Skip to comments.Frist Proposes Face-saving Dubai Deal
Posted on 02/26/2006 8:25:29 AM PST by jraven
Moving toward a deal that could allow President Bush and congressional GOP leaders to save face and avert a prolonged confrontation, GOP officials said today that they were discussing the idea of having Dubai Ports World seek a new review of its acquisition of a British company's operation that runs several key U.S. ports.
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, confirmed in a phone interview early Saturday afternoon to TIME that officials were close to a deal involving the Congressional leadership, the White House and the Dubai company. The agreement would call for a 45-day CFIUS-plus investigation, King said, referring to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a Treasury Department-run interagency panel that probes proposed acquisitions in the U.S.
Although the Dubai deal had already been approved by CFIUS, "the rationale for reopening it is, once DP carved out the American ports from the rest of the contract it changed the nature of the agreement so it had to be reviewed again," says King, who had been among the leading GOP voices opposing the deal as first approved without the extra 45-day review process or briefing of Congress. King says will await final details before formally backing any such deal. King added "if we are going to hold back on legislation, I think there has to be continuous congressional review throughout the new CFIUS review.
If approved by all parties, the new deal would allow Bush to avert a GOP-driven bill to overturn the Dubai deal with enough votes to override Bush's threat of his first veto. Republican sources tell TIME that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee proposed the basic terms of a deal designed to give the White House a graceful way out, while also allaying the concerns of the many lawmakers in both parties who have said the deal could be a threat to our security. Under the Frist plan, the deal could stand a good chance of ultimately going through after the extended review. Frist aides apparently proposed the terms to representatives of the company and the White House late Friday. Neither has formally responded but both seemed interested in the idea, according to a Senate Republican aide. "This avoids a direct clash," the aide said. "It solves everyone's problem. The President doesn't have to cancel the deal or veto anything."
Under Frist's plan, the company would voluntarily separate U.S. ports from the rest of the deal for 45 days, allowing them to continue to operate as they do while the deal is re-vetted. That would allow a new review through the administration's Committee on Foreign Investments in the U.S. (CFIUS). Administration officials remain adamant that their first review was thorough and proper, so the face-saving element was crucial, according to one Capitol Hill negotiator. Frist is proposing that this time, CFIUS do the extra 45-day review that the law calls for in transactions where there are national security concerns. That provision was not triggered last time because administration officials had no remaining concerns at the end of the first review. This approach would eliminate the need for new legislation now, the Republican sources said.
Frist needs to shut up.......
I guess the bush white house inherited the FBI files from the clintons......................
Either the deal will happen, or it won't.
If it does happen, it will be another step toward putting Hillary in the White House in 2008.
Frist can propose all sorts of delays but eventually the deal will need to be approved, or not.
64% of Americans are opposed to this deal, per Rasmussen. Not a winning issue for the GOP.
Jorge Al Bush will make sure it goes through.
Frist needs to understand that first amendment rights stop at the White House door. He doesn't have the right to express his views openly. What's wrong with him? You'd think he was the Senate majority leader or something. /s
Why so she can lease more ports to China?
That poll didn't fly on the last thread you posted it on. Do you expect different results this time?
Why should the deal be revetted? Why should these members of Congress be let off the hook, after opening their big, big mouths on this? I am looking forward to Schumer and his fellow travelers explaining day after day why Muslims should get this extraordinary treatment when doing business in the USA.
Frist just wants it to go away now that it's apparent that this issue will not smooth his way to the Whitehouse.
. . .doing the same thing over and over in the same way and expecting different results.
Yes, but what about other Muslim deals in the works? Some want all Muslim business stopped and anti-Muslim legislation introduced concerning ports, airports, train stations, water facilites, power plants etc. etc..
And they want Bush to micromanage each and every deal involving Muslims.
No harm in posting the truth. I'm not particularly concerned if the open borders crowd doesn't like it.
Agree. Frist knows nothing and suspects nothing.
If you consider a poll taken in the heighth of hysteria the "truth", knock yourself out.
64% of Americans are clueless or racists.
