Republicans Opposing Dubai Deal Have Long Opposed Efforts To Secure America's Ports
Feb 22, 2006
By: Phil Singer, DSCC
This week, Republican Senators have come out in force against a controversial deal through which a company based in the United Arab Emirates would take over six major American ports. But these are the same Senate Republicans who have repeatedly voted against Democratic efforts to invest in improving the security of America’s ports after 9/11. In fact, most of the Senate Republicans speaking out against the deal have voted against port security at least SIX times since the 9/11 attacks.
“Anyone looking for a definition of the pre-9/11 worldview need look no further than at how leading Republican Senators have blocked Democratic efforts improve port security since the 2001 attacks,” DSCC spokesman Phil Singer said. “If these Republican Senators are genuine about doing something to improve port security, they should stop voting against Democratic efforts to keep America safe and embrace them instead.”
SANTORUM SAID: “RED FLAGS WENT OFF” ON PORT DEAL BUT VOTED AGAINST PORT SECURITY SIX TIMES. “I've got to tell you that on the face of it, the red flags went off in my mind. We have a company that is state-owned, by the UAE, which was implicated in the events of 9/11, now doing port security and managing our ports,” Santorum said. Santorum has voted at least six times against efforts to improve port security since 9/11. (AP, 2/21/06; Vote 64, 3/17/05; Vote 166, 9/8/04; Vote 300, 7/24/03; Vote 291, 7/22/03; Vote 120, 4/3/03; Vote 115, 4/2/03)
FRIST CALLED FOR DELAY OF DUBAI DEAL BUT VOTED AGAINST PORT SECURITY SIX TIMES. Bill Frist said, “The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the Administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter. It is important for Congress be involved in this process. I have requested a detailed briefing on this deal. If the Administration cannot delay the process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review.” But Frist has voted at least six times against efforts to improve port security since 9/11. (Frist Release, 2/21/06; Vote 64, 3/17/05; Vote 166, 9/8/04; Vote 300, 7/24/03; Vote 291, 7/22/03; Vote 120, 4/3/03; Vote 115, 4/2/03)
CHAFEE SAID DEAL “SHOULD BE VETTED PROPERLY” BUT VOTED AGAINST PORT SECURITY FIVE TIMES. Chafee said, “deals that have the potential to compromise our national security should be vetted properly, and it is critical that Congress has a role in this process. I am in full support of increased transparency regarding such issues of national security. I believe that a more extensive review of this matter is necessary, and I support delaying any deal until such review is completed. As a member of two Senate committees that may have oversight of this issue, I stand with many of my colleagues in requesting that this transaction be delayed until we can receive full assurance that the ports across the nation remain safe.” Chafee has voted at least five times against efforts to improve port security since 9/11. (Chafee Release, 2/21/06; Vote 166, 9/8/04; Vote 300, 7/24/03; Vote 291, 7/22/03; Vote 120, 4/3/03; Vote 115, 4/2/03)
KYL SAID DEAL “RAISES SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY” BUT VOTED AGAINST PORT SECURITY SIX TIMES. Kyl said, “I share in the concerns that many of my constituents have voiced about the transfer of our major U.S. seaports operations to a company that is controlled by the United Arab Emirates. I believe that it raises serious questions about national security. I support efforts by Congress to look into the proposed deal and will continue to work with my Senate colleagues to stop it.” Kyl has voted at least six times against efforts to improve port security since 9/11. (Kyl Release, 2/21/06; Vote 64, 3/17/05; Vote 166, 9/8/04; Vote 300, 7/24/03; Vote 291, 7/22/03; Vote 120, 4/3/03; Vote 115, 4/2/03)
TALENT SAID DEAL “STRIKES ME AS A VERY DANGEROUS MOVE” BUT VOTED AGAINST PORT SECURITY FIVE TIMES. Talent said the administration’s proposed port deal “strikes me as a very dangerous move. I have to question the decision to turn over the operations of key American ports to a company inside the UAE, especially when we know our ports are a target for terrorists seeking to destroy critical infrastructure and disrupt world trade. Secretary Snow should thoroughly investigate this proposal and I will be talking with senators in both parties about what steps the Senate may need to take to make certain our ports continue to be protected.” Talent has voted at least five times against efforts to improve port security since 9/11. (Talent Release, 2/21/06; Vote 166, 9/8/04; Vote 300, 7/24/03; Vote 291, 7/22/03; Vote 120, 4/3/03; Vote 115, 4/2/03)
