Posted on 02/19/2006 10:31:50 AM PST by Cagey
WASHINGTON — A New Jersey congressman said Saturday he wants to require that security officials at U.S. ports be American citizens to prevent overseas companies operating shipping facilities here from hiring foreigners in such sensitive positions.
Republican Frank A. LoBiondo, chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, cited "significant" security concerns over a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over operations at six major American ports.
LoBiondo said he wants the new mandatory citizenship requirements approved by Congress and President Bush before state-owned Dubai Ports World completes its pending purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
The British company, the world's fourth-largest ports company, runs major commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
The Bush administration earlier approved the deal, which has drawn escalating criticism by lawmakers who maintain the United Arab Emirates is not consistent in its support of U.S. terrorism-fighting efforts.
Caught by surprise over the breadth of concerns expressed in the United States, Dubai Ports World is cautiously organizing its response. The company quietly dispatched advisers to reassure port officials along the East Coast, and its chief operating officer _ internationally respected American shipping executive Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey _ was expected to travel to Washington soon for meetings on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration is defending its approval of the sale, and strongly resisting demands by Congress to reconsider.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack described the United Arab Emirates on Friday as "a long-standing friend and ally" and said the United States and UAE had a good relationship.
Bush visited the port in Tampa, Fla., on Friday but did not mention the dispute. Bush said an important element of defeating terrorism was taking precautions domestically and working with local officials.
"We've got to protect ourselves by doing smart things in America," Bush said. "I appreciate working with the mayors on homeland security issues."
But one of those mayors, Martin O'Malley of Baltimore, criticized Bush's approval of the ports deal as an "outrageous, reckless and irresponsible decision" and urged the president to reconsider.
O'Malley, co-chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Task Force on Homeland Security, also is seeking the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Maryland.
"I think that they did not take into account the vulnerability of America's ports," O'Malley said Saturday in a telephone interview. "I think Congress needs to have further hearings on these things."
He said only 5 percent of the shipments into the nation's ports are inspected, calling that a stark contrast to Hong Kong, which inspects 100 percent of shipments.
Dubai Ports World declined through a spokesman to respond to O'Malley's remarks.
In New York, families of some victims from the September 2001 terror attacks planned to criticize the deal Sunday during a press conference with Sen. Charles Schumer, a leading critic of the sale. Schumer, D-N.Y., said he is dubious any assurances can justify the UAE's involvement in American ports.
Schumer and others have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks against New York and Washington.
"A lot of families are incensed by this, because you're talking about the safety of the country," said William Doyle, whose son Joseph died at the World Trade Center. "We have a problem already in our ports because all of our containers aren't checked, but now they want to add this unknown? It's not right."
LoBiondo's legislative proposal would amend federal maritime laws to require facility security officers, which operate at terminals in every U.S. port, to be American citizens. LoBiondo said there now are no citizenship requirements, which he said permits foreign companies with a stake in U.S. terminal operations to employ security officers who are not Americans.
"We cannot be lax about our nation's security nor fail to recognize that our ports are realistic targets of terrorists," LoBiondo said.
Republican voters know this. It's a given. But a corporate/globalist state is acceptable as long as its an anti-gay, anti-abortion corporate/globalist state.
This is the most boneheaded idea to come down the pike in decades. What the hell were they thinking?
unless this deal is squelched this week, perhaps by the companies themselves agreeing to break off the acquisition agreement, the story is going to focus on the UAE lobbyists - who they are, who they lobby.
Ai yai yai! This is outrageous. There is no reason to go to Dubai- Vicente Fox can provide a dozen companies who will do this Job That Americans Won't Do. Pass the Temporary Guest Worker Initiative pronto.
/koolaid off
A lot of people believe that. Who is behind it, when did it start? I did not want to believe this.
What the little guy wants is not their concern.
