Bill Targets Foreign Role at U.S. Sites
Legislation would seek to kill a plan to transfer port control to an
Arab firm, and could affect other deals on national security grounds.
By Joel Havemann and Richard Simon, Times Staff Writers
March 3, 2006


WASHINGTON - House Armed Services Committee chairman Duncan Hunter
(R-El Cajon), seeking to derail a government-owned Arab company's plans
to manage port facilities in six American cities, said Thursday he
would introduce legislation not only to kill that deal but also to
prevent foreign companies from controlling facilities determined to be
critical to U.S. national security.

Hunter's legislation could affect the Los Angeles-Long Beach port
complex, where 13 of the 14 container terminal operations are
foreign-owned. "It makes sense in this new age of terrorism that
critical infrastructure be owned by Americans," Hunter said in an
interview. He said his proposal could apply not only to ports but also
to power plants and "other infrastructure that is critical to the
nation."

Hunter's plans put him on a collision course with President Bush, who
has vowed that he would use such a bill to deliver the first veto of
his presidency.

The furor has also proved awkward for former President Clinton and his
wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). Facilities at the port of
New York are included in the sale, which she has strongly opposed. Her
husband, meanwhile, had apparently talked with leaders of the company
about a public relations strategy to rescue the deal. The company,
Dubai Ports World, is owned by the government of Dubai, one of the
sheikdoms that make up the United Arab Emirates.

Hunter led a hearing at which Republicans and Democrats took turns
bashing first the company's corporate leadership and then
representatives of the executive branch committee that approved Dubai
Ports World's purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a
privately owned British firm that operates container terminals
worldwide. Among the assets included in the sale are operations in
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, New York and Newark, N.J.

A British court Thursday denied a legal challenge to the takeover,
which, if appeals fail, will become final next week. But the company
has separately agreed to postpone taking over management of the U.S.
terminals for 45 days to give the Committee on Foreign Investment in
the United States time to subject the takeover to greater scrutiny.
That committee, made up of 12 government representatives, determines
whether national security might be compromised when foreign companies
seek to buy American industry or invest in it.

Legislators castigated members of the foreign investment committee for
initially approving the purchase at a relatively low level of the
bureaucracy, with no involvement of Congress, Bush or his Cabinet.

"You'd have to be a turtle with your head in the ground" not to realize
the political firestorm that would follow a decision to allow an Arab
company any role in U.S. ports, said Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.).

Eric S. Edelman, who as undersecretary of Defense for policy ranked too
high to have participated in the initial approval of the sale, said the
United Arab Emirates had been a model economic partner of the United
States and had supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But Armed Services Committee members of both parties castigated the
Arab nation for harboring terrorists and allowing them to use its banks
to launder money.

Dubai Ports World officials were on the defensive during several hours
of questioning. "Dubai can't be trusted," Hunter said.

The company's chief operating officer, Edward Bilkey, responded to the
attacks, saying, "We are not a security risk."

The United Arab Emirates' role in maintaining the Arab boycott of
Israel has also fostered opposition to the deal, but the chairman of
Israel's largest shipping line came to Dubai Ports World's defense in a
letter to Sen. Clinton.

Idan Ofer, chairman of Zim Integrated Shipping Services, urged her to
drop her opposition, saying, "I sincerely hope this unnecessary
political storm will cease."

Dubai Ports World officials, meanwhile, said that Bill Clinton had
suggested they hire his former spokesman, Joe Lockhart, to assist in
their public relations campaign. Lockhart decided against doing so.

"We seem to be our own worst enemies," Hunter said at Thursday's
hearing. "We should require critical U.S. infrastructure to remain in
U.S. hands."

Hunter said he would introduce his legislation next week. It would
require foreign companies to divest themselves of any operations
determined to be "critical U.S. infrastructure" by the Defense and
Homeland Security departments.

Hunter's legislation would go further than what has been introduced in
the House so far - a bipartisan measure backed by at least 90 House
members that would give Congress the right to kill the Dubai ports deal
once the new security review was complete.

Manny Aschemeyer, executive director of the Marine Exchange of Southern
California, which tracks vessel movements at the ports, said that any
effort to bar foreign companies from operating port terminals would
"shut most of the major container ports down in the United States,
including Los Angeles-Long Beach.... That would be an absolute
disaster."

The foreign investment committee is concurrently investigating two
other corporate takeovers for their national security implications.

