US accepts 45-day review of Dubai ports deal

[Wordie]

US accepts 45-day review of Dubai ports deal
Reuters

Feb 26, 2006 — By Doug Palmer

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration said on Sunday it would grant a request by Dubai Ports World for an additional 45-day review of its contested takeover of terminal operations at six major U.S. ports.

... Congress must have a 30-day opportunity after the extended review to block the deal if it still has concerns, Schumer said. He also called on the administration to make public the results of the new investigation.

... As part of its request for an extended review, Dubai Ports pledged to guarantee the independence of all terminal operations now managed by P&O North American Ports (POPNA) by establishing that as a separate business unit.

It also pledged to keep POPNA's current management and not to try in any way to influence the unit's operations. POPNA's chief security officer will remain a U.S. citizen unless the U.S. Coast Guard agrees otherwise, the company said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1665456

[Paulie]

1. Nice...

request by DP World for a 45 day review that was required by law to be done by the government. Sigh...

[rsmith6621]

2. Dont you just love....

how they market things that are required as a favor almost like going out of there way to please us....

[rodeodance]

5. this whole thing is upside down and the media participates in it.

[Wordie]

6. Actually, that appears to be just another bit of misinformation...

the 45-day review is only required in the event that the deal doesn't get an approval after the 30-day review. It did get that approval, so the 45-day review was not required. (At least, that's what the info posted in another thread said.) That's not to say that it shouldn't have more review (I think it should), but only that the way the law was written, it wasn't required.

Again, I need to say that I'm still on the fence. I just want to make up my mind based on accurate info, and there's so much inaccurate stuff floating around!

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. The 1993 Byrd Amendment seems to require the review in this case

Amendments. Section 837(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, called the "Byrd Amendment," amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act (the "Exon-Florio provision"). It requires an investigation in cases where:

o the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and

o the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."


http://www.treas.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/

John Conyers and the Congressional Judicial Committee called on the government to do the 45 day review for this reason: http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0223-23.htm

[Wordie]

15. Well, it's a bit confusing, really. It doesn't say anything about a 45-day

review, just that an "investigation" is required. Could it be that an investigation was done during the 30-day review? What is the difference between and "investigation" and a "review"??? Does the CIFIUS law define the difference? I don't see the answers to these questions in that fact sheet, although I do appreciate your posting it.

Clearly, this is quite complicated - there is a lot I just don't understand about all of this...

But I do think that it's a good thing that the 45-day review is being done, whatever it is that the law really says. It would seem to me that a clarification of the law, and/or perhaps a re-writing of CIFIUS would be in order, to remove any ambiguities, and make it absolutely clear when the 45-day review is required. Perhaps the best thing would be to amend the law to say that a 45-day investigation is automatically required for acquisitions occuring within certain security-sensitive industries (like ports). I think the Conyers' letter raises some good points in this regard; perhaps he will propose changes to the law.

But all this seems to me to be a separate thing from the actual merits of the UAE deal.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Look further up the treasury webpage

Once CFIUS has received a complete notification, it begins a thorough review of the notified transaction. In some cases, it is necessary to undertake an extended review or "investigation." An investigation, if necessary, must begin no later than 30 days after receipt of a notice. Any investigation is required to end within 45 days.

I think that is what the 'investigation' refers to - I have seen the precise wording of the amendment, but haven't got a link now, and I think it is clear that it means the 45 day investigation. The amendment in 1993 already says the 45 day investigation is required for security sensitive businesses where the purchaser is a foreign government, or their agent. I agree this is separate from the actual merits, but it really looks to me as if this amendment applies here, unless Bush is arguing there is no way that 'national security' could possibly be affected. I think it could be affected, though that doesn't meant the UAE isn't a suitable owner.

[Wordie]

17. I'm afraid I just don't see anything that says that. You may be right, but

I can't see anything on the fact sheet that speaks to whether the 30-day review cannot also be an investigation, and therefore, if the 30-day review results in an approval, as it did in this case, the 45-day review requirement would not be triggered.

