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.
you can't look a 19% support level on this issue in the face - and tell the people to go to hell.
offer some positive off ramp here - some new ports security measure, something - the administration's message on this is - "tough luck, eat this". a lame duck president with a 40% approval rating, can't do that.
How about "Nation of Islam"? Aren't they American?
with that approach, there is nothing that the UAE might ask for - that we could deny them. because that same argument would be used again and again to justify doing whatever the UAE wants.
if tommorrow, the UAE wanted to buy the WTC lease from Silverstein, should we sell it to them? Should we allow the UAE to buy key defense contractors? is there any issue you would dent the UAE on, based on this "they are our ally, it will cost us if we block them" mantra?
Big Big BUMP!
Well...there has been no GOP leadership in the House or Senate and W has acted like an absentee president, refusing to veto a single bill. In a situation like this, its everyone for themselves.
The off ramp is to tell the GOP to grow a spine and lead on important issues. It is to tell the American public to get educated if this issue is so important (which it really isn't...and as I said not even 1% of the voting public will actually cast their vote on this issue). Furthermore these Ports and their security will not change one iota regardless of who owns them.
The same people doing security today....will be doing security when whomever purchases these ports takes over.
Lastly (think Rove) if the DEM's want to try and run with this issue and make "national security" the back-drop of the 2006 elections. Please let it be so. The GOP will win every time (as long as they stand firm behind CIC GWB).
Agreed.
You are 100% absolutely correct, NOBODY and I mean NOBODY trusts this administration on the issue of home land security. The administrations policy of open borders and allowing massive illegal imigration is comming home to roost.
a palatable off ramp would be to actually propose a new security protocol for US port operators, and have DPW stand up and say they will be first to comply. we could have diffused this story weeks ago with a positive agenda like that, but the administration refuses.
its the white house that has pushed this brinksmanship. thank goodness they didn't do the same thing with Miers.
Well stated! I never saw so many chicken littles in my life. Didn't even wait for the 45-day investigative period but immediately passed this amendment rushing to judge without facts. Do you know who the two people were that voted against this amendment?
Look, Americans have consistently said they want to ISOLATE the arabs not INTEGRATE with them. That is why less than 20% of the public approves of the dubaious port initiative, why Europeans are stumbling over themselves to pass laws counter to the prevailing mores of muslim culture. With each month and year that passes, we're going to see less and less interaction with the middle easterners. One day they may decide to join the world, but until then the smart money is parting ways.
its the white house that has pushed this brinksmanship.
I just don't agree. This WH is dealing with fighting and winning a war. It does not have the time nor the stomach to have to hold the hands of a bunch of weak-kneed GOP'ers in the House and Senate (to whom those in the Senate completely owe their majority-ship to this President).
It seems like you are offering to add layers of nonproductive security procedures "just for the purpose" of doing them (regardless if they make the process any more effective and efficient).
We are in a war. A war that is on-going 24/7. We don't have the luxury of making up silly "feel good procedures" just to do them.
Those in Congress are pathetic when it comes to "Leading" on anything. Be it WOT, Iraq, Soc Security, Energy legislation, Standing up to the BS over hurricane Katrina, etc, etc, etc. These people have no leadership and are constantly looking for a "poll" to tell them where to move to.
I find it pathetic. Thank God for CIC GWB and SecDef Rumsfeld.
How can they join the world when we won't let them?
its because they see what the administration plans to do with these 45 days - run out the clock, continue to toss out the "arab xenophobe" mantra, etc. that's not going to change public opposition to this, they should have been using these 45 days to make a deal of some kind, not try to just force it through "as is". so some in congress feel they have to make a move now.
I find it pathetic. Thank God for CIC GWB and SecDef Rumsfeld.
Ditto
IMHO, conservatives knee-jerked themselves into a position they can't get out of.
---DPW runs terminals in for major ports in China. Do you think that the Chinese are not interested in the security of their ports?---
Anyone?
I am prepared to wait for an answer until hell freezes over.
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.