Dubai International Capital is paying $1.2 billion to buy Britain's
Doncasters Group, a manufacturer of precision components that go into
military aircraft and tanks. It has plants in Georgia and Connecticut.

And Israel's Check Point Software Technologies, a world leader in
online security, has agreed to buy Sourcefire, a Maryland-based company
with a similar mission.

Why let Arabs earn the business on merit when we can give the business to
Bush cronies?

I hope the UAE reciprocates by banning the US military from using their
ports.

Maybe then something may sink in...

Amen!



"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Targets Foreign Role at U.S. Sites
Legislation would seek to kill a plan to transfer port control to an
Arab firm, and could affect other deals on national security grounds.
By Joel Havemann and Richard Simon, Times Staff Writers
March 3, 2006


WASHINGTON - House Armed Services Committee chairman Duncan Hunter
(R-El Cajon), seeking to derail a government-owned Arab company's plans
to manage port facilities in six American cities, said Thursday he
would introduce legislation not only to kill that deal but also to
prevent foreign companies from controlling facilities determined to be
critical to U.S. national security.

Hunter's legislation could affect the Los Angeles-Long Beach port
complex, where 13 of the 14 container terminal operations are
foreign-owned. "It makes sense in this new age of terrorism that
critical infrastructure be owned by Americans," Hunter said in an
interview. He said his proposal could apply not only to ports but also
to power plants and "other infrastructure that is critical to the
nation."

Hunter's plans put him on a collision course with President Bush, who
has vowed that he would use such a bill to deliver the first veto of
his presidency.

The furor has also proved awkward for former President Clinton and his
wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). Facilities at the port of
New York are included in the sale, which she has strongly opposed. Her
husband, meanwhile, had apparently talked with leaders of the company
about a public relations strategy to rescue the deal. The company,
Dubai Ports World, is owned by the government of Dubai, one of the
sheikdoms that make up the United Arab Emirates.

Hunter led a hearing at which Republicans and Democrats took turns
bashing first the company's corporate leadership and then
representatives of the executive branch committee that approved Dubai
Ports World's purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a
privately owned British firm that operates container terminals
worldwide. Among the assets included in the sale are operations in
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, New York and Newark, N.J.

A British court Thursday denied a legal challenge to the takeover,
which, if appeals fail, will become final next week. But the company
has separately agreed to postpone taking over management of the U.S.
terminals for 45 days to give the Committee on Foreign Investment in
the United States time to subject the takeover to greater scrutiny.
That committee, made up of 12 government representatives, determines
whether national security might be compromised when foreign companies
seek to buy American industry or invest in it.

Legislators castigated members of the foreign investment committee for
initially approving the purchase at a relatively low level of the
bureaucracy, with no involvement of Congress, Bush or his Cabinet.

"You'd have to be a turtle with your head in the ground" not to realize
the political firestorm that would follow a decision to allow an Arab
company any role in U.S. ports, said Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.).

Eric S. Edelman, who as undersecretary of Defense for policy ranked too
high to have participated in the initial approval of the sale, said the
United Arab Emirates had been a model economic partner of the United
States and had supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But Armed Services Committee members of both parties castigated the
Arab nation for harboring terrorists and allowing them to use its banks
to launder money.

Dubai Ports World officials were on the defensive during several hours
of questioning. "Dubai can't be trusted," Hunter said.

The company's chief operating officer, Edward Bilkey, responded to the
attacks, saying, "We are not a security risk."

The United Arab Emirates' role in maintaining the Arab boycott of
Israel has also fostered opposition to the deal, but the chairman of
Israel's largest shipping line came to Dubai Ports World's defense in a
letter to Sen. Clinton.

Idan Ofer, chairman of Zim Integrated Shipping Services, urged her to
drop her opposition, saying, "I sincerely hope this unnecessary
political storm will cease."

Dubai Ports World officials, meanwhile, said that Bill Clinton had
suggested they hire his former spokesman, Joe Lockhart, to assist in
their public relations campaign. Lockhart decided against doing so.

"We seem to be our own worst enemies," Hunter said at Thursday's
hearing. "We should require critical U.S. infrastructure to remain in
U.S. hands."

Hunter said he would introduce his legislation next week. It would
require foreign companies to divest themselves of any operations
determined to be "critical U.S. infrastructure" by the Defense and
Homeland Security departments.

