At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3525633
a bipartisan group of seven House and Senate members demanded that an interagency task force on foreign investments, which approved the transaction, examine it more closely. ...Although the administration brushed off worry about that deal, congressional opposition to the Chinese takeover of Unocal Corp., the international oil firm, helped transfer ownership of Unocal to another U.S. oil giant. That controversy also inspired plans by powerful members of Congress to tighten the 1988 law that created CFIUS.
Talk of major changes in the law has subsided, but the Dubai Ports World deal could reignite the effort. If the administration is perceived as not vetting the deal carefully enough, congressional skeptics of foreign investment may feel obliged to take matters into their own hands, said Todd Malan, executive director of the Organization for International Investment, which represents the U.S. subsidiaries of many foreign companies. Mr. Malan was especially concerned because CFIUS did not conduct a 45-day investigation on top of the initial 30-day review that it usually gives to foreign purchases of U.S. businesses. ...
"We have a relationship with this company because they have been a participant in some of our cargo and port security measures," Mr. Baker said. "Remember, our interest in port security extends well beyond the United States. If we discover weapons of mass destruction inside a U.S. port, we've already lost. So we do a lot of screening abroad, and our general experience with this company has been positive."
The extra 45-day investigation wasn't necessary, Mr. Baker said, because the company approached CFIUS in late November ...
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06050/657283.stm
Actual security at the ports will still remain in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security, regardless of who runs the port business.http://www.evilconservativeblog.com/2006/02/18/going-overboard-over-our-ports/
A New Jersey lawmaker said yesterday he intends to require U.S. port security officials be American citizens, to prevent overseas companies operating domestic shipping facilities from hiring foreigners in such sensitive positions.
Somebody better tell Lindsey Graham as he is clearly unawere of this. Yet again he runs off at the mouth before he has the facts. Not VP material, imo.
Reading that post....just takes me back to one of my pet peeves...the knee-jerk legislating on Capitol Hill...
It seems like every little thing that happens out of the ordinary these days...requires hearings, investigations, and IMMEDIATE new laws!!
Is this a case of knee-jerk legislation back in 1988---or, is this a case of a knee-jerk reaction because of this one sale??
IOW...what precipitated the original law...and is this the first instance that Congress has gotten their panties in a wad over it??
It just seems that everyday something happens in America...and a media person, pundit, or politician exclaims, "There oughta be a law!"
So now here come Chucky Schumer and his Insane Democrat Senate Clown posse to the "Rescue". There NEXT spin lie will be "Gee there is just too much risk of these operations being in private hands, we better place the Feds in charge like we did with the baggage screener.
What a sweet game for the Democrat Senate Election team headed by Chucky. Grandstand like they are tough on security and get the "Conservatives" to fight the PR battle for them. The for the Coup get the Conservatives to set up PR so the Dems have an excuse to move MORE private business into the Publics Sector. End result? The Govt Unions getting thousands of new workers added to the Union rolls that the Dems can then squeeze for Campaign "Contributions" Yeah, that is really the sort of result "Conservatives" should be pushing for.
"We have a relationship with this company because they have been a participant in some of our cargo and port security measures," Mr. Baker said. "Remember, our interest in port security extends well beyond the United States. If we discover weapons of mass destruction inside a U.S. port, we've already lost. So we do a lot of screening abroad, and our general experience with this company has been positive."
######
This may be part of the story that Secretary Chertoff did not want to discuss. There have been serious overseas scrutinies of containers and container ships that are heading for US ports since shortly after Sep 2001.
Our pandering congressmen squeal that only 5% of containers are examined on entry. They do not mention all the measures that are in place overseas.