Thread: Republicans Defy Bush Over Ports

House Agrees To Vote On Ports
Showdown With President Likely

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 8, 2006; A01



Efforts by the White House to hold off legislation challenging a Dubai-owned company's acquisition of operations at six major U.S. ports collapsed yesterday when House Republican leaders agreed to allow a vote next week that could kill the deal.

Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) will attach legislation to block the deal today to a must-pass emergency spending bill funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A House vote on the measure next week will set up a direct confrontation with President Bush, who sternly vowed to veto any bill delaying or stopping Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steamship Co.

"Listen, this is a very big political problem," said House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), explaining that he had to give his rank-and-file members a chance to vote. "There are two things that go on in this town. We do public policy, and we do politics. And you know, most bills at the end of the day, the politics and the policy kind of come together, but not always. And we are into one of these situations where this has become a very hot political potato."

Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), said GOP leadership is "endorsing the viewpoint of our members and Chairman Lewis that we do not believe the U.S. should allow a government-owned company to operate American ports."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said last night that the administration is "committed to keeping open and sincere lines of communication with Congress." She added, though, that "the president's position is unchanged."

Since the Dubai port issue exploded last month, the Bush administration, GOP leaders and DP World officials have tried to defuse the situation and to buy time to let the issue fade.

In a deal brokered by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), DP World resubmitted its acquisition this week to the administration for a 45-day national security investigation. Frist has said he will hold off any legislation in the Senate until that inquiry is completed, a vow meant to give the administration and the company a chance to present their case.

That agreement appears to have quieted calls in the Senate for immediate action against the deal. Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), an early critic of the deal, said briefings by port security experts and company officials have eased his concerns. But House Republican aides and Senate Democrats said the Senate will almost certainly have to follow once the House acts.

"This issue is going to go away like the sun's not going to come up in the morning," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

"There's a lot of politics going on around here," Martinez said.

The House is still boiling. Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), with bipartisan support, introduced legislation yesterday that would scuttle the deal; mandate that the owners of "critical infrastructure" in the United States, including ports, highways and power plants, be American; and demand that cargo entering U.S. ports be screened within six months of passage.

"This is a question at the heart of the security challenges we will be facing in this next century," Hunter said.

House Homeland Security Chairman Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) has been shopping around a compromise requiring DP World to team with a U.S. partner, which would have complete control of operations at the company's holdings at the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami and New Orleans.

But lawmakers from both parties suggested they could not accept that. Hunter said employees and management would remain obedient to the company's owners, no matter how walled off from operations those owners are. "It's difficult to come to the conclusion that security can be absolute and ownership can be irrelevant," he said.

Even King questioned whether it would be workable. If DP World were guaranteed a percentage of the profits from its U.S. holdings, it would have to have access to financial records that King wants to deny the company. Instead, King said, DP World would have to receive a flat annual sum from those operations, a contract that may be impossible to write.

DP World officials were similarly noncommittal.

"We appreciate the comments and suggestion of the congressman, among many other congressmen and people from the White House also, as well as the senators," Sultan Bin Sulayem, Dubai Ports World's chairman, told CNN. "This 45 days that we have volunteered for review is a good chance for all of us, I think. And I think by the end of this, they will realize that there is no fear, no worry about security."

DP World officials suggested yesterday that within days, Peninsular & Oriental's operations will belong to them, no matter what Congress does.

DP World officials suggested yesterday that within days, Peninsular & Oriental's operations will belong to them, no matter what Congress does.

And its just this attitude that is going to kill this deal.
I watched the CEO of the Dubai Ports Co. on CNN. He looked like he is pretty sure money will talk in the end. "The British investors will lose alot of money if this deal doesn't go through"

House Committee Votes to Block Ports Deal

By LIZ SIDOTI
The Associated Press
Wednesday, March 8, 2006; 6:36 PM

WASHINGTON -- In an election-year repudiation of President Bush, a House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S port operations.

By 62-2, the Appropriations Committee voted to bar DP World, run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports.

Bush has promised to veto any such measure passed by Congress, but there is widespread public opposition to the deal and the GOP fears losing its advantage on the issue of national security in this fall's elections.

