Posted on 03/10/2006 7:37:43 AM PST by Solson
WASHINGTON - A Dubai-owned company will control 23 American ports - not six - as a result of the deal approved by a Bush administration panel in January. The takeover of the British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. involves almost every major Atlantic seaport from Portland, Maine, to Miami and along the entire Gulf Coast, according to an attorney fighting the deal. The list includes Port Arthur and Beaumont, Texas, which have handled about 40 percent of the war materiel the Army has shipped to combat theaters in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also includes Norfolk, Va., home to most of the U.S. Navy's Atlantic fleet, along with three seaports in Louisiana that handle massive shipments of crude oil. In the spreading controversy, it was known that the British firm being bought by Dubai Ports World runs operations at New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. Attorney Joseph Muldoon III represents Eller & Co., a Miami-based shipping firm that is fighting the transaction here and in Britain's highest court. In an interview, the attorney said Eller & Co. does not want to become an unwilling partner of DP World's Miami operations. Muldoon told The News he unsuccessfully appealed two months ago to Sen. John Warner, R-Va., whom he knows personally, and also saw staff members for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, to stop the sale on national security grounds. "I'll check it out," Muldoon quoted Warner as responding. "Finally, I went to Sen. [Charles E.] Schumer because he is a member of the Senate Banking Committee, which oversees the Treasury Department board which approved this thing. If this hadn't been for Sen. Schumer," Muldoon said in an interview, "this issue would never had gotten any traction. "My client, and I personally, believe that the seaports of this country should not be run by a foreign government," Muldoon said. He said claims by the Bush administration that security is not involved is a myth. "The port operator is the one who lays out the security plan," he said, "and the Coast Guard and other government operations follow suit." In London, Eller & Co. attorneys have been given the right to appeal the deal by Britain's highest court. It was not until Muldoon called Schumer's office three weeks ago that it bloomed into an issue that threatens the president's hold on Republican majorities in the House and Senate. "I had an instinct about this situation," Schumer said, "and it was to keep it as bipartisan as possible. So I went first to [Sen. Tom] Coburn [R-Okla.] and he was very concerned." Muldoon said "Schumer was hanging out there all alone on it until" Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., announced his opposition. King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. Both national and statewide polls indicate the planned takeover of operations of American ports has helped plunge Bush to the lowest ratings of his presidency. A New York poll done by the Republican-oriented Strategic Vision LLC gives Bush an overall approval rating of 24 percent. National polls have Bush at between 36 and 39 percent. In the state survey, 81 percent of respondents think an act of terrorism is more likely if the Dubai ports deal goes through. Although the Bush administration officially approved the deal Jan. 16, DP World, the company owned by rulers of the United Arab Emirates, has requested the United States conduct a 45-day review of the transaction in an effort to defuse opposition. Schumer and King are sponsoring nearly identical bills that would empower Congress to block the deal if Congress is dissatisfied with the results of the review. Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, R-Clarence, was an early supporter of King's bill, which now has 97 co-sponsors. Backers include almost the entire state delegation. e-mail: dturner@buffnews.com
Bureau assistant Sara Blumberg contributed to this article.
I feel certain they don't. They're only in one port, aren't they? Miami? And now Congress is going to *force* an underqualified company of some kind to buy something they didn't need or want? That stinks.
Now, watch and see if the former P&O North American operations are "parted out" yet again, in even smaller parcels. Just for this one union company. Bah.
That's sure more likely than Eller "taking it all." I still don't have hard data to back up my opinion, but news articles are pointing to a parting out, with Maher getting NJ//NY, Eller (maybe) getting Miami, but Eller being credited with starting the objection ball rolling (with their lawsuits).
Just for this one union company. Bah.
AFAIK, all US ports are union, and will be no matter who owns the rights to warehouse and stevedore.
Speaking from my own POV, the Port of Houston has both union and non-union terminals. Stevedoring companies here do not all have contracts with the ILA. At some terminals, it is 50/50 percentage-wise, but I'm not sure about all 150 of them.
Bump for emphasis. Thanks for that. Houston is mostly a liquid bulk operation, yes?
