments and companies owned by those foreign government. Cast your votes at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results in just a few moments.
Still ahead, violence on our nation's border with Mexico is intensifying. A report of stunning number on violence, a stunning new indictment of our nation's failure at our borders. Senator Jon Kyl will be my guest.
The very safety of our nation's military is at stake in the Dubai ports deal according to one leading port security expert. She's my guest here next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Senators today heard alarming testimony on the rising violence of our southern border. Mexican military incursions into this country are skyrocketing. More illegal aliens with criminal records are being apprehended on the border and border patrol agents are increasingly being fired upon by from the Mexican side of the border.
Senator Jon Kyl who helped to organize today's Senate hearing to bring those alarming reports to you is our guest here tonight. Senator good to have you with us.
SEN. JON KYL (R-AZ), HOMELAND SEC. SUBCMTE. CHAIR: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: What in the world is going on? Whose responsible for this?
KYL: Well, the bottom line is our border is a very dangerous place. We've got 108 percent increase in assaults. At least 10, and probably closer to 15 percent of the people apprehended now with criminal records. A lot of those are very serious criminals.
As you note, you get the Mexican military incursions into our territory. Clearly, we've got a lot of work to do to secure our border.
DOBBS: Senator Kyl, in the atmosphere of the Dubai ports deal and this sham of an investigation by the CFIUS committee, let me ask you this. Republican leadership in the Senate, Republican leadership in the House and Republican leadership in the White House, why four years after our September 11 is there any discussion about securing our borders, any discussion about securing our ports?
KYL: Well, of course, we've made a lot of progress in the last couple of years. Now, I will concede to you that neither this administration nor the previous one appeared to be that interested in putting the resources necessary at the border to stop these unlawful incursions.
In the last couple of years, I must say, there's been a significant increase in the amount of resources that the administration has asked for and that the Congress has provided. As a result, we've increased our border patrol and we've increased our infrastructure and we're beginning to have much more impact. Lou, here is the point we've testified to today. One of the reasons you're seeing the increased violence that we've got enough border patrol agents on the border to contest their territory and these cartels and drug smugglers and bad guys are fighting back and of course they are trying to protect their cargo with violence against our agents.
DOBBS: That would certainly be a positive perspective on those numbers. Also, inferentially, we could suggest, could we not, from this alarming 120 percent increase in apprehensions of so-called OTMs, other than Mexican citizens, that we're seeing a land rush on our border despite whatever has been done at the margin to secure our borders.
We don't have anything approaching operational, as Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says, operational security at our border, do we?
KYL: First of all, you're right about the land rush of people coming in from other countries other than Mexico. They're coming in from very dangerous countries. By the way, most of those countries won't take them back very quickly. You can't return them to Mexico. So we end up having to detain them or let them go in our society.
Guess what, we don't have enough detention space. So they end up melding in to our society. There is operational control at some points along the border. In other words, once you put enough assets in a particular place, you can get control.
(CROSSTALK)
KYL: You got it. You got it.
DOBBS: And, by the way, just to put one other thing in perspective in terms of agents, we've got about 40,000 sworn officers in New York City. We've got in Immigration and Customs Enforcement 5,500. Maybe we can use a little help there too.
KYL: Yes, you've got about 11,000 border patrol agents, almost 40,000 New York cops.
DOBBS: Senator Kyl, one of the people trying to solve this problem. We appreciate you being here.
KYL: We're working on it, Lou. Thank you much.
DOBBS: Thank you.
Coming up at the top of the hour here on CNN, THE SITUATION ROOM with Wolf Blitzer -- Wolf.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much, Lou. We're following several developments, including more on that developing story you reported, new video of the president in a private video conference on the day before Katrina struck. We'll see the president meeting with his top advisors, a first-time look at what the government was trying to do before the storm hit.
Also, port security, the war in Iraq and the war on terror. The Democratic Party chairman, Howard Dean, here in THE SITUATION ROOM. I'll ask him the tough questions about those and other issues.
And a Catholic cardinal vows to break the law if an immigration bill is passed. Find out why he's willing to take on the federal government. All that, lots more coming up right here on THE SITUATION ROOM -- Lou.
DOBBS: Looking forward to it. Thank you, Wolf.
Still ahead here, new concerns about the ports deal and its impact on national security, specifically our military. I'll be talking with a leading authority on port security here next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: My next guest says she is absolutely thrilled over the Dubai Ports World controversy. In fact, she says it's finally forcing lawmakers to pay attention to the critical issue of ports security. Lucy Duncan Scheman is president and CEO of Safe Ports, a leading port security company. Good to have you with us.
