Saturday, May 27, 2006

SCATHING REPORT ON AIR MARSHALS REVIEWED BY HOUSE JUDICIARY

By Diane M. Grassi

“The attitude of this agency stinks…..This report should have come out a year ago had we gotten even minimal cooperation…….” No, this was not a criticism of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) concerning the impending hurricane season. But it is in fact a quote by Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) referring to another agency, the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS), which is also under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). FAMS directly reports to the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) also under the DHS. It has not always been that way, however. But things changed after September 11, 2001.

The Federal Air Marshal Service began in 1968 under the auspices of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and known as the Sky Marshal Program. Its job was to prevent hijackings. The program expanded in 1985 under President Ronald Reagan when the U.S. Congress enacted the International Security and Development Cooperation Act, providing the statutes carried out by the FAMS today. By 1987, there were 400 Federal Air Marshals. But by September 10, 2001 the FAMS had dwindled down to a mere 33.

Following the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., President George Bush called for an immediate expansion of the FAMS, and under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, FAMS was transferred from the FAA to the DHS under its division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In late 2005, Secretary of DHS, Michael Chertoff, yet again shifted FAMS to be under the direct authority of the TSA. Although classified information, it is estimated that the number of Federal Air Marshal personnel now totals somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000.

Now, a draft report based upon a two-year investigation of the FAMS, at the request of the Congressional House Judiciary Committee, will be publicly released on May 25, 2006 and discussed by the Judiciary Committee as to the report’s proposed policy and management recommendations. House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has read the report and has been candid about his initial impressions of it.

Yet the report’s acting title: "Plane Clothes: Lack of Anonymity at the Federal Air Marshal Service Compromises Aviation and National Security,” while self-explanatory does not tell the entire story. Numerous administrative miscues in the FAMS program are exposed, along with the treatment of its air marshals, some of whom were retaliated against for cooperating with the Judiciary Committee investigation. Both are expected to be addressed by the Congress.

Most glaring in the report, according to Frederic J. Frommer of the Associated Press, who got an advanced copy of the draft report, are the changes in dress code mandated by the FAMS after arriving at the DHS. Air marshals immediately became more easily identifiable at airports and aboard aircraft. Required to wear khakis or dress slacks and sports jackets for the men and skirts or dresses for women with no jeans or athletic shoes allowed, became an immediate tip-off as most air travelers dress far more casually.

FAMS also requires marshals upon check-in for flights to identify themselves as air marshals in front of waiting passengers and requiring them to board the aircraft prior to passengers by not going through security as do other passengers. They are then accompanied by airline flight attendants to board the aircraft, as they are not allowed to be on board without a crewmember present according to the airlines.

Additionally, air marshals are required to sit in aisle seats, but only near the front of the aircraft. They must repeatedly stay in the same hotels within short distance of airports and provide their FAMS identification to hotel personnel in order to pay for their rooms as they are not issued separate ID’s as promised the FAMS, strictly for such purposes. Ultimately, the air marshals’ covers are able to be breached in numerous ways.

Further to the lack of anonymity of Federal Air Marshals being challenged, is the lack of whistleblower protection also documented in the report. The FAMS retaliated against Federal Air Marshal Frank Terreri for when he initially voiced his concern to a fellow air marshal via e-mail regarding a published article in People Magazine in 2004, which disclosed details of operations within the FAMS. Terreri was relegated to desk duty, put under investigation and gagged by the FAMS for a year.

Equally alarming according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after hearing from not only Terreri but hundreds of other air marshals is the double standard of leaking operational procedures by the FAMS to major news outlets such as FOX, CNN, NBC and ABC. All have aired various segments over the past two years detailing FAMS operational procedures, and thus indirectly acquainting terrorists with such data.

Terreri filed a lawsuit in April 2005 against the DHS, TSA and FAMS on constitutional grounds of the violation of free speech. The lawsuit was settled with the ACLU of Southern California on behalf of Terreri in April 2006. In the settlement the DHS, TSA and FAMS agreed to e-mail all personnel of changes they would make in clarifying the FAMS policy on what air marshals may say publicly on legitimate concerns for the protection of the FAMS and its personnel.

But that is not enough for Frank Terreri. He petitioned the Office of Special Counsel in April 2006 to investigate his remaining problems with the FAMS, which are reiterated in the House Judiciary report. Terreri alleges “gross mismanagement, abuse of authority, violations of law and substantial threat to air safety, created by repeated disclosures of operation tactics and FAMS policies that compromise the identity of individual air marshals.”