ALLEN SAID UAE’S PAST IS A CAUSE FOR CONCERN BUT VOTED AGAINST PORT SECURITY FOUR TIMES. In a letter to Treasury Secretary John Snow, Senator George Allen voiced his concern about the port deal, writing, “Our ports are an essential part of our nation’s continued economic prosperity … They are the hubs of the global economy and are vital to moving American products to markets around the globe. However, they are vulnerable to terrorist attacks… While the UAE has been a valuable ally in the War on Terror, there have been past circumstances that have raised concern.” Allen has voted at least four times against efforts to improve port security since 9/11. (Allen Release, 2/21/06; Vote 300, 7/24/03; Vote 291, 7/22/03; Vote 120, 4/3/03; Vote 115, 4/2/03)
ENSIGN SAID HE CANNOT SUPPORT DEAL “UNTIL ALL REASONABLE CONCERNS ABOUT SECURITY … HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED” BUT VOTED SIX TIMES AGAINST PORT SECURITY. Ensign called on the administration to stop the port deal until an investigation was complete. He said, “The security of American ports is too important to be turned over to a company from the United Arab Emirates without a comprehensive review by members of Congress. Until all reasonable concerns about security at these ports have been addressed, I cannot support this proposal. This deal sends the message that we are not being as diligent as we should in terms of America’s security, and that is not a perception we can afford to create.” Ensign has voted at least six times against efforts to improve port security since 9/11. (Ensign Release, 2/21/06; Vote 64, 3/17/05; Vote 166, 9/8/04; Vote 300, 7/24/03; Vote 291, 7/22/03; Vote 120, 4/3/03; Vote 115, 4/2/03)
COLLINS AND COLEMAN HAVE “SERIOUS CONCERNS” ABOUT PORT DEAL BUT EACH VOTED AGAINST PORT SECURITY FIVE TIMES. In a letter to Secretaries John Snow and Michael Chertoff, Collins and Coleman voiced “serious concerns” about the proposed port deal and asked that the cabinet officials “provide a briefing to our Committee, as soon as possible, on the basis for the decision to allow this transaction to proceed … The briefing to our Committee should include the conditions that will be imposed upon DP World should the acquisition go forward … We believe that the Administration should be working more closely with Congress where acquisitions are of such a sensitive nature.” Coleman and Collins have each voted at least five times against efforts to improve port security since 9/11. (Collins Release, 2/21/06; Vote 166, 9/8/04; Vote 300, 7/24/03; Vote 291, 7/22/03; Vote 120, 4/3/03; Vote 115, 4/2/03)
GRAHAM SAID U.S. SHOULD NOT “OUTSOURCE MAJOR PORT SECURITY;” GRAHAM VOTED AGAINST PORT SECURITY SIX TIMES. Asked about the sale of ports to a Dubai company, Sen. Lindsey Graham said, "We certainly should investigate it. I don't know if we should block it. But it's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE, who avows to destroy Israel. So I'm not so sure it's the wisest political move we could have made. Most Americans are scratching their head wondering why this company, from this region, now…Just on its face, it sounds like the wrong direction to go… Americans right now want free trade, but when it comes to national security issues, we want to maintain the infrastructure ourselves. We believe we're under siege. We are. I don't think now is the time to outsource major port security to a foreign-based company." Graham has voted at least six times against efforts to improve port security since 9/11. (“Fox News Sunday,” 2/19/06; Vote 64, 3/17/05; Vote 166, 9/8/04; Vote 300, 7/24/03; Vote 291, 7/22/03; Vote 120, 4/3/03; Vote 115, 4/2/03)
GRASSLEY IS “DEEPLY CONCERNED” ABOUT PORT DEAL BUT VOTED AGAINST PORT SECURITY SIX TIMES. In a letter to Treasury Secretary John Snow, Senator Chuck Grassley said he was “deeply concerned” about the proposed port deal. He wrote, “I am disappointed that I was neither briefed nor informed of this sale prior to its approval. Instead, I read about it in the media. I expect you to address my concerns involving this deal.” Grassley has voted at least six times against efforts to improve port security since 9/11. (Grassley Release, 2/21/06; Vote 64, 3/17/05; Vote 166, 9/8/04; Vote 300, 7/24/03; Vote 291, 7/22/03; Vote 120, 4/3/03; Vote 115, 4/2/03)
SHELBY IS “DEEPLY CONCERNED” ABOUT DUBAI PORT DEAL BUT HAS VOTED AT LEAST SIX TIMES AGAINST PORT SECURITY. Shelby cosigned a letter to Treasury Secretary Snow saying he was “deeply concerned” about the deal. The letter read, “We do not believe that anyone could reasonably question the fact that the control of the corporations that operate the ports…’ could affect U.S. national security.” Shelby has voted at least six times against efforts to improve port security since 9/11. (Baltimore Sun, 2/17/06; Vote 64, 3/17/05; Vote 166, 9/8/04; Vote 300, 7/24/03; Vote 291, 7/22/03; Vote 120, 4/3/03; Vote 115, 4/2/03)
http://www.dscc.org/news/roundup/20060222_dubai/Dates are to links at site.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