LUCY DUNCAN SCHEMAN, PRES. & CEO. SAFE PORTS: Great to be back.
DOBBS: You know, we talked about it. We hit upon it the last time we talked. U.S. business and port terminal operators are responsible, in large measure, irrespective of what the administration has said for weeks in point of fact -- a large measure responsible for port security. Why aren't we hearing from U.S. business on this issue?
SCHEMAN: It's a perfect question. The port terminal operators have to do port security assessments. They know what's needed. U.S. companies are clamoring to get that business. And yet, as we've heard from your earlier speakers tonight, money has been slow forthcoming. Earlier -- go back all the way to the 1800s when we see the Jones Act has not been updated. U.S. cargo business went out of business. So we've got antiquated ...
DOBBS: No flagships.
SCHEMAN: No flagships.
DOBBS: There is no Jones Act in effect.
SCHEMAN: You got it. You got it.
DOBBS: So -- but American business is complaining about cost.
SCHEMAN: Yes.
DOBBS: And, therefore, security has to be affected. We know the U.S. Coast Guard, despite the wonderful job that it's doing, simply doesn't have the resources to carry out port security.
SCHEMAN: Precisely, which is why it is the time now for the U.S. private sector to pay attention. We've got enormous opportunities right this minute at every port listening to everything we're all talking about every night to say, wait a minute. Why don't we step up to the plate? Can we make a business out of providing that 100 percent security?
DOBBS: Well, Lucy, help me out.
SCHEMAN: Yes.
DOBBS: American business is so smart in international competition that this year we've got an $800 billion current account deficit, we've got $4 trillion external, and we've got administration's talk -- you know, basically, the so-called free traders are interested in free trade until it comes to the marketplace of ideas where they don't believe in freedom of the market.
SCHEMAN: Right.
DOBBS: Who the heck is going to run it? You know, we've sold away, as we discussed -- 80 percent of our terminals owned and operated by foreign companies, a large number of them government owned. Any number, in my opinion, is too many. What in the world is going on? Why can't a U.S. company get involved here?
SCHEMAN: But that's exactly what we're doing. Just to give you an idea, we went down to Charleston, South Carolina, and we're actually in the process of investing a quarter of a billion dollars at the Port of Charleston as a U.S. private sector company with other U.S. companies.
But went up onto Wall Street to try to educate Wall Street on the maritime industry. Lou, it's been shocking to me. They're still looking overseas for opportunities. This opportunity should actually come back home.
DOBBS: That's got to, first of all, just amaze people on Wall Street, because these are the same people who endorse the idea of outsourcing American jobs.
Lucy, thanks for being here. We appreciate your insight.
SCHEMAN: Sir, it's great to be here. Thank you, sir.
DOBBS: Still ahead here, we're going to have the results of our poll. We'll have many more of your thoughts -- they're very good thoughts. Stay with us.
DOBBS: Now the results of our poll. Ninety-eight percent of you say there should be a law prohibiting the sale of strategic U.S. infrastructure to foreign governments. How about that?
Taking a look now at some of your thoughts, Kathy in Alaska said, "I suppose it won't matter what I say, but I'm an old lady so tired of your gotcha game. I only turn you on during commercials and every time I do, you play gotcha with Bush. No wonder you Democrats can't win." I'm not a Democrat.
Al in Florida: "I think Lou Dobbs is a miserable, left-wing liberal." I'm not a miserable, left-wing liberal.
Alexis in Ohio put something of a finer point on it. She says, quote, "Lou, you're an idiot." I can't really rejoin that.
Jim in Illinois" "Lou, I want to thank CNN's management for supporting you." So do I.
And Catherine in Utah: "Hi Lou, congratulations to the management of CNN. Not Dubai Ports World not only wants to take over our ports, but our airwaves as well. As they say in our corner in the country, Keep givin' 'em heck, Lou!"
Chris in New York: "Lou Dobbs is the most arrogant, annoying and unoriginal anchor at CNN. How many times can the viewers hear his one-sided rants about exporting American? We get it, Lou. Now let your educated guests speak, for once. The only thing American should be exporting is you."
Whoa. You get the last word on that one.
Send us your thoughts at loudobbs.com. Each of your whose e-mail is read here receives a copy of my book, "Exporting America."
We thank you for being with us tonight. My doctor said that I should point out that if you don't want to be wearing a bandage like this, wear your sunblock. That from Dr. David Kriegel. "THE SITUATION ROOM" is about to begin with none other than Wolf Blitzer.
Wolf, to you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