Terreri is also an advocate for amending the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, last amended in 1994. S.494 and H.R.1317 are amendments which have remained in limbo for years in both the Senate and the House. S.494 would ensure protection for whistleblowers called upon by Congress to testify before oversight committees and H.R.1317 would allow whistleblowers the right to jury trials comparable to those in the private corporate sector. Both amendments otherwise share similar enforcements.

For example, during the course of the House investigation, a Federal Air Marshal special agent in charge of the FAMS Atlanta office, was pulled from his post when it was learned that he had cooperated with the House Judiciary investigation. And thus, the report includes criticism and states, “Disciplinary procedures…on their surface, can be characterized as unfair and even retaliatory.” Congressman Sensenbrenner hopes that the FAMS “will at least be a little bit more compliant with the law and whistleblowers, rather than trying to shut them up.”

With the formation of the DHS in 2002 which comprises 22 different agencies, the learning curve for crucial areas of law enforcement and emergency services still thrives. The question is whether such a brash and immediate turnover of agencies and personnel after 9/11 will continue to haunt a number of services such as the FAMS and FEMA. FEMA Director Michael Brown resigned on September 12, 2005, two weeks after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. On February 3, 2006 Thomas Quinn, Director of FAMS, did the same.

Leadership apparently is flailing at the DHS at a time when it can least be afforded. Layers of bureaucracy appear to impede policy and direction including clear and two-way communication within its ranks and within the FAMS and the oversight by the TSA. And since 9/11, the FAMS has both changed and absorbed another bureaucratic layer, within a behemoth framework known as the DHS.

But upon release of this latest Congressional report it will be up to the American flying public to voice their concerns. After all, with air cargo holds remaining uninspected, TSA screeners recently failing tests for both weapons and bomb materials allowed through security points and hearing that identification of air marshals is continually at risk, should not sit well with flyers. As Sensenbrenner admits about the report, “I think the American public will be shocked.”

FALSE DOCUMENTS OF UNDOCUMENTED REMAINS PROBLEMATIC

By Diane M. Grassi

As the United States Senate and President George Bush try to come to some understanding of what is needed to properly address the illegal entry of non-resident aliens to the United States, for the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens already residing in the U.S., the issue of existing false documentation has yet to be honestly addressed.
But proposed legislation in the Senate leading to a path of legal residency and ultimately citizenship for those illegal aliens presently residing in the U.S. would involve presentation of proof of identity and length of residency.

The problem will be whether or not the illegal or “undocumented” aliens will be willing to admit that their status in the U.S. is illegal, or will continue to maintain that the documentation they hold is valid, even if fraudulent and illegally obtained. In order to do so, there would have to be an amnesty program, but President Bush has insisted that his proposal for legal residency of illegal aliens is not an amnesty program which presents a problem.

Forms of identification, necessary to secure employment, are a valid Social Security card and either a valid Work Visa or Green Card, and in some cases an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) in lieu of a Social Security number. However, employers rarely check as to whether the documents they are presented with are actually legal documents, partly because of their authentic appearance.

The sophistication of computer technology over the past several years, has led to the manufacture of official looking counterfeit immigration documents. Illegal residents no longer need depend on flea markets or corner stores which once only sold less valid-looking identification. Forged document mills have become big business in both the U.S. and Mexico, yielding billions of dollars each year. And for those people crossing the border through smugglers or chauffeured in by other means from Mexico, they are usually provided not only access to the U.S. by said smugglers but given fraudulent documentation and identities as well included in the price.

Presently, the fraudulent document business is what many experts in law enforcement are saying is akin to organized crime, due to its vast network of operations. Most well known is the Castorena Family Organization (CF0). According to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) the Castorena’s have dominated a big part of the printing and distribution business of forged documents since they arrived in the U.S. from Mexico in the late 1980’s. And ICE has knowledge that the CFO now has operations in all 50 states.

Julie Myers, Director of ICE, has referred to document forgery in the U.S. as epidemic. And although Myers says that ICE is joining multi-agency task forces to crack down on forged document rings nationwide, it still leaves little resources left to weed out the existing individual holders of illegal documents being used to gain employment, gain access to state and federal entitlement programs as well as driver’s licenses and voter registration cards.