That's been apparent for a long time now. And the little guys *are* divided about some issues, but blue collar workers and white collar workers except in the upper echelon should have common cause in outsourcing. Maybe we're better off with not such a robust economy; I mean inflation has climbed so high now that it benefits one class of people at the expense of the other (class distinctions are getting blurred).
Their concern is the corporation, the banks, and the top elite.
It would seem so. What a mess. I don't want any more Ivy League presidents if this is what we're going to get out of it. There all a bunch of good old boys. As to the universities, they are pretty hopeless, too, as they are way too leftist. Centrist universities? Now there's a novel idea.
I thought all this Skull and Bones, all the other groups were nonsense. Now I don't know. I suppose we can't talk about it on FR. I'm beginning to feel betrayed. They say both parties are the same. To some extent that is true, but I will never switch over to the other side unless they get off their abortion, anti-life agenda. As if the Republicans are doing anything concrete to halt the avalanche; it's mostly rhetoric.
You make a lot of sense.
cnn, hunh?
I don't watch tv or tv news. I find that every one of them has a specific presentation to fit facts whether or not the facts warrant that particular conclusion.
I don't know about that, I don't recall Clinton itching to give them amnesty as Bush has been doing which is only making the problem worse. Yes, our borders are much more wide open than they have ever been; all it takes to see that is to look out your window. Mexicans are now the biggest minority in America, at the pace they are coming across the border, they won't be the minority for too much longer. Bush has failed miserably to do his job and send them back. He might as well be the President of Mexico.
Whose staff are you on?
Siena, you are Dreaming.
We had about 3 million illegal immigrants enter our nation last year. Under Clinton that figure held to around 1 million per year.
Please don't let any of this stop you from posting misleading information.
Very hard.
Really?
So David Sandborn ISN'T/WASN'T an agent of DP World? He ISN'T Bush's appointee to serve as Administrator of the Maritime Administration?
John Snow WASN'T CEO of CSX, until Bush tapped him for U.S. Sec Treasury? The same CSX that was bought up ONE YEAR after Snow left by DP World? And Snow has NO Cconnection to DP World? The same DP World that has links to the Bin Laden Group?
The fact that CFIUS is STOCKED with Globvalist Bush "Yes" men and women, and Condi,Rumsfeld, and Chertoff are ON the Council? So Bush CAN'T say he didn't know...
And in your defense of this, we have....what? Your beliefs, a hope or two, and your "Cult of Bush" dribble chalice full of Kool-Aid dreams?
In your provided link, at post 32, you said
I want someone to tell me how the UAE OWNING these ports, with the same damm people running them, is such a bad thing?
Hmm...ok.
Let's have Red China "own" the companies that make the next Gen Fighters...is that OK?
Or develop next Gen technology to shoot down missiles...still OK?
Or maybe the Iranians could OWN the company making the newest Nuke-tipped Cruise Missile!
The same people would be running these companies...still a good idea?
Next time don't direct me to a Savage thread full of 'Bots....try and formulate a defense on your own, and have some proof to back what you claim...like I did.
Well of course they are.
On these other matters I have my rationality fully engaged.
Get a clue.
Here's a scary scenario by retired USCG Commander Steven Flynn:
“…why should a rogue state or terrorist organization invest in ballistic missile technologies when a weapon of mass destruction could be loaded into a container and sent anywhere in the world? Osama bin Laden could have a front company in Karachi, Pakistan, load a biological agent into a container ultimately destined for Newark, New Jersey, with virtually no risk that it would be intercepted. He could use a Pakistani exporter with an established record of trade in the United States. The container would then be sent via Singapore or Hong Kong to mingle with the half million containers that are handled by each of these ports every month. It could arrive in Long Beach or Los Angeles…”[2]
It would be great if the british had sold it to an american company but no american company placed a bid. But that won't stop lou dobbs from going nuts.
I read here, on another thread, that the bidding only lasted 20 days and that American companies knew nothing about it? Is that true?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.