GOP House committee votes to defy Bush, block ports deal (62-2 Vote)

WASHINGTON – In a congressional election-year repudiation of President Bush, a House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S port operations. Democrats clamored for a vote in the Senate, too.

By 62-2, the House Appropriations Committee voted to bar DP World, run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports. The landslide vote was the strongest signal yet that more than three weeks of White House efforts to stunt congressional opposition to the deal have not been successful.

Bush has promised to veto any such measure passed by Congress. But there is widespread public opposition to the deal and the GOP fears losing its advantage on the issue of national security in this fall's elections.

“This is a national security issue,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis, the chairman of the House panel, adding that the legislation would “keep America's ports in American hands.”

As the committee acted, Democrats on the other side of the Capitol maneuvered for a vote in the GOP-led Senate.

Republican leaders are trying to block a vote on the ports deal through a procedural vote that could occur as early as Thursday. That tactic is likely to fail, which could prompt Republicans to pull a lobbying reform bill from the floor in order to avoid defeat on the ports measure.

“We believe an overwhelming majority will vote to end the deal,” said Democrat Charles Schumer of New York, whose attempt to force the issue to the floor brought the Senate to a late-afternoon standstill.

Congressional supporters of the deal “are few and far between,” conceded Sen. John Warner, R-Va., an administration supporter.

GOP Senate leaders hope to delay a quick showdown with Bush on the issue, but the House committee, led by members of Bush's own party, showed a willingness to defy him on a security issue in an age of terrorism.

Raising the stakes, the panel attached the ports language to a must-pass $91 billion measure financing hurricane recovery and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee was to approve the entire bill late Wednesday and the full House could consider that measure as early as next week.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the administration was concerned that attempts to address the DP World deal in that bill could delay money needed for U.S. troops and for hurricane victims on the Gulf Coast.

“We are committed to open and sincere lines of communication and are eager to work with Congress,” she said.

Congressional opponents of the deal hammered away at the security questions they said the ports deal raised.

“One of the most vulnerable situations facing America is our ports of entry,” said Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla., chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee. “Whoever's responsible for those ports of entry should be American.”

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio., said allowing the DP World takeover to proceed – and ignoring the public outcry over it – would be irresponsible. “The American people elected us to do something when an issue like this comes up,” she said.

“It is premature, we don't have enough information and ... it may turn out to be unnecessary,” Moran said. Added Kolbe: “I just don't think this is the right thing to do.”

Twice, anti-war protesters interrupted the committee meeting. They shouted: “this war is illegal,” “stop funding this war,” and “the blood is on your hands.”

The House and Senate developments underscored the extent to which the politically charged issue has come to dominate the agenda in recent days, with Republicans and Democrats competing to demonstrate the strongest anti-terrorism credentials in the run-up to midterm elections.

Republicans worked to prevent a vote in the Senate as an aide to Majority Leader Bill Frist said the Tennessean warned Treasury Secretary John Snow “the president's position will be overrun by Congress” if the administration fails to aggressively and clearly communicate with lawmakers during a 45-day review that is in progress.

The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private among Snow, Frist and several GOP committee chairmen. The Treasury Department oversees the multi-agency committee that initially approved the DP World takeover.

Republicans said it was possible senators would pass a simple symbolic statement in coming weeks that would put the Senate's view of the takeover on record without interfering with it.

But by mid-afternoon Wednesday, with the Senate debating legislation to respond to a corruption scandal involving lobbyists, Democrats signaled they wouldn't be satisfied with a weak provision.

Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters he was prepared to let the lobbying reform bill languish if necessary.

Senate Republicans accused Schumer of subterfuge in the way he sought to inject the issue into the debate, pointing to a letter earlier this month in which he and other Democrats said they would refrain from seeking immediate legislation.

Schumer and fellow Democrats brushed that aside, with Reid calling the maneuver “absolutely valid.”