As part of the average $2,000.00 smuggling fee given to those referred to as “coyotes” who transport or smuggle Mexicans illegally over the U.S. border, those illegally entering are either given a package of fraudulent documents or are given contact numbers for illicit vendors selling the various documents. They range in price from $100.00 - $500.00, depending upon the number of documents and the quality of their authenticity. But the most desirable documents are acquired from the Castorena network.

The forged document mills were an answer to the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act which required that potential employees present a Social Security card, driver’s license, or voter registration card as proof of legal residency to their employer. But the 1986 law also mandates that there be civil penalties invoked for those employers of illegal aliens, and rarely has it ever been enforced.

Yet, contrary to the headlines and television broadcast videos shown, not all Mexicans coming into the U.S. walk through the hot desert heat and risk their health and safety to enter. The coyote business has also become more sophisticated and some have become one-stop-shop operations. For more money, of course, people are transported in cabs with the coyote dressed as a taxi driver and the passenger well dressed and carrying money. For example, the cab might be full of shopping bags of new clothing from San Diego stores when going through the border crossing to show law enforcement that the illegal alien is a wealthy Mexican merely visiting the U.S. The coyote assures the uneventful passage through the border by advising the passenger on how best to not tip off law enforcement. They then make their way through to Los Angeles whereupon the illegal alien is met by friends or relatives. They are now on their way to their new life.

Also, little spoken of in the mainstream media are Mexicans actually of well-to-do means and good educational or vocational backgrounds who choose to forego a professional career in Mexico. Many white-collar jobs in Mexico pay less than, for example, putting up sheetrock in the U.S. For the Mexican trade school graduate, appliance repair in Mexico could pay $100.00 a week. But in the U.S., a refrigerator repairman, for example, earns approximately $35.00 an hour. And for doctors and nurses from Mexico, many decide on blue-collar work upon arrival in the U.S., as they are without the proper medical certification in order to practice medicine. However, they do not seem to appear to have trouble in accessing forged U.S. documents.

But whether they are rich or poor, the issue of false identity remains an intrinsic problem of immigration and necessitates it being a part of any discussion concerning immigration reform. For it is the predominance of fraudulent documentation which is the gateway to life in the U.S. for illegal aliens, and for those who have already established lives in the U.S., albeit illegally. And while 13 states now issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens the ramifications of owning such a photo ID are extensive.

But in North Carolina, for example, the state does not require any identification other than a utility bill or other proof of address in order to complete its Spanish-language voter registration form. North Carolina presently has no system to know if an illegal alien registers to vote. Upon applying for a driver’s license, most states comply with the 1993 Motor Voter Act which allows citizens to register to vote at the same time they apply for a driver’s license or state issued ID. All that is required is a Social Security card or ITIN to receive a driver’s license. And all anyone need do is to say that they are a citizen in order to register to vote.

Although there are many documented reports of non-citizens voting there is no enforcement of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act which makes it a federal crime for non-citizens to vote in any federal or state election, unless authorized by the state. Advocates for legalizing illegal aliens would like the government and the public to believe that those illegally living in the U.S. have no interest in voting. In fact that may be true. But a voter registration card is an immensely valuable tool as it is a document which may be accepted by employers as validation of identification when combined with a Social Security card for employment.

But non-citizens on the voter registration rolls legally nullifies and skews the process of redrawing Congressional and state electoral districts after each U.S. Census is taken. Voter registrations are supposed to be representative of legal U.S. citizens who legally vote. Lawmakers benefit from the illegal representation of unlawful residents and those who illegally register to vote as they are counted as valid constituents.

Additionally, jury pools for jury duty are compiled from a municipality’s voter registration records. If illegal non-citizens are chosen for jury duty, they can have a profound impact on the determination of legal decisions. Verdicts by juries in which non-citizens have served on could very well be overturned should it be found out that a non-citizen participated in the jury process in its rendering a verdict.

These are but a few indications of the wide ranging and deep-rooted consequences of what the false document industry has bred. There sadly are many, many more. But ownership of false documents by illegal aliens now begs another question. In order to receive benefit of the path to citizenship which both the Senate and the Bush administration have proposed, will not illegal aliens then need to admit that they have been using fraudulent documents in order to become employed, receive state and federal benefits, receive an education, drive and register to vote? For if they really want to come out of the shadows as their advocates continue to claim, then illegal aliens will have to abide by the law and reveal their true identities. However, that proposition may ultimately prove too foreign for them to bear.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

EU RENEWS PRESSURE OVER U.S. AIRLINE OWNERSHIP

By Diane M. Grassi


The United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and its Aviation Sub-Committee held a hearing on May 9, 2006 similar to that of the February 8, 2006 hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Aviation Sub-Committee. Both were in regard to the proposed Open Skies Agreement between the European Union and the U.S. This latest hearing comes on the heels of newly proposed language from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning the foreign ownership of and investment in U.S. airlines.

