Thread: Transportation Department or Bush's Terrorist Cell?

I put a few things together because this just burns me up. I'm sure there are better sources but I'm just making a point.


Once again, we had to protect ourselves from the Bush administration and the Transportation Department. Considering the recent terrorist activity, involving air travel, we have dodged another Bush bullet. Without approval of the public, Bush and the Transportation Department attempted to bypass Congress and hand our airline industry over to foreign control. Bush pushed his globalist agenda and bore headstrong on his mission, without regard for the impact on American lives, freedoms or the sovereignty of our nation. In light of current events and realizing the potential of terrorist devastation akin to the events of 9-11, it‘s incomprehensible that a US president would lead the nation like lambs to a slaughter into the European Union.

Dixie

Here are a few sources:

“DUANE WOERTH of the Airline Pilots Association says the Bush administration’s attempt to change a 65-year old rule prohibiting foreign control of domestic airlines is a huge threat. The rule change as proposed would give foreign investors control over which routes the airlines fly, what types of planes they purchase, what country the crews that staff the planes come from, where the planes are maintained and ticket pricing.”
~~~~~~~~

http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/200 ... 11270.html

U.S. Officials Urge Congress Not To Block Airline Investment Rule
U.S.-EU air transport liberalization depends on it, they tell House panel
By Andrzej Zwaniecki
Washington File Staff Writer
Created: 08 Feb 2006 Updated: 09 Feb 2006

Washington -- A "unique" opportunity to reach agreement on liberalizing air transport between the United States and the European Union (EU) is likely to be lost if Congress blocks a proposed regulatory change intended to allow more foreign investment in ailing U.S. airlines, Bush administration officials say.

John Byerly, deputy assistant secretary of state, suggested that the EU has made a long-sought open skies agreement between the two parties conditional on adoption of a proposed Department of Transportation (DOT) rule intended to expand opportunities for foreign citizens to invest in U.S. carriers and participate in their management. (See related article.) http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/200 ... 86855.html

Byerly told a House of Representatives' transportation subcommittee February 8 that the EU's 25 transport ministers will wait for a final rule before they give necessary consent to an agreed text of the agreement at their June meeting.

Some legislators who question the legality and supposed benefits of the proposed change have interjected themselves into the rulemaking process and introduced legislation that would effectively block for a year the issuance of a final rule. Absent congressional action, the final rule is expected to be issued this spring.

Byerly espoused the potential benefits of an open skies agreement with the EU such as expanding open skies rights to all EU members, removing restrictions on access to key European airports, particularly London's Heathrow, and encouraging trans-Atlantic competition and cooperation.

He appealed to lawmakers not to let an opportunity to reach such an agreement with the EU pass. He said that in a year, market and other conditions may change and the opportunity might be lost.

Open skies agreements give airlines of involved countries the right to operate air services from any point in one country to any point in the other, as well as to and from third countries. The United States so far has negotiated 74 bilateral open skies agreements.

At the heart of the controversy is the DOT proposal that would allow foreign investors to enter into investment deals with U.S. airlines giving them power to make operational decisions concerning, for example, rates and routes a carrier serves. The change would apply only to international investors from countries that have open skies agreements with the United States. It would allow similar investments by U.S. citizens in those countries' domestic airlines.

At the same time, the proposal would continue to preclude foreign citizens control over security and safety issues.

At the hearing, members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation uniformly questioned not only the rule itself but even the department's authority to issue it.

Transportation Under Secretary Jeffrey Shane, who also testified, strongly defended DOT prerogatives. He said the department has the right to interpret a legal requirement concerning "actual control" of U.S. airlines and that the proposal would not alter that requirement, but change how DOT interprets it.

Current law mandates that U.S. airlines must be under the “actual control” of U.S. citizens to be licensed for operation. For corporations, this means at least 75 percent of the voting interest must be held by U.S. citizens and two-thirds of the directors and officers must be U.S. citizens.

Shane, who presented the proposed rulemaking as part of the department's deregulation agenda, said that substantial structural changes have taken place since the original law was enacted and its narrow interpretation established.

He said that DOT tentatively concluded that its current interpretation of the actual control test has failed to keep pace with those changes by "needlessly" restricting commercial opportunities for U.S. airlines and their ability to compete.

Shane said that U.S. airlines require significant capital investment and therefore should have the "broadest access to global capital markets permitted by law."

Most U.S. cargo and passenger airlines support the change; labor unions oppose it.
Subcommittee members expressed concern that increased power of foreign nationals to influence managerial decisions could pose risk to national defense and security.

But Shane assured them that his department had consulted the Defense Department about its intentions and encountered no objections.

The text of Shane’s prepared testimony is available on the DOT Web site.

Background information on the hearing is available on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Web site.
~~~~~~~~
Our Heroes in the House saved us from Bush, his sidekick the Transportation Terrorist Norm Mineta and their band of merry men, the European Union.

