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.
Lets get China, Taiwan and Singapore OUT ASAP!
I just hope that they have more sense than we do. But I bet they don't take kindly to us pi$$ing on their shoes.
We understand. You are in the small minority of Americans who think this is a good idea.
Thankfully, the voice of the overwhelming majority was heard and heeded in Congress today.
It didn't have to come to this. Bush could've made behind-the-scenes deals to have the UAE withdraw from this portion of the deal. Instead, he vowed to veto something we later discovered he didn't even KNOW about.
He was warned by conservatives from across the country not to pursue this, but he did. And this is the answer America has given him.
It's too bad it went this far, but he should've stopped this weeks ago. Any fallout from this lies at his feet.
even Rasmussen has Bush falling.
BTTT!
Bump
was Bush at 40$ approval, pushing issues with 19% approval ratings, going into the 2004 election?
he won by a 65K vote swing in one state in 2004 - had he been pushing this ports deal before the 2004 election, Kerry would have won - I guarantee it.
"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."
Wise words. Bush has no credibility on border security issues.
As always, Mrs. Schlafly proves herself to be a true conservative patriot.
Now you want to play the 65000 shift in Ohio from President Bush to Kerry and thus Kerry would have been President. How about these other if's. If there was 1000 votes shift in New Hampshire President Bush would have gotten 270 Electorl Votes even if he lost Ohio. With few thousands vote shift in Wisconsin Bush would have won without Ohio and New Hampshire and the same go for Minnesotta.
22 years in office and done NADA about securing the border, so I shouldn't be surprised. Proud CFR member and jet-setting, globalist sellout, RINO-extraordinaire, and someone who has impaired the Border Patrol at every turn. Now, doing everything he can to block the 2006 front-runner who happens to be the only (solid) conservative in the race.
US ops--report
Wed Mar 8, 2006 9:18 PM ET
Printer Friendly | Email Article | Reprints | RSS
LONDON, March 9 (Reuters) - Port operator Dubai Ports World has no plans to sell its newly acquired operations managing six U.S. ports, despite a fierce political dispute in Washington, its head said in an interview published on Thursday.
DP World Chief Executive Mohammed Sharaf said his company would take all "humanly possible" measures to counter fears its takeover of the ports threatens U.S. security.
"We have not even thought of that (selling the port management operations) yet," he said in an interview with Britain's Financial Times newspaper. "We have a business to run -- the USA is part of it."
The newspaper's Web site (www.ft.com) reported that private equity groups had approached DP World about buying its U.S. operations. The report, citing unnamed people familiar with the matter, gave no more details.
DP World's takeover of British ports operator P&O (PO.L: Quote, Profile, Research), which previously managed the U.S. ports, has created a political crisis for U.S. President George W. Bush.
Opponents trying to block the deal say management of major ports by an Arab-based company could jeopardise national security.
Bush has said such fears are unwarranted because the United Arab Emirates is a strong ally. He has threatened to veto any legislation blocking the deal.
DP World's Sharaf pledged to do everything possible to maintain tight security at the ports.
"We are sure that the measures we are taking are to the highest standards that we know and anybody else knows in the security area," he told the FT.
"If (the U.S. authorities) want something more, if it is humanly possible, we will do that
I wish he and his ilk would all go crawl under rocks and stop ruining our country.
To the UAE (and Saudi Arabia and Egypt, for that matter):
Sorry if you're offended that we're going to cancel the ports deal. In an ideal world, this would not happen. However there are consequences when your citizens attack our country and your reaction is muted. We simply don't trust you, and it will take longer than 4 years for us to trust you again.
Deal with it.
They seem to have multiplied.
Guess who'd be getting my "pesos" for contributions?
Look, I'm in the 19% that thinks the DPW deal, with appropriate safeguards (ie: a US company at interface on all port actions), is probably in the U.S. best interests for approval.
The fact that they run ports for China is not a positive fact favoring the deal. I'd rather not have a company that is beholden to the Chinese in charge of shipping Chinese stuff to the U.S. - but we have Chinese companies (with very close ties to the Chinese government and the Chinese military) shipping stuff into the US Westcoast every day. It's called Cosco - "China Overseas Shipping Company. There are at least a thousand of their containers sitting at the the "Port of Seattle" as I type!!
The bottom line is Isolationism vs. Global Competition. We are too far down the road toward Global Interdependence for any sane consideration of Isolationism.
The only answer is "Trust...but verify"! With a vigorous emphasis on the Verify.
Thank you Ronald Reagan - "Trust but Verify!"
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.