Guess that would include me.
Or, Democrats who are playing politics even if this deal would strengthed national security.
Perhaps they're just people who came to a different conclusion than you did. Last time I checked, they still had the right to do that.
Good. Let's vet.... and let's look into the Carlyle Group
I agree. they are also, aiding the enemy by giving them propaganda to work with. "look the Americns spit on their allies just because they are Ababs"
Well, Eric - did you know that P&O was dragging its feet on implementing expensive security upgrades, and the COO of DWP (an American) has stated they would have implemented those right away - now we are going to have a further gap in at least that specific weakness (publicized to al Qaeda no less) caused by Democrats but unbelievably assisted by GOP Members of Congress too.
...and the "clueless" stuff...that's not an argument, that's designed to avoid argument. If it's this clear cut and right, surely someone could explain why...?
An uniformed conclusion is a bad conclusion, but your right, they have a right to form bad conclusions.
Polls can fly?
I'm not saying "racist", but "clueless" fits to a tee (especially since the classified national security aspects of this have not been - and should not be through Congressional interference - completely revealed). Either you trust the Administration, or you don't - if you don't have all the facts, then that's the definition of "clueless".
In their opinions you have. I don't see where this gets you or them. You think you've come to the right conclusion. Good for you. I disagree but hey, you came to this conclusion after reviewing the information I did. That's the way it's supposed to work.
---64% of Americans are opposed to this deal, per Rasmussen. Not a winning issue for the GOP.---
51% on FR are in favor, with 36% opposed.
"I agree. they are also, aiding the enemy by giving them propaganda to work with. "look the Americns spit on their allies just because they are Ababs'"
Israel is also an ally and the United Arab Emirates has never recognized Israel's right to exist (unlike other Arab states such as Egypt and Jordan). The UAE participates in the Arab economic boycott of Israel and the UAE recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. That's an "ally?"
John Kerry was a passenger on one until around midnight of Election Day.
If that makes you happy I can live with it. It doesn't sway my opinion to see folks on your side try to label everyone who disagrees with them the way you have. I'm sure it doesn't sway you to see folks on my side do the same thing. That's why I've come to the conclusion that it's pointless.
Do you know this UAE company works with an Israeli company named Zim? Maybe geopolitics are a little to complicated for you to understand.
According to Rumsfeld and the military brass, yes. Stalin was not so likeable personally either - good thing you weren't advising FDR during WWII though.
You forgot to say please....
It DOESN'T make me happy to see the GOP split like this (any more than the Miers fiasco did), so get a clue then - did you know that P&O was dragging its feet on implementing expensive security upgrades, and the COO of DWP (an American) has stated they would have implemented those right away?! Now we are going to have a further gap in at least that specific weakness (publicized to al Qaeda no less) caused by Democrats but unbelievably assisted by GOP Members of Congress - where's the logic in that?
As a regular rider on the Staten Island Ferry,I think the President is out of touch with reality.
Racist ? No. Just suspicious.
Did you see my question to you? Here's another port that has no problem with the transfer:
[Statement issued by the Port of Houston Authority on 23 February 2006]
The recent announcement of plans by the Dubai Ports World (DP World) to purchase P&O Ports (P&O) will not have an impact on any of the facilities or operations of the Port of Houston Authority (PHA).
The PHA is a political subdivision chartered by the state of Texas. It owns and either operates or leases 12 public facilities. The PHA does not own or operate private facilities.
Specifically in Houston, P&O leases space at the PHA's Barbours Cut Container Terminal for container and chassis repair and container storage. At the PHA's Turning Basin Terminal, P&O maintains a freight handling assignment and is licensed to provide stevedore services. P&O does not own or operate public (PHA) facilities.
P&O, a private company headquartered in London, is involved in worldwide container terminal operations and stevedore services for the maritime industry.
The Port of Houston comprises more than 150 public (PHA) and private terminals along the 53-mile Houston Ship Channel. The port's private terminals include several U.S.-based, foreign-based and multi-national corporations. Approximately 85% of cargo that moves through Houston's port is handled at private facilities. A large portion of the port's private facilities are engaged in production, refining and transportation operations related to the global oil, gas and chemical industries.
