Bipartisan effort forcing showdown over port operation

WASHINGTON — In a biting rebuke to President Bush, a lopsided and bipartisan majority of a major House committee voted Wednesday to nullify portions of a deal that would hand operation of U.S. port facilities to a Dubai company.

Congress and the White House advanced on a collision course as the House Appropriations Committee approved a measure that President Bush has promised to veto — and attached it to a bill the president dearly wants.

The ports measure, sponsored by House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., would ensure that Dubai Ports World, a company partly owned and operated by the government of the United Arab Emirates, would not operate any U.S. port facilities.

"We want to make sure the security of America's ports is in American hands," Lewis said.

The committee, long a bastion of support for the Bush White House, passed the prohibition 62-2 as part of a bill that includes $68 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $19 billion for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. If the full House and the Senate go along, the strategy could force Bush to choose between the port deal and another year of war funding.

In the face of solidifying congressional opposition, the White House maintained its support for the turnover of some management authority at several U.S. ports to the Dubai company. "The president's position is unchanged," spokesman Scott McClellan said.

The House measure was headed toward approval by the full chamber by next week. On the other side of the Capitol, Democrats maneuvered for a vote in the GOP-led Senate.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., proposed a measure to scuttle the ports deal as part of ethics-reform legislation. But Republican leaders moved Wednesday to quash Schumer's amendment, saying it was out of order and not germane to the ethics bill.

However, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., an administration supporter, noted that congressional supporters of the ports deal "are few and far between."

Schumer and others said the Senate eventually would approve a measure blocking the purchase by Dubai Ports World of a British company, Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. The deal would include port facilities at six U.S. locations: New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans.

The confrontation over DP World has been driven by constituents anxious about terrorism, the war in Iraq, and illegal immigration and foreign encroachment, lawmakers say.

"The broader issue at work here is the public's continuing concerns over 9/11, Iraq and all things Middle Eastern as a result," said Rep. Michael Castle, R-Del.

Key in the debate over the ports deal has been the U.S. relationship with the United Arab Emirates. Opponents of the deal argue the UAE once backed Afghan's Taliban regime and is hostile toward Israel. It also is where two Sept. 11 hijackers once were based. Dubai's supporters contend it is a dedicated U.S. ally with deep involvement in Western businesses.

"I don't think this is the right thing to do," said Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., one of two House committee members who voted against blocking the ports measure. "Dubai is a strong ally of the United States in the war on terrorism."

Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., was the only other committee member voting against the measure.

But opponents of the deal hammered away at the security questions they said the ports deal raised.

"One of the most vulnerable situations facing America is our ports of entry," said Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla. "Whoever's responsible for those ports of entry should be American."

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio., said allowing the DP World takeover to proceed — and ignoring the public outcry over it — would be irresponsible. "The American people elected us to do something when an issue like this comes up," she said.

"Every day, we get hundreds and hundreds of phone calls, e-mails, letters objecting to this," House Republican Conference Chairwoman Deborah Pryce of Ohio said Wednesday on CNBC. "And you just can't buck that when there's that much public [sentiment] and objection to it. Whether it's right or wrong, this is sort of a lose-lose now."

For Democrats, the issue may prove to be a political windfall, even if Republicans eagerly side with them in a confrontation with the White House. Polls suggest 70 percent of Americans oppose the port deal, and that opposition does not change if they are told port managers have no control over security at the port.

Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, asserted Wednesday that the ports issue fit "into a national discussion about which party is better equipped to win the war on terrorism, and Republicans win that issue every time."

But political anxieties on the issue are clearly high.

"There's nothing more pitiful than a flock of politicians in full flight," joked Rep. David Obey, Wis., the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee.

Some Republicans put the blame squarely at the White House's feet. If the administration had conducted a 45-day national-security investigation of the deal and briefed Congress on that investigation, lawmakers might not have been so quick to publicly oppose the deal when it became public, Kolbe said.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said the president's dramatic veto threat — delivered to reporters summoned to the front of Air Force One — only inflamed sentiments, especially after he intimated that some opposition to the deal stemmed from prejudice toward Arabs.

By elevating the issue to a confrontation between Congress and the president, Bush only ensured the issue would be front-page news until its resolution, Senate leadership aides said.

Compiled from the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post and The Associated Press.