| Page 2 of 2 < |
Port Deal's Political Fallout Not Over
Cargo containers are unloaded in Baltimore, one of six U.S. seaports with terminal operations that were acquired by Dubai Ports World. After an uproar, the firm said that it will transfer those operations to a U.S. entity.
(By Robert A. Reeder -- The Washington Post)
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
But company spokesman Mark Dennis again refused to elaborate yesterday on the company's official statement, leaving it unclear whether a transfer of assets meant a loss of ownership or just management responsibilities, and Democrats remain skeptical. Even one knowledgeable House Republican aide suggested that the language could mean the company might maintain ownership if a buyer could not be found at the right price. "The port deal's not dead," said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio).
Officials from both parties warned that if the statement's intent proves to be less than full divestiture, Congress will move swiftly to kill the deal. "If nothing else, the company will ignite a thermonuclear explosion for itself and the emirate if it falls short of a sale," warned one Republican Senate aide.
Even if DP World sells its assets at the ports of Baltimore, New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Miami and New Orleans immediately, the underlying issues raised by the controversy will remain at the top of Congress's political agenda.
Blunt could release his CFIUS legislation as early as next week, a highly unusual move for a senior House leader with no seat on the committee with jurisdiction. Blunt spokeswoman Burson Taylor said the majority whip plans to work with House Republican Conference Chairman Deborah Pryce (Ohio) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio) on a final bill. But senior House GOP aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of crossing the whip, said Blunt is driving the issue as well as the language.
A Senate measure, being drafted by Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), chairman of the banking committee, could encroach on the administration's turf even further. Committee spokesman Andrew Gray said Shelby's bill, due to be completed the week of March 27, would give Congress the authority to pass a resolution of disapproval, even if the administration has given a deal the green light.
Administration officials struck a conciliatory tone on such legislation. "This process for review I think can be done better, and we're going to be working with Congress, with people like Chairman Shelby of the banking committee, to make sure that we improve the process," Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said on MSNBC.
But administration officials and some congressional allies said Congress should not be allowed to go too far. The CFIUS review process was set up to be confidential and beyond Congress's reach specifically to insulate sensitive business investments from political forces, they said. Last week, Oxley raised the same concerns when he said the review process "is not -- nor should it be -- political in nature. That is a slippery slope, and it would be a mistake to take that step."
Even Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of the fiercest critics of the port deal, said language must be found to ensure that Congress could scuttle a deal only in "egregious situations." He added: "We have to figure out a way where it's not routine."
Staff writer Glenn Kessler contributed to this report.