http://www.house.gov/list/press/nj02_lo ... 1406a.html

June 14, 2006

LoBiondo Lauds Passage of His Amendment to Block Foreign Control of U.S. Air Carriers

Overwhelming Bipartisan Support by Vote 291 to 137

WASHINGTON— U.S. Congressman Frank A. LoBiondo (NJ-02) today lauded the approval of his bipartisan amendment to H.R. 5576, the House’s “Fiscal Year 2007 Transportation-Treasury-HUD-Judiciary-DC Appropriations bill,” which would ensure Congressional oversight of any attempt to allow more foreign control of US airlines. The action comes in response to a proposed rule change by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to open up US air carriers to a greater share of control by foreign interests.
(truncated)
~~~~~~~~~
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... dt.01.html

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) DOBBS: The House has voted to block a Bush administration plan to allow foreign control of our airlines. Lawmakers from both parties, however, oppose that plan. But the Bush White House is determined to give away another piece of our critical national infrastructure and assets.

Bill Tucker reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Congress can't stop the Department of Transportation from giving away control of domestic airlines to foreign investors. It's not for lack of trying.

On Wednesday, the House attached an amendment to the transportation budget to stop DOT from proceeding, prompting this response from the Senate side: "The House vote sent a strong signal to President Bush. The American people don't want our nation's transportation system under foreign control -- not our ports, and certainly not our airlines." That from Senator Frank Lautenberg.

Yet, when asked by LOU DOBBS TONIGHT if the Department of Transportation would now back off of its proposed rule change, "No comment" was the response.

CAPT. PAUL RICE, VP, AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOC.: The insistence that the Department of Transportation continue with this notice of proposed rule making and just continue against everybody's wishes, everybody's stated wishes, and to avoid the proper debate that should be done in the House and in the Senate is nothing but arrogance.

TUCKER: DOT's position is that it doesn't have to work with Congress to change a 65-year-old law prohibiting foreign control of domestic airlines because it's not rewriting the law, just reinterpreting it, giving foreign investors control of route planning, ticket prices, plane purchases and staffing decisions.

REP. PETER DEFAZIO (D), OREGON: This administration is hell bent on pushing forward because the Europeans have said, if you won't let us control your airlines, then you can't have an open skies agreement. Yet another meaningless free trade agreement that they can notch on their belt that will cost U.S. jobs.

TUCKER: Also at stake is something known as the Civilian Reserve Air Fleet Agreement, or CRAF. Under that agreement domestic airlines fly American troops and equipment overseas.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: How important is that agreement? Well, just for Operation Iraqi Freedom more than 1.5 million military personnel have flown overseas on U.S. commercial aircraft, along with nearly 500,000 tons of equipment.

And the question, Lou, would be, how secure would you feel and the American public feel about those troops and that equipment on planes with allegiances outside the United States?

DOBBS: Well, as everyone has -- has testified on this issue. Is there a congressional committee? This nonsense, this idiotic nonsense by the Bush administration, they're just reinterpreting the law, what happened to President Bush's concern about those activist judges? What are we to think of activist transportation secretaries like Norm Mineta? Can we send a delegation up to Capitol Hill and grab him by his little ear and lead him to the truth?

TUCKER: You could, but he'll probably tell you he'll go ahead with this rule change anyway, Lou.

DOBBS: These people are so disgusting that it's beyond belief. Bill Tucker, thank you very much.
~~~~~~~~~~

Be aware that the Transportation Department is deeply involved in the Kansas City - Mexico Port Deal and the NAFTA Super Highway. I wonder what other great and wonderful things they have planned for our nation.
_________________

Bush and the Transportation Department attempted to bypass Congress and hand our airline industry over to foreign control.

Okay, someone please help me out here. What in the hell does BOOSH have to gain by selling off our country's assets one by one? Is it plain and simply money?

I do not understand how our Congress can sit back and watch the president sell of the country piece by piece. Unless the majority of Congress is on this deal.