"This is a national security issue," said Rep. Jerry Lewis, the chairman of the panel. The California Republican said the legislation would "keep America's ports in American hands."

As the committee acted, Democrats on the other side of the Capitol were clamoring for a vote on the same issue in the GOP-led Senate.

"We believe an overwhelming majority will vote to end the deal," said Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, whose attempt to force the issue to the floor brought the Senate to a late-afternoon standstill.

By its vote, the House committee attached the ports language to a must-pass $91 billion measure financing hurricane recovery and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The full House could consider that measure as early as next week.

While GOP Senate leaders hope to delay a quick showdown with Bush on the issue, the House panel, including members of Bush's own party, showed a willingness to defy him.

"One of the most vulnerable situations facing America is our ports of entry," said Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla., chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee. "Whoever's responsible for those ports of entry should be American."

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio., said allowing the DP World takeover to proceed _ and ignoring the public outcry over it _ would be irresponsible. "The American people elected us to do something when an issue like this comes up," she said.

Only Reps. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., and Jim Moran, D-Va., voted against the measure.

"It is premature, we don't have enough information and ... it may turn out to be unnecessary," Moran said. Added Kolbe: "I just don't think this is the right thing to do."

The House and Senate developments underscored the extent to which the politically charged issue has come to dominate the agenda in recent days, with Republicans and Democrats competing to demonstrate the strongest anti-terrorism credentials in the run-up to midterm elections.

I can't help but think that while this Kabuki (sp) dance is ongoing, what is their other hand up to?

Be vigilant, you KNOW they are up to SOMETHING...

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

I can't help but think that while this Kabuki (sp) dance is ongoing, what is their other hand up to?

Be vigilant, you KNOW they are up to SOMETHING...

That's always possible, but remember: We weren't supposed to even know about this deal until it was too late. The WH thought that they had slipped another one through, and, IMO, were blindsided by the force of the opposition to it.

That's why it took them a couple of days to get the talking points out to their stooges on talk radio, FR, and tv. I thought calling people who disagree with you racists, xenophobes, etc was a Democrat tactic, but I was wrong.

CountFloyd,

PM William!

LOL Floyd! But the Pres is pointing fingers in all directions lately. Seems the "Congress" is to blame for the Katrina fiasco now. They won't release 40 BILLION dollars to rebuild the levy. Hire some of that cheap labor and build it for ten billion!

I saw the owner of DPW on one of the news stations in an interview where he said that if the deal gets delayed it will have "serious consequences" for England! What an arrogant grastard! I guess he thinks he runs this country now but doesn't realize he has to get in line behind Fox, Chavez and half a dozen others.

My personal feeling is that if the senators defy him, as they seem to be doing, it is the turning point. It means they just might start listening to the voters for a change. I had a feeling that Bush stepped on his weenie when he started making threats over this port deal. And it's because he tries to con everyone with the "national security" ploy while he leaves the entire country unprotected.

I heard today that one port, and I didn't catch where, had a whole bunch of people working who were criminals and undocumented! Ain't that nice?

With all of Bush's noise about this, I can't help but wonder how he planned to gain personal economic benefit from the deal?

I saw the owner of DPW on one of the news stations in an interview where he said that if the deal gets delayed it will have "serious consequences" for England! What an arrogant grastard! I guess he thinks he runs this country now but doesn't realize he has to get in line behind Fox, Chavez and half a dozen others.

I saw that too. Isn't it amazing that the more we wake up and catch on to their scheme, the louder they get in our faces. These a-holes act like they are entitled to our ports. Who do they think they are? Yet if we did the same thing and took over their ports, they'd scream imperialism in a NY second. Total arrogant hypocrits.

Originally Posted by dman1200

Isn't it amazing that the more we wake up and catch on to their scheme, the louder they get in our faces. These a-holes act like they are entitled to our ports. Who do they think they are? Yet if we did the same thing and took over their ports, they'd scream imperialism in a NY second. Total arrogant hypocrits.

It bears a remarkable similarity to the behavior of "our friends" to the south, doesn't it"

BTW, have you seen this article on the slave trade in the UAE?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 25,00.html

It's great to have such a gallant ally on our side in the "WOT".