Right-wing posturing from Congress on Arab firm’s role at US ports

Transportation Labor: Congress Must Suspend Plan to Turn
U.S. Port Operations over to Dubai-Based Company

White House Veto Threat "Dangerously Out of Touch" with Bipartisan Security Concerns

Washington, D.C. . . . The following statement was issued today by Edward Wytkind, President of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), in response to the Bush administration decision allowing a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates to operate six major U.S. ports.

"Congress must immediately suspend the Bush administration's decision allowing a United Arab Emirates company to run operations at six major U.S. seaports. This action, made through a closed, secretive process, raises serious national security concerns which must be thoroughly examined and understood.

"We are outraged at President Bush's threat to veto a bill requiring a closer look at this plan. The White House is dangerously out of touch with the bipartisan national security concerns coming from both Congress and many of our nation's mayors and governors. President Bush has regrettably chosen a path of defiance -- rather than open and constructive dialogue -- on this critical homeland security issue.

"This is yet another example of the dangers of globalism run amok. We must not allow our national security to be compromised in an era of increasingly integrated capital and blurred ownership lines. Recently, the Bush administration proposed allowing foreign interests to control U.S. airlines, a proposal fraught with economic and security risks. And for several years both the Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation Security Administration have ignored congressional mandates to tighten the safety and security of the growing number of overseas facilities which repair U.S. commercial aircraft.

"Since 9/11, U.S. ports have been struggling to meet a number of unfunded federal security mandates, while neither adequately inspecting the cargo containers which travel through our ports, nor fully-utilizing its workforce to enhance security. This latest decision from the Bush administration could further undermine our nation's ability to better meet port security threats. Congress must move quickly to stop this plan and demand a more comprehensive review of the national security implications of this recent action by the Bush administration."

TTD represents 29 member unions in the aviation, rail, transit, trucking, highway, longshore, maritime and related industries. For more information, visit http://www.ttd.org

If President Bush follows through on his threat, he'll be making a strange
choice for his first veto after more than five years in office. After giving
a pass to a parade of misbegotten Congressional initiatives and
irresponsible budget packages, he'd be choosing to take a stand over the
right to hand control of operations at major American ports to a company
based in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, and controlled by that
government.

And Congress, which is making a bipartisan show of beating its collective
chest, is being rather tardy in taking a stand, given the way it has looked
on indifferently as the administration has ignored Congress's own rights of
oversight and its constituents' right not to be targets of extralegal
spying.
Nevertheless, Congress is right to resist the ports deal, in which the
company, Dubai Ports World, would take over the British company now running
these operations. The issue is not, as Mr. Bush is now claiming, a question
of bias against a Middle Eastern company. The United Arab Emirates is an
ally, but its record in the war on terror is mixed. It is not irrational for
the United States to resist putting port operations, perhaps the most
vulnerable part of the security infrastructure, under that country's
control. And there is nothing in the Homeland Security Department's record
to make doubters feel confident in its assurances that all proper
precautions will be taken.

The Bush administration has followed a disturbing pattern in its approach to
the war on terror. It has been perpetually willing to sacrifice individual
rights in favor of security. But it has been loath to do the same thing when
it comes to business interests. It has not imposed reasonable safety
requirements on chemical plants, one of the nation's greatest points of
vulnerability, or on the transport of toxic materials. The ports deal is
another decision that has made the corporations involved happy, and has made
ordinary Americans worry about whether they are being adequately protected.

It is no secret that this administration has pursued an aggressive
antiregulatory agenda, and it has elevated corporate leaders to its highest
positions. Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department convened the panel
that approved the ports deal, came to government after serving as the chief
executive of the CSX Corporation, which was a major port operator when he
worked there. (After he left, CSX sold its port operations to Dubai Ports
World.)

The administration's intransigence has inspired a rare show of
bipartisanship. The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, and the speaker of
the House, Dennis Hastert, along with a slew of other Republican members of
Congress, have joined leading Democrats in objecting to the move. Senator
Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, and Representative Peter King, a New
York Republican, are introducing a bill that would put the decision on hold
and require closer examination of the proposal. The bill would ultimately
give Congress the final say.

The Schumer-King bill takes the right approach, and members of Congress from
both parties should rally around it. Rather than using his first veto on
such a wrongheaded cause, President Bush should make the bill unnecessary by
acting on his own to undo the ports deal.