The political context was unmistakable. Democrats circulated a pollster's memo claiming that recent events had “dramatically reduced” the GOP advantage on national security.

Some GOP senators accused the House of acting prematurely because of the heat Republicans were taking from their constituents.

“To kill the deal without a comprehensive solution to port security is just living for the political moment,” said Lindsey Graham, R-S.C

On the House floor, Democrats failed for the second time in a week to force a debate and vote on separate legislation that would require congressional approval of the takeover for it to take effect after a 45-day security investigation.

Republicans and Democrats in Congress have been assailing the Bush administration for its decision to let DP World purchase Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation, a British company that holds leases at several U.S. ports.

By Dan Roberts in New York and Andrew Ward in Long Beach, California

Updated: 11:42 p.m. ET March 8, 2006
John Castellani, the president of the US Business Roundtable, has warned that renewed political attempts to block the takeover of port facilities could jeopardise both foreign investment and forthcoming trade negotiations.

The Roundtable, which represents 160 chief executives, used its strongest language yet to criticise Congress, saying the backlash against Dubai Ports World's acquisition of five container terminals was "just another iteration of economic isolationism like the outsourcing debate was".

"This issue is very troubling because the US needs foreign investment and we need to invest around the world," said Mr Castellani in an online diary with FT.com.

"A lot of non-US companies who already own critical infrastructure in the US or are preparing to, such as Toshiba's purchase of Westinghouse, must be worrying about this too."

Corporate America has been relatively slow to defend the deal or warn of its broader trade implications after a fierce political backlash. In private, a number of chief executives have expressed unease about the principle of allowing Arab investment in sensitive US infrastructure facilities, echoing the wider political reaction.

But the business community's public response is growing, and its leaders insist most US chief executives are deeply uncomfortable with what they regard as protectionist sentiment emerging in Washington.

"I think business needs to speak up more on this," added Mr Castellani. "We intend to do that and others in the business community will get more and more vocal."

"It may be an election year but we hope to remind people what is at stake and how important foreign investment is."

Meanwhile US importers at the Trans-Pacific Maritime Conference in Long Beach this week voiced concern that the political uproar might lead to draconian maritime security measures that disrupt trade and increase supply chain costs. They said hawkish attitudes on Capitol Hill could undermine the co-operation developed between customs authorities and port users since the 2001 terrorist attacks and upset the delicate balance between security and free trade.

"It is a big worry if legislation starts being driven by emotion," said a senior logistics manager for a large US consumer products manufacturer. "This economy relies on smooth movement of goods and it would be disastrous if that was disrupted."

Importers such as Wal-Mart and Nike have broadly supported efforts to protect port security and embraced many of the proposals being pushed by senators, including increased federal funding for maritime security and greater rewards for importers who meet stringent security standards.

But delegates at the Long Beach conference feared that the legislation would become tougher as Republicans and Democrats vie for the most populist stance in an election year. "There is concern that some legislators will call for legislation that just won't work," said Michael Laden, the former head of customs brokerage for Target, the retailer, and a government adviser. "There are people on Capitol Hill who are not well educated on this topic."

The US has certified nearly 6,000 companies as trusted importers whose goods are subject to fewer inspections. To qualify for so-called "green lane" status, an importer must prove its supply chain is secure. Thousands more have applied and are awaiting assessment by customs officials.

>>>However we will still own the ports.<<<

Right! Of course no one in the US House Appropriations Committee seems to understand that fact.

The other thing that they do not seem to understand is that Dubai, likely to cut off use of their ports to our Navy, will deny us the use of a base of operations for action against Iraq - something we are likely to need in the next 6 months. I believe we also have an airbase and strategic battle control facility in Dubai.

Dubai sits in a huge strategic hotspot - at the choke point of the Straight of Hormuz.

The ultimate result of killing the ports deal will be to cede control of the Straights to Iran!

Every drop of oil from the Persian Gulf region must transit through those Straights!

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.