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.
No, your statement is BS. Rep. Lewis won his last election with 83% of the vote. His seat was not in danger.
He's doing what's right for the country.
I've seen none of this. In fact, I have to say that the arguements made by the anti-deal faction have been riddled with distortions, misstatements of fact, outright lies, and blatant race-baiting.
The most disheartening thing to see from my perspective is the ease with which a couple of discredited nitwits from the Dimbulb party were able to stampede the entire congress including most of the Republican Party.
I sent Mr. Lewis an email today making just those points to him. What was done today will come back and bite him in the butt. It was a stupid move, and he will pay a high price for it, imho. These idiots have no concept of leadership; all they do is follow the polls and the stupid lieing liberal media. Gutless wonders, all.
In the first place there are many things we can block them on, but lets have fun and see what they can block us on. They have control in many ports all around the world where American goods are shipped. we might have trouble getting unloaded. We send many military cargoes to the Middle east They might have trouble getting unloaded. What happens if the Iranians try to close down the Persian Gulf and Dubais just across the strait from them. This thing could get sticky. Of course that doesnt matter we have proven we can keep them out of our ports . Any idea who might run those terminals now>>?? Maybe China. I gues we will have to throw them out next and any other foreign nation runing terminals. Of course we dont have a company qualified to handle them or with enough money to buy out the Brits, but that doesnt matter either we proved our point. Then agaion I wonder how the Brits will react to our screwing up their Multi-billion dollar deal?
treat the port operators like we do defense contractors. limit their ability to use entry visas based on their "business interests" in the US that result from these port operating contracts.
or
force them to subcontractor through a US company who would follow the same kind of security protocols a defense contractor would.
that's all I ask - I'll change my opinion of the deal if either one of the two options above are pursued. the white house is only offering a "take it or leave it" option.
Your 100% wrong about that.
so you are admitting - that blackmail is essentially the basis for this "alliance" with the UAE.
P&O can still be sold - minus the US leases. the port authorities in those 6 cities can lease those terminals to other carriers.
The reality is "who" owns the Ports is much less important then how they are managed. And with the Ports being the most regulated industry in this Country.....They are regulated to be managed in specific ways already.
A company from the ME, Asia, or Mars owning these said ports is going to make no difference in terms of "security".
That is the big pink elephant in the room no one wants to recognize. Simply because "polls" (boo) are so much more important then facts anymore.
Sadly this ridiculous mindset (and lack of leadership mentality) is even making its way into our military.
Bush's defense is, "Trust me." Sorry 'bout that. Bush's constituency prefers the Reagan maxim, "Trust but verify."Another excellent article by Ms. Schlafly.
* * * To those who are looking for a standard for U.S. decision-making, here it is: the ports are American property and we're fully entitled to make any decision we believe is in the best interest of the United States of America. No law requires us to treat all countries the same.
* * * In a national radio debate in which I participated, the pro-UAE-deal spokesmen's principal argument was that the Arab world would be terribly upset by a cancellation of the deal, and we should be sensitive to their concerns because we all have to live in this world together. Au contraire. They should be sensitive to Americans' patriotic feelings and quietly withdraw from the deal.
This is the most incredibly stupid issue for the White House to take a stand on--especially given the rock-solid, wide-spread opposition to it (and I'm only talking about Republicans here...lol)
Of all the things to 'fall on your sword' over!!! Geeez, and the President threatens his first veto on an issue that is OVERWHELMING opposed by Americans--regardless of party affiliation, or any other conceivable demographic. Heck, I can't even believe that the reported 19% support it--even 19% seems high to me.
Thank goodness that at least the Republicans in the House and Senate have the common sense to end this fiasco--and will help the President to cut his losses on the HUGE loser of an issue. End this fiasco now.
He's doing what's right for the country.
For the right of the country? Security he says? OK, how does it help our security to lose the UAE's cooperation with Intel and how can he claim this is about security when NONE of our agencies agree with him. NOT ONE. CIA, Coast Guard, DOD, Homeland Security, Treasury, State Dept. etc.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS BECOMING GUTLESS! THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO THINK DUBAI PORTS WORLD IS A DANGER TO AMERICA! BUT DOES THAT MATTER TO THE "LIVE FOR THE MOMENT" REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE? NOPE.
Refusing to acknowledge the difference between an ally and an enemy because they're Arabs is idiotic: logically AND politically. It'll bite us in the ass down the road, I guarantee it.
