The Clintons pass in the night

[reader (the Second)]

Republicans seeking showdown with Bush over ports deal

PAUL KORING

WASHINGTON -- Mutinous Republicans, citing security concerns and seeking to sink a deal giving an Arab company control of some of the biggest U.S. ports, manoeuvred yesterday to force a showdown with President George W. Bush.

In what may emerge as the most serious congressional challenge to Mr. Bush over his self-styled role as gunslinger in the war against terrorism, Republicans in both the House of Representatives and the Senate are openly defying the President over the port takeover.

"We are going to send a very clear signal that we want to have American interests secured by leaders in America," said Jerry Lewis, a Republican who chairs the vital House appropriations committee.

A House committee supported 62-2 yesterday Mr. Lewis's poison-pill amendment to a $91-billion funding bill for running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If passed, and a vote is expected next week, the bill would effectively kill the deal that would see Dubai-based DP World managing six major U.S. ports.

Mr. Bush, who hasn't vetoed any legislation during his five years in the White House, has threatened to refuse to sign any bill torpedoing the DP ports deal. But a veto could throttle the money flow needed to keep fighting the war.

Having failed to win congressional backing for Social Security overhaul, the centrepiece of his domestic agenda, and being forced to withdraw the dead-ended nomination of his own lawyer, Harriet Miers, to the Supreme Court, Mr. Bush now faces open Republican revolt on a national-security issue.

That has Democrats crowing.

"For 5½ years, anything that President Bush has wanted, this Republican-dominated Congress has rolled over for him," Harry Reid, the Democrats' Senate leader, said yesterday.

Deborah Pryce, a Republican from Ohio, a key swing state, has accused Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff of allowing the "nation's security [to] be sacrificed at the altar of free trade."

What Mr. Chertoff actually said was that rigorous security checks had cleared DP Ports and that the defence and security of U.S. harbours remained in the hands of the U.S. Coast Guard, not the company unloading containers. The United States must "balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system," he said, only to add to the controversy.

Unspoken, but evidently underlying some of the opposition -- running at 80 per cent in some polls -- is the feeling that Arab nations or Muslims can't be entrusted with vital U.S. infrastructure.

"The kinds of questions I will ultimately want answered is, what did Dubai do when an innocent country, Denmark, had its embassies burned?" Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican, said yesterday.

"How did they try to temper the radical thoughts within their own societies? What did they do to speak out? What did they do to prevent it? What are they doing now to condemn it? Or are they just basically trying to placate us and pay political leaders in this country lots of money to make their arguments and then put gasoline on the radicals who want to incite anger against Denmark?"

Right-wing opponents of the deal acidly note that U.S. citizens can't even own a McDonalds, let alone a major company, in the United Arab Emirates.

State-owned DP World has emerged as a major global player, running container ports in Europe and Asia as well as the Persian Gulf. Its latest and most controversial deal, buying the port-operating unit from Britain's P&O, gave it control of facilities in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami and New Orleans.

In an effort to defuse opposition, the company has formally requested a full-blown 45-day review, something the security committee that first looked at the deal deemed unnecessary.

But the political calculus may be simpler than the security issues.

"There's nothing that the American people understand more than the Dubai Ports situation," Mr. Reid said. "Think about this: a foreign government owning our ports. The American people don't like it."

[kolanuraven]

Probably what Bush was told..." If you let this deal sink....we'll support MORE terrorists and blow yer arse up for sure" That maybe what he's not telling you!!

Dubai supports/bankroll a lot of terror organizations...many on the " list" that Bush made of terror groups!!

[Cal]

Dubai Company to Give Up Stake in U.S. Ports Deal

Thursday, March 09, 2006

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187307,00.html

WASHINGTON — After Republican leaders warned President Bush that the House and Senate appeared ready to block Dubai Ports World from taking over some U.S. port terminal operations, the company said it would give up its management stake in the deal.

The Thursday announcement was a blow for Democrats, who were pushing for a Senate vote on an amendment that would halt the deal. A few minutes later, the Senate voted to ignore GOP requests to wait until a 45-day review of the deal is completed before they try to stop it.

"This should make the whole issue go away," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said, holding up a copy of the DP World press release. "The [review] process is underway ... we should not have to interrupt it on the floor of the United States Senate."

If they succeeded in forcing an up-or-down vote on the amendment, Democrats could then claim a big election year win in the area of national security — an area Republicans generally have a stronger track record on.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., read a statement from DP World executives on the Senate floor Thursday, announcing the concession.

"Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity," DP World's chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, said in the statement.

A senior Frist aide told FOX News that the Senate majority leader and his staff informed DP World and UAE government officials Wednesday night to pull the plug on the deal. When asked what prompted this action from Frist, the aide said the House action Wednesday night created a "destabilized coalition among House and Senate GOP."

Just one night before, GOP-led House Appropriations Committee passed a bill blocking the deal. That caused Democrats to scramble to get a similar bill passed in the Senate by attaching it to a lobby reform bill. Bush has vowed to veto any measure halting the deal.

With the latest DP World news, many members of Congress who thus far have been critical of the deal may be much more positive toward it.

"It resolves all of the security issues involved," Rep. Peter King, a lead critic of the deal, told FOX News. "It's a very positive step and now we can go forward on overall legislation dealing with the ports."

On the Senate floor Thursday, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., argued that with Dubai's record of failing to recognize Israel, among other things, it's "crazy" to do business of any great magnitude with a UAE-owned firm.

"We ought to play showdown here, to use the expression, and vote whether or not we want this deal to go through," Lautenberg said. "It's not political, just do it."

But Senate GOP leaders had been hoping to prevent any votes until the conclusion of a 45-day review of the deal.

