Posted on 03/08/2006 6:21:12 PM PST by Reagan Man
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.
The White House said the president's position was unchanged.
“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.
Only Reps. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., and Jim Moran, D-Va., voted against the measure.
“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.
The ship of state moves slowly, the people better start screaming before we hit that iceberg!
Or else what? oh we will put a democrat in office! yea that will fix it! LOL
the white house refuses to offer the congressional republicans a political off ramp here - they want them to commit political suicide in the face of the polls on this issue. and I am not talking about the generic polls, I am just talking about the polls amongst republican voters.
its amazing to me that the white house would find this one issue, to take a firm stand on, and be so politically tone deaf on it.
I am afraid that you are confusing a stiffening of a finger in the wind to a backbone.
------
You may be right - but it is a very positive step against a force operating in our government that is not at all in the best interests of the United States. To date, I have been totally frustrated, like a great many, with a Repub majority in Congress (two of them) that has been basically under the thumb of the White House, and virtually impotent to get anything done. But most importantly, it shows that the when the people of this country get serious about an issue, they can directly turn the Congress around and make them do something...yet many still do not realize this, but again, a positive little baby-step in the right direction. I also see people, in general, wising-up to the modus operandi of the Congress and starting to keep an eye on them.
and you can see the white house strategy here - they don't want to use the 45 days period to find a compromise here, they just want to hand wave, break the arms of the leadership to push this through procedurally, and run out the clock.
---If they want to make a law that says no foreign leasing or management of terminals in US ports, then fine. But singling out the UAE, our staunchest Arab ally, when China and the Saudis and numerous others manage terminals is plain ignorance.---
And what about foreign airlines flying into our airports? Isn't that just another 9/11 waiting to happen, according to our anti-UAE friends? Shouldn't we ban all foreign investment? After all isn't money the most potent of modern weapons?
Let's see, no Arabs, no Chinese. Maybe we should ban all non-white foreigners from doing business in the USA...and also the French!
I like the idea of the ports being American run.
But then I also like the idea of having an American run merchant fleet !
Well I guess we should just open our wallets even more and put billions more into New Orleans then as well....shouldn't we. Considering ABC & NBC news were showing polls out tonight saying over 65% of Americans don't feel GWB has done enough for the victims of hurricane Katrina....and that more $$ is needed.
The reality is those against the Port deal are doing so based out of emotion. Not reality and certainly not by having all the facts. Or do you honestly presume that the majority of Americans understand how U.S. (and World) ports operate? - Please.
Or else what? oh we will put a democrat in office! yea that will fix it! LOL
-----
You said that, I didn't -- :-) -- the people have a voice that they rarely use. Here is a situation where the people did let their voices be heard, through alot of outrage to their representatives and through the New Media. And it had a strong effect. This can easily have a future effect on this type of crap being put upon the U.S. covertly, without adequate oversight. And this will also go on the Bush legacy list.
Nope, no Marxists in the White House, at any price. Never has been my position to even think about it. That would be jumping off a cliff for America. That is why Hitlery will not win in 2008. She keeps tripping over her hammer-and-sickle flag...
Polls are king. When the nixing results in blowback to the US, Bush will be blamed for that too. Bush is sort of like sponge these days that is there to absorb the toxins emanating from the public square. Sad.
I quit expecting much from them about 7 yrs ago.
You are dead wrong. First off this is not the political end all issue that most are making it out to be. Not 1% of the voting public will cast their vote in Nov on this issue. That is just pure-BS.
Additionally GWB is right on this issue (Ports) and the general public doesn't have the slightest clue about how U.S. ports (or World ports) operate.
Those in the GOP better stand behind CIC GWB this November or they will lose. If they try and break away and play some "middle" game....they will lose.
Yet if they stand up tall and support this CIC, support the GWOT, support Iraq fully (and tout the amazing successes which are happening throughout the ME...and stop allowing false premises to be cast).....if they do this and stand firm they win in November (big time).
If they want to try and blow like tree leafs with every new poll....they will lose...without question.
That was sarcastic, no way would I vot for dem or even think about.
"The reality is those against the Port deal are doing so based out of emotion. Not reality and certainly not by having all the facts."
I actually think that one of the reasons that you are probably seeing such tremendous opposition to this deal is a direct result of the administration's inactivity on the border and illegal immigration issue. Many people, rightly or wrongly, see this port deal as another step in a globalist agenda. I guarantee you that if Congress and the WH had been doing their jobs protecting the border, you would not see such hostility to an issue like the port deal.
LOL!! Even Juan Williams smells Republican panic.
The House Republicans have managed to shoot themselves in BOTH feet.
Agreed.
Don't expect any Intel from the UAE after all this.
You're probably right on this - But that doesn't make those opposing the Ports deal any less intellectually dishonest over this issue.
Furthermore the whole "lack of border security" is a lighting rod issue that has been used and overblown to some degree.
There is more profiling going on at our borders then most are aware of (for a number of reasons). I'll leave it at that.
I think as time goes by this one is going to cost the US big time. Of course you are correct ,when it does they will blame that on the President too.
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.