Maybe that's the fault of the fact sheet, and the legislation itself may spell it out in a clearer manner. I'll have to try to find the legal stuff, and try to wade through it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Here's the law

(a) Investigations
The President or the President’s designee may make an investigation to determine the effects on national security of mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers proposed or pending on or after the date of enactment of this section (Aug. 23, 1988) by or with foreign persons which could result in foreign control of persons engaged in interstate commerce in the United States. If it is determined that an investigation should be undertaken, it shall commence no later than 30 days after receipt by the President or the President’s designee of written notification of the proposed or pending merger, acquisition, or takeover as prescribed by regulations promulgated pursuant to this section. Such investigation shall be completed no later than 45 days after such determination.
(b) Mandatory investigations
The President or the President’s designee shall make an investigation, as described in subsection (a), in any instance in which an entity controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government seeks to engage in any merger, acquisition, or takeover which could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States that could affect the national security of the United States. Such investigation shall—
(1) commence not later than 30 days after receipt by the President or the President’s designee of written notification of the proposed or pending merger, acquisition, or takeover, as prescribed by regulations promulgated pursuant to this section; and
(2) shall be completed not later than 45 days after its commencement.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50a/usc_sec_50a_00002170----000-.html

30 days is the time limit to determine if a full investigation is warranted, or, in the case of a foreign government and national security being involved, when the the investigation must start; 45 days is the maximum length of such an investigation.

[Wordie]

19. Thanks for finding that...

It appears to me that the crucial question that still remains si whether the 30-day review can be (and was) considered, for the purposes of the law, an investigation. Treasury has something posted on their site about the steps that were taken in this case; I posted a thread about it (very popular thread, I might add. LOL). Here it is:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=530419&mesg_id=530419

I'm not an attorney, so I'd be the first to admit there may be something I'm missing.

[benburch]

3. By which time, they are hoping we will have forgotten about it. nt

[gulliver]

4. Here's a thirty second review.

It's Dubai. It's U.S. port security. End of review.

[Tight_rope]

11. Exactly...Just blowning wind up our asses...Deal already signed!

[sattahipdeep]

14. Dun deal

"If we voted on this thing today, it
would pass like a bill honoring Rosa Parks,"
says one GOP leadership aide, who spoke
anonymously owing to the sensitivity of the negotiations.

Where is the little turd

[lovuian]

7. Well since they violated the law in the first place isn't this

nice... it still doesn't make the situation better... Guess the Republicans got the call tow the line boys tow the Bush line!!!

[Skink]

8. Welcome to the kingdom...

[Citrene]

10. Welcome to Orwell's 1984. Embrace it. War is Peace and so on

and so forth.

See you all on the other side.

[robbedvoter]

12. That ought to take it off the headlines...that's the ticket!

Ruslut to senator/rep: "You won't use that period to enact any legislation to stop it, promise?
"Gee. shucks< us? All we wanted was 45 days - just for the sake of 45 days. We're happy now!

[sattahipdeep]

13. John Snow....Get this....no national security basis on which to block

"If there was a failure, we failed to recognize there might be a public
reaction," Treasury Secretary John Snow told reporters in Richmond,
Va. "Over time, we may recommend improvements in the process so
Congress is better informed about transactions."

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/topstories/index.ssf?/base/politics-7/114078417674530.xml&storylist=topstories

QUESTION: Was the State Department involved in discussions over the UAE taking over
management of six ports -- six U.S. ports?

MR. MCCORMACK: The State Department is part of an interagency process which is led
by the Department of Treasury. We did participate in it. This interagency process did a
thorough review of all aspects of this proposed sale. And the bottom line finding was that
there was no basis on -- no national security basis on which to block the sale going
forward. :puke:

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=February&x=20060217172404xjsnommis0.3468439&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html