PORT SECURITY All port facilities in the U.S. that are engaged in commercial activities across interstate lines or international borders -- whether public or private, domestic or foreign -- are subject to state and federal security statutes as well as the rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies. The federal government takes the lead in protecting America's ports. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, primarily through the activities of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Coast Guard, runs many programs to secure U.S. ports. The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for maritime security and reviewing and approving security plans for vessels, port facilities and port areas which are required by the MTSA. Customs and Border Protection is responsible for cargo security, and screens and inspects cargo entering the U.S. through every U.S. port.
Other cargo security programs include:
-- Container Security Initiative (inspection of U.S. import cargo by CBP prior to leaving the outbound foreign port)
-- Use of radiation detection equipment to screen for weapons of mass destruction -- Use of other non-intrusive inspection devices
-- Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), which encourages maritime stakeholders to verify their security measures.
The Port Security Grant program and the pending implementation of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) are also important parts of America's port security portfolio to provide layered security.
While the federal government takes the lead on waterside and cargo security, overall security is a shared responsibility with port authorities, facility and vessel operators, and state and local law enforcement agencies providing additional security. The Maritime Transportation Security Act also establishes local security committees to evaluate and make improvements in each port.
In general, port infrastructure throughout the U.S. and around the world consists of diverse collections of docks, warehouses, and terminals. For the past two decades, it has been a common maritime industry practice for private port facilities in some countries to be operated by organizations that are based in other countries. This is widely regarded as the nature of trade and commerce in today's global economy.
For more information, please visit www.portofhouston.com .
Port of Houston Authority Argentina M. James, Director of Public Affairs Office: (713) 670-2568 Cell: (713) 306-6822 email@example.com
Felicia Griffin, Communications Manager Office: (713) 670-2644 Cell: (713) 594-5620 firstname.lastname@example.org
The logic in that is that those GOP members of Congress are still not comfortable with your conclusions on this deal. While that should give you some cause for reflection, it doesn't in the slightest. So be it.
I remember a lot of people thinking those who objected to Meir's nomination were also clueless. That turned out rather well didn't it.
There is going to be an additional 45-day evaluation period while the critical aspects of this deal are fully reviewed. Also DPWorld said they will create an American "buffer" company that will actually run the commercial operations until May, during this interim period. Over the last 4-5 days I've been wondering if it's possible to oppose any type of foreign control over vital American interests without having accusations being made that somehow if you're against this deal, your a racist and/or xenophobia.
Frist is coming around, so will the others. McCain was not "clueless" from the start. And, when Alito rules the right way every single time, then I will agree with you about Miers.
Like much of Congress - who should have been better informed - my initial "reaction" to the "Dubai Deal" was also negative.
This was before I learned that, that careless and incompetent organization known as the US Navy had been docking and resupplying in the UAE for years.
And that both the clueless Tommy Franks and Peter Pace were for the "Dubai Deal".
Oh, and I, for one, am far from being a member of the "open borders crowd."
This seems to be the way the Senate has been on everything lately. Can't get the Patriot Act scheduled on time, judges on time, even Supreme Court Justices on time. Senators must just have time on their hands because with all the postponing they are doing that must not have too much to do with all those postponement dates.
Don't forget clueless (and some things are not permitted to be run by foreign companies - airports and nuclear power plants for instance - the vast majority of port terminal operations ARE alreadt foreign-owned. Live with it).
Perhaps Frist could explain why DPW's Bilkey says his father was a senator, yet there's never been a Senator Bilkey?
Yet, Israel does business with DP World. If the Jews are not worried about DP World shunning Israel, why should we be?
Have you ever worked at a seaport?
Have you even visited a seaport?
Do you work for CBP?
No offense, but, you did not review the same info I did or base your conclusions on the experience I have at ports.
This is why 80%+ of Americans are making bad conclusions. They are being feed bad info from the MSM and not bothering to do their own research or speak with the real experts, not the Washington security experts that have never set foot in any port of entry.