But Jerry Lewis and Chuck Schumer and all the other clowns itching for some attention are spitting in the faces of our allies and denigrating the capitalist system which ultimately hurts our security.
"Trust but verify" is a great maxim. And we will verify the security of the ports. But forget about the facts. The logic as followed by these 62 panicked wusses facing re-election in November is this:
We are at war with Arabs.
The United Arab Emirates has the world "Arab" in it.
Therefore, we are at war with the United Arab Emirates.
Of course, this logic doesn't begin with completely true assumptions, but who cares about the truth?
I must admit, knowing Jimmy Carter thinks the deal is okay bothers me.
Bush might have to cut bait here--but the absolute panic about this is UTTER HORSE CRAP.
LET'S SEE THESE SO-CALLED "LEADERS" IN CONGRESS PROMOTE GETTING THE CHINESE OUT OF OUR PORTS. AND THE BRITS, TOO, WHAT THE HELL? AFTER ALL, THE BRITS TRIED TO TAX US TO DEATH BACK IN THE 18TH CENTURY!! THEY BURNED OUR EXECUTIVE MANSION DOWN IN 1812!!! THIS "FRIENDSHIP" HAS BEEN A 186-YEAR PLOY TO LULL US INTO COMPLACENCY!!
This is utterly ridiculous. Republicans/conservatives look like protectionist pansies with this move--it ain't about security, folks, it's about "hatin' the A-RABS." And that's just WRONG.
Consider: the conservatives want the border protected, but don't oppose legal immigration. But now, with the Dubai effort, they oppose legal business with a company and government with a proven track record. All of a sudden this LEGAL, on the up and up deal is a security concern. Based on what? NOTHING. OUR NAVY HAS THEIR BIGGEST PORT OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY IN THE U.A.E., FOR GOD'S SAKE. But what the hell--Republicans are showing they are prone to the same pathetic reactionary idiocy as the 'rats....and going along with the 'RATS is not going to get them any victories in November.
They'll learn the hard way, I guess.
And then, if and when the socialists take over the legislature, then we'll face a TRUE crisis: much worse than a legitimate business deal with a corporation based in a country with the word "Arab" in its name.
I am a VERY irritated
Recovering_Democrat.
OK I'll take your word on that /NOT
Looks like the President is the only one that wants to win the war on terror. Congress does not care, otherwise they would help find allies instead of sticking them in the eye. Senate does not care otherwise they would not tie his hands. And you know the MSM and the Democrats want us to loose.
This is pure xenophobic panic, in my opinion.
This kind of thinking assumes ALL Arabs are our enemies. Well, they AREN'T ALL our enemies. Some have been very good allies, and that includes the UAE.
bump!
Agreed. Stop whining then.
And if you believe the majority of the American public (or even more then 25%) actually understand and know how U.S. (and World) ports operate???...Well then....you make my point for me. We are asking our leaders to base their decisions on the "opinions/ polls" of the completely uninformed.
Sorry. Not for me.
You sound like a well informed conservative who has the will power to keep his/her emotions in check.
Thanks for the post.
"He's doing what's right for the country."
In whose opinion? Not mine. I think that Congress is two things here in spades:
1.) Short-sighted - blocking this deal will hurt the long term objectives/interests of the United States in the Middle East. Don't give me the bull about security. All of the security concerns are easily managable. What isn't managable is how this will play to the Arabs. Al-Jarezza and Osama are writing their thank you cards to members of Congress right now.
2.) Congress is bunch of YELLOW-BELLIED COWARDS! They have the right to challenge the President on this issue. Fine. Put the bill forward all by itself. Debate it on its merits and let the members stand up and be counted on this single issue. This tactic of sticking it into the bill funding our troops and the relief efforts in the Gulf is the tactic of spineless politicians. A pox on the Republicans in the House. We might as well have the Democrats in charge.
Finally, why no furor over the Chinese running our Western ports?? Last time I checked the UAE wasn't busy building a blue water navy to challenge the USN. Last time I checked the UAE wasn't busy stealing our nuclear and missile technology. Last time I checked the UAE wasn't engaged in piracy of American software nor industrial spying. Last time I checked the UAE didn't possess a million man army nor nuclear weapons. Last time I checked the UAE was supplying us with oil versus being our rivals in that commodity. The double standard here is glaring. Count on Osama and his ilk to use the ban to their advantage.
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.