House Republican Will Try to Squash Ports Deal (Duncan Hunter)

Associated Press ^ | March 02, 2006 | Liz Sidoti

[AntiGuv]

WASHINGTON - One of the most prominent House Republicans on military issues said Thursday he would try to scuttle a Dubai-based company's effort to manage U.S. ports as lawmakers' complaints about the Bush administration's handling of the issue continued to spread.

"Dubai cannot be trusted," said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and normally one of the administration's most trusted allies. He called the United Arab Emirates "a bazaar for terrorist nations" and asserted that the United States should not permit DP World to take over significant operations at six U.S. ports.

"I intend to do everything I can to kill the deal," Hunter said.

Across Capitol Hill, lawmakers criticized the Bush administration anew following disclosures that the United States had launched a fresh investigation Tuesday into a proposed business deal by a second Dubai-owned company. Also sparking the furor was word of a previously unconfirmed investigation into a separate transaction by a leading Israeli software firm.

The government initially approved DP World's $6.8 billion purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. But on Sunday, the administration agreed to a 45-day investigation of potential security risks to quell a political backlash.

"Too little, too late," Hunter said.

Opening a hearing on the matter, Hunter said it was "quite remarkable" that the administration did not initially undertake a full review of security implications, given that the company is owned by the United Arab Emirates — "a bazaar for terrorist nations to receive prohibited components from sources from the free world and from the non-free world."

Hunter listed instances between 1994 and 2003 in which he said the country helped move materials for weapons of mass destruction, such as heavy water and high-speed electrical switches, to Pakistan, Iran and other countries. He plans to introduce legislation that would require U.S. companies to be the sole owners of infrastructure critical to national security.

The chairman's sharp remarks underscore the political tempest the White House has run into at a time when events in Iraq and renewed interest in the administration's failures in responding to Hurricane Katrina have pushed President Bush's popularity downward.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has sided with the administration on the DP World deal. He and the White House have praised the United Arab Emirates as a key ally in the fight against terrorism.

Congressional GOP leaders want to wait for the results of the administration's new DP World investigation before considering legislation to delay or block the deal.

House Democrats tried to force a debate and vote on legislation Thursday that would require the 45-day security review and congressional approval of the takeover. That effort failed on a procedural, largely party-line vote.

Leading Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee also asked the administration for details about all pending reviews of foreign business deals and any that have been conducted since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

The U.S. has conducted only 25 such investigations among 1,600 business transactions reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States since 1988. The panel, made up of 12 government representatives, judges the security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry.

Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, complained that he learned about the second Dubai investigation from news reports, despite regular meetings and discussions with the administration and others on the ports issue recently.

"Maybe they still haven't gotten their act together over the last few days," said King, R-N.Y.

Senior U.S. officials told lawmakers they will try to inform Congress better in the future.

"We clearly have to do quite a bit in finding ways to provide you more promptly with the information you need," Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt told the Senate Banking Committee.

Dubai International Capital LLC confirmed Thursday it faced investigation over its plans to buy a British precision-engineering company, Doncasters Group Ltd., with plants in Georgia and Connecticut that make parts used in engines for military aircraft and tanks.

The same U.S. review panel also is investigating plans by an Israeli software company, Check Point Software Technologies Ltd., to purchase a smaller U.S. rival.

Kimmitt said U.S. officials notified congressional leaders and oversight committees about the second Dubai-related investigation Monday. The company's lawyers were notified the following day.

[planekT]

No problem.

[SoCalPol]

*I think he's one of the good guys. He's been consistent on this issue too, not "grandstanding" as some here are claiming.*


Exactly. I support Bush but this needs to be rethought.
We have a Federal law, about doing business with countries
boycotting goods from Israel. since Dubai boyotts goods
from Israel and does not recognize Israel, either Dubai
better get on board or they would be breaking one of our
Federal laws and that is for starters.

[oceanview]

if the white house tries to push this thing through "as is" - its going to splinter off some percentage of the party - or at least make them apathetic. look at the polls, they cannot be ignored.

either kill this deal now, or compromise to save the deal - take a look at what Coleman is proposing, work up a compromise, allow an off ramp politically for this, and improve port security at the same time. this doesn't have to play out this way.

[Peach]

I don't know what Coleman is proposing and I've had the television off for 3 days now because I'm sick of this story on every level.

But, if attorneys would craft a cutout company, an American company, with some kind of oversight over the Dubai company, that would fly with people, I think.

[sinkspur]

so I guess you are adding Duncan Hunter to the list of "doofi" now?

If he wants to kill this deal, then he's operating from nothing but political considerations.

Bush has already compromised. He's agreed to the review. Congress wants legislation that will let them veto these deals, and Bush will shoot that down in a heartbeat. As he should.

Congress can't manage a budget. How in hell are they going to manage ports?

[sinkspur]

But, if attorneys would craft a cutout company, an American company, with some kind of oversight over the Dubai company, that would fly with people, I think.

DPW is willing to do that. Unfortunately, Joe Six Pack is too stupid to understand what an "arms length" subsidiary is about.

Thus, the demagoguery will continue.

[oceanview]

that is one idea being floated, yes. that could also serve as an off ramp for this. there is a thread on the Coleman ideas.