Hunter's legislation would go further than what has been introduced in
the House so far - a bipartisan measure backed by at least 90 House
members that would give Congress the right to kill the Dubai ports deal
once the new security review was complete.

Manny Aschemeyer, executive director of the Marine Exchange of Southern
California, which tracks vessel movements at the ports, said that any
effort to bar foreign companies from operating port terminals would
"shut most of the major container ports down in the United States,
including Los Angeles-Long Beach.... That would be an absolute
disaster."

The foreign investment committee is concurrently investigating two
other corporate takeovers for their national security implications.

Dubai International Capital is paying $1.2 billion to buy Britain's
Doncasters Group, a manufacturer of precision components that go into
military aircraft and tanks. It has plants in Georgia and Connecticut.

And Israel's Check Point Software Technologies, a world leader in
online security, has agreed to buy Sourcefire, a Maryland-based company
with a similar mission.

"Joe"
Bill Targets Foreign Role at U.S. Sites
Legislation would seek to kill a plan to transfer port control to an
Arab firm, and could affect other deals on national security grounds.

Again, with all due respect, this is but the tip of the iceburg. A few of you
may recall when Nixon took the dollar off the silver standard. Since then major
oil producers have accepted only dollars in payment for oil. This has maintained
the dollars' value despite our constant negative balance of payments. Japan,
Tiawan, China, and all are willing to accept dollars even though the USA has
nothing they want to buy with them because they can use them to buy oil. But
what are the oil producing nations to do with all those dollars? Buy up America
of course! That's the legacy we are leaving to our children and grandchildren.

Throw too much sand and the Arabs will begin selling oil for Euros like Saddam
threatened to do - then where will we be?

"Vito" wrote in message news

Throw too much sand and the Arabs will begin selling oil
for Euros like Saddam
threatened to do - then where will we be?


Invading Europe?

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Joe"
Bill Targets Foreign Role at U.S. Sites
Legislation would seek to kill a plan to transfer port control to an
Arab firm, and could affect other deals on national security grounds.

Again, with all due respect, this is but the tip of the iceburg. A few of
you
may recall when Nixon took the dollar off the silver standard. Since then
major
oil producers have accepted only dollars in payment for oil. This has
maintained
the dollars' value despite our constant negative balance of payments.
Japan,
Tiawan, China, and all are willing to accept dollars even though the USA
has
nothing they want to buy with them because they can use them to buy oil.
But
what are the oil producing nations to do with all those dollars? Buy up
America
of course! That's the legacy we are leaving to our children and
grandchildren.

Throw too much sand and the Arabs will begin selling oil for Euros like
Saddam
threatened to do - then where will we be?


Iran wants to sell oil in Euros. Prepare for another war.

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...


Iran wants to sell oil in Euros. Prepare for another war.

Jeeze Louise, I hope we go right to nukes this time. These long, protracted
foot soldier conflicts don't make for good nightly news anymore.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...


Iran wants to sell oil in Euros. Prepare for another war.

Jeeze Louise, I hope we go right to nukes this time. These long,
protracted foot soldier conflicts don't make for good nightly news
anymore.

Atomic weapons are cost effective and practical.

They reduce American casualties.
They impress savages.
Aim isn't that important.
The fallout will slow down our economic competitors in the region.
The have lasting psychological effect.
There have been over 500 above ground atomic tests in the world. A few more
blasts ain't gonna hurt anyone except the intended victims.

Amen!

"Maxprop" wrote
"Bob Crantz" wrote
Iran wants to sell oil in Euros. Prepare for another war.

Jeeze Louise, I hope we go right to nukes this time. These long, protracted
foot soldier conflicts don't make for good nightly news anymore.

I doubt nukes are needed but these grunt-on-grunt fights really tick me off. I
spent most of my life helping invent and perfect weapons so that our kids
wouldn't have to fight savages hand-to-hand - weapons that let us whack Saddam's
well-equipped army easily. Now it's like Vietnam all over again thanks to the
politics.

Seems I remember some Brit (or Scot?) king faced with a Viking invasion. He
held a bridge that only let a few Vikings cross at a time, allowing his smaller
force to hold them off indefinately. Unfortunately, the Viking leader convinced
this fool that this wasn't fighting fair, so he allowed the vikings to cross and
have a pitched battle - which the Vikings of course won. Then they killed the
king and sacked the countryside killing and raping. I oft wonder if McNamara
and now Rummy are that kings descendents.