House tries to knock out port sale
The U.S. House Appropriations Committee voted Wednesday by a margin of 62-2 to attach an amendment prohibiting state-owned Dubai Ports World from acquiring U.S. port facilities to a high priority emergency spending bill for the military mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Hurricane Katrina recovery, according to news reports.
The vote signals that Democrats and Republicans in the House have the votes to override President Bush if he attempts to veto legislation to stop the sale, as he has promised to do. A veto will be a difficult decision because by using that weapon President Bush could also be criticized for cutting resources for troops in the midst of combat activities.
A floor vote in the House is expected next week.
President Bush Wednesday renewed this threat to veto legislation opposing the deal.
Meanwhile, Senate Democrats increased pressure on Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee to allow consideration of bills to kill the port deal. Frist maintains that the executive branch should be given a chance to give DP World a full, 45-day security scrub to make sure it doesn’t pose a threat as a conduit for terrorist infiltration of U.S. ports.
Frist helped negotiate the compromise with DP World about 10 days ago to submit to a second, more intensive security review. But politicians in both parties appear in no mood to wait for an investigation and want to kill the deal outright to appeal to strong constituent opposition to the sale.
Another option being discussed in the Senate is filing a court case challenging the right of port authorities to sign contracts with foreign governments, according to Bloomberg News. Some senators view the contracts as treaties, which the Constitution says must be approved by Congress.
Separately, a New Jersey state court today will hear a lawsuit filed by the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey seeking permission to block the transfer of a lease at the Port Newark Container Terminal from Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World. The port authority argues that P&O violated the terms of its lease by not providing adequate notice of the change in ownership.