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

 

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. If they succeeded in that vote, 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.

 

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.

 

Because the GOP-led House Appropriations Committee passed a bill blocking the deal on Wednesday, Democrats were scrambling 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.

 

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.

I don't see how this is a big blow for Democrats. Everyone I speak to is against this.

The theory is that it would have been positive for the Democrats if Bush had followed through with his veto of the legislation blocking the deal, forcing Congress to override his veto.

 

Public sentiment is clearly against the deal, so any Republican support for it (be it a member of Congress or the President himself) is bad for their party.

Sure doesn't look good for W though. He was threatening a veto if the Dubai deal didn't go through, then before long half his party had abandoned him, Frist flip-flopped on it, and finally the company had to give up their stake in the port deal altogether.

I'm still wondering why Bush wanted to veto the legislation, when both public support and his own party were against it.

March 10, 2006 ? The White House asked Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, to give up its management stake in U.S. ports, to save President Bush from the politically difficult position of vetoing a key piece of legislation to protect America's ports, ABC News has learned.

 

When the company announced Thursday that it would sell its management stake in six U.S. ports, it was a stunning defeat for Bush, who had put his political capital on the line to back the deal, ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos said.

 

"Certainly, it's the most significant break with the Republican leadership in the Congress this term," he said.

 

The Democrats ? suddenly feeling united ? insist the scuttled ports deal is proof that the White House is weakened and divided against its own party.

 

"They couldn't hold their forces on the other side," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., "and this is a retreat under fire, make no mistake."

 

"[Capitol] Hill was leading the charge," Stephanopoulos said. "They've been telling the White House for three weeks, 'This deal is dead. We're going to override you.'"

 

With victory in hand, leading Republicans insist there are no hard feelings.

 

"In all fairness, I'm not going to be a Monday-morning quarterback," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. "It's all over now."

 

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., agreed.

 

"I think this incident is behind us, and we will go forward," he said.

Well that veto threat sure worked wonders... :lol

 

Who was he kidding?

He's never vetoed anything, and no one believed for a moment this was going to be what he made his first stand for. It is baffling how badly run the administration is. Not even Carter's was this bad. I'm not talking about the decisions being made, but strictly from an operational standpoint. They mishandle the press, the complete lack of trying to give any justification for most of their policy decisions (or they do at the last minute when it's almost a fait accompli), the seemingly random decisions that are made which don't adhere to any one ideological agenda or cohesive paradigm. Just inept.

the complete lack of trying to give any justification for most of their policy decisions (or they do at the last minute when it's almost a fait accompli), the seemingly random decisions that are made which don't adhere to any one ideological agenda or cohesive paradigm. Just inept.

 

They tried. They just couldnt beat their self-created monster of having policy debates in black and white terms.

The debate didn't come until the deal was nearly done. The debate should have been first for something they should have known would be this controversial. My initial reaction was that they could not possibly be this stupid to approve this deal. Even if it was economically justifiable, the PR would be nothing but negative. That should have been obvious to the administration.