LIVE THREAD: Senate Hearing: Briefing on Ports Deal (11:00 a.m. EST)

C-SPAN ^

[Cboldt]

I was under the impression that container operations at Vancouver was part of the pending sale by P&O.

http://www.portvancouver.com/media/speech_20030219-4.html

[Txsleuth]

ROFLMAO!!!

[processing please hold]

We have huge commercial interactions with the Saudis, and they are right here among us no doubt in sensitive places.

That's an assumption about the saudis, unless you can point out an absolute instance. The UAE, is a fact.

Our own laws and our own rules and regulations and our own enforcement and security agencies "control our ports".

They will be privy to our security secrets. That doesn't sit well with me.

[debg]

UAE = bikinis not burkas

[processing please hold]

Mark Dayton, isn't he the one who went running terrified back to his home when there was a scare about a possible terrorist threat?

[hobson]

You know, every time FR goes into meltdown mode I can't help but think about good ole Judge Sander Saul...

"Let's not jump up on the horse and ride off in all directions."

Then I'm reminded of the President's Inaugural speech...

"There's an angel in the whirlwind directing this storm."

[MJY1288]

"Personally, I've learned to stop worrying about Muslim control of vital U.S. Ports because, heah, this is a deal and someone is going to make some money off of it and if we have to increase the risk of a dirty bomb coming in on a container ship, well, heck, that's the price we pay for free markets. Isn't it boys?"

Stick to your day job, you have no future in comedy

you're a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

The one and only....

[maica]

Do you know who the "panelists" will be??

#####

Panelists? They don't need no stinkin' panelists. Panelist just cut into their alloted bloviation time.

[txrangerette]

Ok. I think Biden is one of the nuttier Dems. He came out and called Hillary a Liberal, and swore he wants to run as the "moderate" Dem to oppose her. My reaction was that, hey, if Biden wants to define himself as what the Dems think is "moderate", let him go to it.

[processing please hold]

lol

[mnehring]

The ports themselves are owned by the federal government. This entire issue isn't about ports, its about container facilities at the ports. Port security is under the direct control of DHS and the Coast Guard. Ownership of the physical ports is by the State's Port Authority.

All one has do do is look at the current operations by P&O as well as the purchase contract, all public domain, to understand the level of responsibility P&O/DPW currently has and will have.

http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=36,1,36_31159:36_34057&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL
(you can view each specific operation under Container Terminals, US)

Here are the details of the P&O/DPW contracts.
http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=36,1,36_31167&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL

You'll see that no where in the contracts is there any Security operations or physical ownership of port facilities. This is all about operations of container terminals.. not much more than a travel agent for really big boxes...

[maica]

Try Google: Maryland PORT Authority

[Howlin]

LOL..............this is true!

[Freedom is eternally right]

Found references to Senator Shelby holding hearings in October to change CFIUS and found one that said it would be attached to the Defense Authorization Bill. It is a "Sense of the Congress" which is not law .Here is the passage in the bill :

(b) Sense of Congress-

(1) PLAN- It is the sense of Congress that the President should take immediate steps to establish a coherent and comprehensive plan to address the emergence of China economically, diplomatically, and militarily, to promote mutually beneficial trade relations with China, and to encourage China's adherence to international norms in the areas of trade, international security, and human rights.

(2) CONTENTS- The plan should contain the following: (A) Actions to address China's policy of undervaluing its currency, including-- (i) encouraging China to continue to upwardly revalue the Chinese yuan against the United States dollar; (ii) allowing the yuan to float against a trade-weighted basket of currencies; and (iii) concurrently encouraging United States trading partners with similar interests to join in these efforts. (B) Actions to make better use of the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement mechanism and applicable United States trade laws to redress China's trade practices, including exchange rate manipulation, denial of trading and distribution rights, insufficient intellectual property rights protection, objectionable labor standards, subsidization of exports, and forced technology transfers as a condition of doing business. The United States Trade Representative should consult with our trading partners regarding any trade dispute with China. (C) Actions to encourage United States diplomatic efforts to identify and pursue initiatives to revitalize United States engagement in East Asia. The initiatives should have a regional focus and complement bilateral efforts. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) offers a ready mechanism for pursuit of such initiatives. (D) Actions by the administration to work with China to prevent proliferation of prohibited technologies and to secure China's agreement to renew efforts to curtail North Korea's commercial export of ballistic missiles. (E) Actions by the Secretaries of State and Energy to consult with the International Energy Agency with the objective of upgrading the current loose experience-sharing arrangement whereby China engages in some limited exchanges with the organization, to a more structured arrangement. (F) Actions by the administration to develop a coordinated, comprehensive national policy and strategy designed to maintain United States scientific and technological leadership and competitiveness, in light of the rise of China and the challenges of globalization. (G) Actions to review laws and regulations governing the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS ), including exploring whether the definition of national security should include the potential impact on national economic security as a criterion to be reviewed, and whether the chairmanship of CFIUS should be transferred from the Secretary of the Treasury to a more appropriate executive branch agency. (H) Actions by the President and the Secretaries of State and Defense to press strongly their European Union counterparts to maintain the EU arms embargo on China. (I) Actions by the administration to discourage foreign defense contractors from selling sensitive military use technology or weapons systems to China. The administration should provide a comprehensive annual report to the appropriate committees of Congress on the nature and scope of foreign military sales to China, particularly sales by Russia and Israel.

Source is S.1042 Sec 1210 (tried to link but got an search expired message)

[Prokopton]

"How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb."

[Howlin]

Damn straight!

[farmer18th]

you're a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance

But I'm AGREEING with you, man. The advertising that this UAE company is doing right now for Arab nationals to run the information systems at these ports in America is just, um, you know, completely reassuring. The maps these UAE middle managers have of the world with Israel crossed out just say "staunch ally" to me, and the application form with the "will not hire terrorists" box checked is what really gives me a happy feeling at the, um, pit of my stomach. And the thought of American longshoremen taking their pay checks from Taliban-recognizing Muslims says a lot for the future of political discourse in this country too! It's great! Really! I'm fine. Just fine

[A Citizen Reporter]

"I'm all for it; let's get them ON THE RECORD as being fools."

I knew I liked the way you think! I'm sick of seeing all the belly-aching posts about how bad the WH PR machine is.

What I read between the lines is, the WH doesn't step out in front and tell us what to say, so now here we are with our *&#^ hanging out!

[Eagle of Liberty]

THEN make the case that the business can be outsourced to a company in Dubai.

The business is not being OUTSOURCED. The operations were controlled by a British company who was being bought. There were multiple bids on the table by the other big ports operations companies, BTW none of which is a US company.

From this article, http://www.moneyweek.com/file/5148/po-0212.html:

P&O is the world’s number-four container port operator, with 29 ports in eighteen countries. Until a year ago, DP had little business outside its home base, but the takeover will take it from sixth to third-biggest operator in the world. DP intends to keep the London headquarters, current management, employees and the 170-year-old brand. It is also committed to a planned giant new £1bn container port on the Thames gateway at Thurrock, Essex. The only mystery, says Lex in the FT, is why DPW wants to keep the troubled ferries business and property portfolio, which the management had been in the process of selling.

P&O’s fate is a cautionary tale for British business, says Jeremy Warner in The Independent. The sale follows a succession of disposals forced on the company by its City shareholders: P&O Ned Lloyd, the container shipping operation, was sold to Danish rival Moeller-Maersk, and P&O Cruises was taken over by Carnival. P&O might live on as a trade name, but the promise it once held of becoming a global powerhouse has been squandered by short-sighted City types with their short-termist mantra of “focus, consolidate and sell”.