This is actually a minor issue for the US government, which is why the White House didn't anticipate all the media uproar. There are thousands of corporate acquisitions in the US every year and they are reviewed for security concerns by the appropriate agencies. Very few would ever rise to the Presidential level, nor should they. This is a manufactured security issue created by the msm to damage the White House politically, and unfortuantely a bunch of excitable and uninformed conservatives were lured into a huge overreaction to this business deal. We conservatives have to stay calm, inform ourselves, and stop creating unjustified blogstorms that play into the hands of the left wingers.
No--well, maybe. I know why you think that, but I don't want to say "yes" unless I see something that says that. I used to write for them, but it's been a long time and I don't have my files any more.
In point of fact, the 50/50 I quoted was concerning steel shipments and break-bulk. I'm still looking for a definitive breakdown.
The deal had already been vetted and he had utter confidence in the dozens of people who had already OK'ed it.
Not really important, except to get a sense of the manpower required for handling the cargo. I figure there are historical presence of unions in certain types of cargo operations -- but all of that is always in a state of potential change depending on the market dynamics.
For all I know, Houston has a big RoRo operation and lands a substantial volume of cars. Interesting that steel comes in. I confess to not having a clear handle on the nation's freight/industry relationship, but certainly capable of learning.
And there was his mistake. The buck stops at the top. In the history of the US no President has stood in front of the American people and told 70% of the country that they were a bunch of racist, xenophobic uneducated people. When something is 70/30 against you, you do not simply dismiss the 70%. You have to at least appear that you are considering their concerns. You do not state it's a done deal, you do not threaten to veto, you do not put your Rep Congress out to hang in the wind, you do not side with rich friends over the American people. Frankly, I was surprised he still had 34% confidence. Another couple months at this rate and he will be down to single digits. Talk about living in a bubble.
I said it from DAY ONE...
Follow THE MONEY!!
Yeah, we do have RoRo. Here's an overview statement to begin with and I'll find some more official details.
"The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long [Rte66 note: should be 50-mile-long] complex of diversified public and private facilities located just a few hours sailing time from the Gulf of Mexico. The port is ranked first in the United States in foreign waterborne commerce, second in total tonnage, and seventh in the world."
I have no idea what you're talking about here. I never heard Bush say anything like this whatsoever. He never used words like "racist" or "xenophobic." If this is your interpretation of his statements, you misunderstood what the President said.
Keep in mind too, that his veto talk was a minor mistake, but he made that statement at the time when he first heard about this acquisition, and at that time he didn't know how strongly the public would oppose this deal. This was a political operation by the msm and they scored a few points, but this will all be forgotten by the first Tuesday in November. Iraq, Iran, and the economy are the big issues that Bush needs to have under control by November.
Here's a little more ... note that this first batch of info is from the Port Authority, which is just the government entity at the Port of Houston -- much more of the Port is private.
.Containerization was born when the world’s first container ship, M/V Ideal X, sailed with 58 containers from New York/New Jersey and unloaded at the Port of Houston in April 1956.
.Use of the double-stack train was introduced at the Port of Houston in 1981. By placing one container on top of another, transportation costs were greatly reduced.
• In 1990, the fast-loading Sprialveyors were installed at Jacintoport, making it the first facility of its kind in the country. (Some union problems started with this.)
• During the Gulf War in 1990-91, the Port of Houston was the third largest load center for the U.S. military, and No. 2 in the number of ships handled.
.Public facilities which are owned and operated by the Port Authority include 43 general cargo wharves available for public hire and two liquid-cargo wharves. The Port Authority's facilities handle approximately 15 percent of the cargo moving through the Port.
If you go to this page, there are links down the side to many of the terminals at the Port of Houston, but they are not all the terminals which are on the Houston Ship Channel.
http://www.portofhouston.com/geninfo/facilities.html
This is one terminal that I know for sure is operated by a non-union stevedoring company. Haven't pinned down others by name yet:
http://www.portofhouston.com/geninfo/facilities/careterm.html
This is the association to which the stevedoring companies *might* belong (such as whoever takes over P&O's contracts for services - it may still be DPW, since there are no leased facilities or operating contracts at POH). They work with the ILA, but are not exclusive as union employers:
http://www.wgma.org/
Maybe you can get a better feel by looking at those links. BTW, Texas is a right-to-work state.
You and one other FReeper have mentioned Dubya's "rich friends" in connection with the DPW Ports deal. May I ask who it is you are referencing? Thanks.
bump for later reading
placemark
Don't forget this. It's going to turn into a bigger story than people think.
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.