"The right thing to do right now is not to vote on this amendment," Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said Thursday on the Senate floor. "The amendment attempting to be offered is a political stunt, not based on knowledge of what is and isn't the facts. ... We can beat up on the president but the fact is, he's operating under the law. He has not broken law. Now maybe the law needs to be changed ... [but] we've got 45 days. And if true that this should not go through, then we'll stop it ... but it will be on the basis of fact, not politics."

Senate Republican leaders may try around 2 p.m. EST Thursday to block a vote on the ports deal through a procedural vote to eliminate all irrelevant amendments from the lobbying bill. That tactic is likely to fail and could prompt Republicans to temporarily pull the lobbying reform bill from the floor to avoid an immediate defeat on the ports measure. If Republicans get their way, an amendment sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., amendment dies.

That amendment was introduced Wednesday and it would not only block the Dubai deal, but also other U.S. ports deal with any company wholly owned or controlled by any foreign government that recognized the Taliban in Afghanistan from 1996-2001.

Senate Democratic leaders are negotiating with Frist in hopes of reaching an agreement on whether to hold an up-or-down vote on the Schumer amendment.

"We believe an overwhelming majority will vote to end the deal," Schumer said Wednesday, adding that he will continue to offer his amendment until such a vote is had. "They'll come up with whatever excuse it takes not to have such an amendment."

The House committee-passed amendment was attached to a $91 billion emergency supplemental funding measure for hurricane recovery and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on Wednesday. The committee vote in favor of the deal-blocker package was 62-2.

By attaching it to a larger must-pass spending bill, lawmakers are challenging Bush: If he follows through on his veto threat, he would also be vetoing the entire package.

"The amendment is straight-forward and is a rifle shot crack to block the Dubai Ports World deal only. This is a national issue. This is a national security bill. We want to make sure that the security of our ports is in America's hands," said committee Chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.

But Democrats charge that the GOP measure doesn't do enough and that the administration should be prevented not only from going through with this deal involving the United Arab Emirates-owned company, but also from future deals allowing foreign-government owned companies from controlling U.S. assets.

"The Republican proposal only stops President Bush's current backroom Dubai ports deal. It does not prohibit future ill-advised Bush administration agreements that will let other firms controlled by foreign governments operate in U.S. ports, nor does it address the lack of U.S. cargo security, which poses an even larger threat," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California.

The political firestorm erupted after the administration approved a plan to hand over some terminal operations at six U.S. ports to DP World, which is buying the terminals from a British company, Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

White House: 'Find a Way Forward'

The White House said Bush was open to compromise but expressed concern that the House GOP tactic could "slow down passage of vital funds and resources" and said Bush's veto threat still stood.

"Our focus is on continuing to work with Congress to move forward on this issue," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "The lines of communication are open. There are members who have concerns. We believe it's important to work with Congress to address those concerns, and find a way forward."

Republicans feared that if they did not move to block the deal now, Democrats would force their own vote. That would only invite criticism of the GOP's national security record, which historically has been the party's strength.

"There's no way that we should or will, leave the national security issue to the Democrats," Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told FOX News on Thursday. "We could pay a price in the fall [elections] and we cannot afford not to do this."

Senate Democrats raced to get their own vote on the ports deal in the GOP-led Senate, even though they had said they would not try to attach ports bills to the lobbying measure.

"This issue should not be tangled up on the debate over whether or not to strengthen our lobbying disclosure laws," added Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who has been a leader on both issues.

A senior aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., noted that after the 45-day review is completed, the president has 15 days to act. If the deal is still unacceptable, then Congress can act.

"It infuriates the majority that Senator Schumer offered this amendment," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid told reporters late Wednesday. "This is typical spin by Republicans in Washington … rather than talk about substantive issues, they get things moved ... to procedure. We want to vote on the Dubai ports scandal … is that asking too much? ... I want to terminate the deal."

Congressional supporters of the deal "are few and far between," conceded Sen. John Warner, R-Va., an administration supporter.

"The House is acting a little rashly," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., another deal critic. "This is politics by polls, I guess, and it's certainly not the best way to operate."

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."

The imbroglio over the port operations deal overshadowed the substance of the funding measure for Iraq operations and rebuilding projects on the Gulf Coast that was passed by the House Appropriations Committee Wednesday on a voice vote.

The underlying $91.1 billion spending bill provides $67.6 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $19.1 billion in new money for hurricane relief and rebuilding along the Gulf Coast.

The bill would bring total funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to $117.6 billion for the budget year ending Sept. 30. Total spending on Iraq and Afghanistan since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 would reach almost $400 billion.

The committee plan largely adopts Bush's requests for the war, the bulk of which would fund operations and maintenance costs, replacement of equipment, and personnel costs.

For hurricane relief, the House measure adopts Bush's $4.2 billion request but does not dedicate the money exclusively for Louisiana as he requested. The $19.1 billion for hurricane relief would bring total hurricane-related spending to more than $100 billion.

The full House could consider the measure as early as next week.

The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) conducted the original security review of the deal and has come under fire from congressional lawmakers for what they say was a less-than-thorough review of the potential security implications of having a foreign government-owned company run some U.S. port operations. Frist has urged Treasury Secretary John Snow to keep the Senate abreast of the CFIUS review.

Efforts by the Bush administration to quell the controversy — including repeated arguments that port security would not be outsourced — have failed. The White House even reluctantly agreed to conduct a broader investigation into potential security risks of DP World's plans, but that has not been enough.

FOX News' Major Garrett, Molly Hooper, Liza Porteus and Trish Turner and The Associated Press contributed to this story.