[Marine_Uncle]

"Duncan is wrong. Big Time."
The opposition are all wrong IF, it can be proven DPW will not in any way pose a security threat. It is so hard for many of us to stomach, I hate to oppose anyone on this issue who feel they cannot be trusted.
But I try to weight all the facts presented, which include the fact that many foreign companies have licences to operate terminals in our ports. Some of us seem to continue to forget the fact American workers run the terminals in essence. This Dubai company in essense would simply make money on the labors of others, just like so many companies do.
If their people have no physical presence at the terminal facilities, nor are foreigners involved in any of the operation they might hire, e.g. our stevadores do the work, and the port security is controled by the state/city/port authorities, and the US customs and US Coast Guard are resposible for the container inspections (that is a known weak area as some have brought up, simply not sufficient tools and personel to inspect all incoming containers, a rather shabby 5% often being thrown out), it would appear DPW has little control over anything in the reality of things.
And if the chicoms where known to have allowed shipment of AK47 into the terminal facilities at Long Beach some years back, why are they still operating there? But that is perhaps a curve ball.
All we can do is wait to hear the verdict on this one as usual. I continue to favor the deal.
Lastly, I am more concerned with why we are not spending huge amounts of money to hire/train/employ whatever level is required to do 100% container inspections. And that little problem has been written about for a number of years. It is not a newly revealed issue. The rubber meets the road at the inspections stations not some shipping company, IMHO.

[sinkspur]

that is one idea being floated, yes. that could also serve as an off ramp for this. there is a thread on the Coleman ideas.

Coleman wants to give Congress veto power over the CFUIS process.

If he wants veto power, why doesn't he propose that Congress appoint CFUIS members and get it out of the Executive Branch?

I'll tell you why. Because he doesn't want Congress blamed if something goes wrong.

There's a reason it's called "The EXECUTIVE Branch." Because it executes and gets things done.

Coleman is, to be kind, a bit of a girl.

[oceanview]

is CFIUS anything more then a rubber stamp now? what is their ratio of deals reviewed to deals denied? at some point, if the only thing they do is approve deals - what are they there for?

[Peach]

I worked as an investment analyst (commercial real estate investments); we were the biggest lender in the country at the time and we did a fair number of deals with Arabs. Some Arab companies in the early 90's found it easier doing business in this country with a proxy company in the lead position. It was basically meaningless when you broke down the corporate structure, but it made the neighbors feel better.

One time, a Saudi Prince wanted to buy an A+ office building in West Palm; our correspondent told him he'd need to provide financial reports. He was incensed. His lawyer called me and didn't get anywhere. The prince broke down and called me directly (one of about 5,000 princes) and you could just tell it absolutely destroyed his pride to discuss business with a woman. I never did let him buy that building. LOL

[TigersEye]

I read what you said and I didn't twist it. I was just pointing out how foolish it was. I don't agree that the public will have the same perception eight months from now that they do now. They will see through this current hoopla and the opponents will be seen as the fools that they are. Your hysteria notwithstanding.

[TigersEye]

Duncan Hunter is one of the only people I trust in the House; he wouldn't say this for political gain only, imo.

If he took this stand based on his vast military wisdom we may as well run up the white flag in the WOT.

[Peach]

What do you mean?

[Prost1]

"The sensible thing to do would have been to begin by quietly gathering information, making inquiries and working within the party to solve the problem."

The sensible thing would have been to forbid COSCO (ChiCom) from getting Long Beach under the Clinton Admin.
I was against that and I am against the Dubai issue.

[I am not a wannabe Conservative. I have some bona-fides (as they say).]

[Hound of the Baskervilles]

"Polititics aint beanbag. This Arab country needs us more than we need them."

Then why would they blow up our ports?

[AntiGuv]

...and the biggest US Naval port outside the Continental U.S.

Umm.. The Fifth Fleet is HQed in Bahrein, not Dubai..

...and the only ME Arab country that gives us intelligence and operatives in the ME.

Absolutely and totally false!

...and our airbases there.

Umm.. We have no airbases in Dubai. They do let us stop over on one airstrip, if I'm not mistaken. Our main AF installations in the Persian Gulf region are at Al Udeid in Qatar and at Ahmed Al Jaber in Kuwait.

I said this in one thread at the start of all this, but the UAE is rather irrelevant to our strategic interests in the Persian Gulf. I mean, yeah, it's always more convenient to have a nation be friendly, but we can get along perfectly fine without the UAE.

[SoCalPol]

Coleman is, to be kind, a bit of a girl.


Why because he is a Brooklyn Jew.
I think Norm Coleman is one of the more adult Senators.

[TigersEye]

I mean from the standpoint of winning the WOT opposing this deal is a killer. If we alienate the UAE will lose. We will also alienate any other nation who might be on the fence right now. We will be seen as backstabbers. As another FReeper has been telling me "perception is everything." Perception changes quickly here in the US. Once or twice and hour. It takes a few centuries in the ME.

Could be why Tommy Franks has no problem with the deal. Or Colin Powell. Or George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney.

[CommieCrusher]

If this is such a great deal why was it kepted
such a secret,and only by chance was exposed by
Michael Savage.