What remains at issue is how much “actual control” a foreign airline could presume to have over a U.S. airline as part of the Open Skies Agreement, which the Bush administration had hoped to be ready for finalization by the end of 2006. But that now seems to be unrealistic. There will meetings held in Europe in June 2006 and John Byerly, a senior State Department official, and the head negotiator in the Open Skies talks, will be presenting the recent proposed changes in Brussels the week of May 8th. On May 11, 2006 the Senate in fact will include when voting on its budget bill, whether or not to delay on making a decision on the Open Skies Agreement, until further review.

In question, in both the House and the Senate, has been expressed concern that allowing deregulation of airline traffic internationally must be a decision that the Congress alone decides and that the DOT does not have the unilateral power to revise transportation law which would include parts of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, followed by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, which created the Federal Aviation Administration, and later on the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. After the 9/11 attacks of 2001, the Aviation and Transportation Act of 2001 was enacted, creating the Transportation Security Administration, now under the Department of Homeland Security.

As per the 1938 law, U.S. citizens must own or control at least 75% of the voting interest of U.S. airlines. In 1991, DOT proposed increasing foreign ownership interest to 49%, but it was not adopted by the Congress. In 2003, however, the Congress modified the phrase, “which is under the actual control of U.S. Citizens” in the Federal Aviation Act under 49 USC 40102(a)(15) to now read: “a corporation or association organized under the laws of the U.S. or a State, the District of Columbia or a territory or possession of the U.S., of which the president and at least two-thirds of the Board of Directors and other managing officers are citizens of the U.S., which is under the actual control of citizens of the U.S., and in which at least 75% percent of the voting interest is owned or controlled by persons that are citizens of the U.S.”

There appears to be plenty of legal precedent already on the books regarding airline ownership and the oversight requirements of the U.S. Congress. But the latest revision in the DOT’s proposal by Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, is an attempt to appease the EU and some lawmakers which looks like more redundancy. Regardless, the EU is not budging on its insistence that the U.S. must increase the percentage of foreign ownership of U.S. airlines, and threatening that without such will kill the deal.

Initially, trade negotiations with the EU to loosen up regulations in ownership of U.S. airlines was seen as a tradeoff by the DOT in order for the U.S. to gain greater access to landing at London’s Heathrow Airport, for example, and to increase commerce between the 25 EU countries and the U.S. But long before the now infamous 2006 Dubai Ports World deal, lawmakers in both parties felt that this proposition transcended ‘free trade’ or globalization due to its direct impact on U.S. labor and national security. And the Committee on Foreign Investments in the U.S. (CFIUS) technically did have the law behind it in issuing its approval of the Dubai deal.

But Secretary Mineta, in a statement in November 2005, said that the rule change would be an “historic opportunity to increase travel, reduce fares, expand commerce and bring two continents closer together than ever before. It provides new opportunities for U.S. and European airlines, healthier competition for a growing travel market and greater connection between cities and towns of all sizes on both sides of the Atlantic.”

The supplemental proposal announced on May 3, 2006 makes clear that U.S. citizens as members of a U.S. airline’s Board of Directors or as the voting shareholders “must retain the authority to revoke decision-making authority that international investors may acquire.” For example, board members might decide to revoke international investors’ decision-making authority over scheduling and fleet composition if they felt that those decisions were not in their airlines’ best interests.

And the revised proposal would supposedly give the U.S. full control over policies such as safety, security and national defense commitments, in the event of a national emergency. However, instead of the U.S. and the FAA dictating jurisdiction over key strategic U.S. assets, that being U.S. airlines, it would appear that such oversight by the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security would be relegated to that of a Chairman of the Board.

According to Jeffery Smisek, President of Continental Airlines, Inc., who has been outspoken and against the Open Skies Agreement as now proposed, stated in the February 8th hearing that “the right to control U.S. airlines would be given away for rights of little to no value for U.S. combination airlines and the customers they serve. London’s Heathrow, Europe’s largest and most significant airport for U.S.-Europe travel, is closed to entry and would remain effectively closed to additional U.S. airlines, even if the multilateral Open Skies Agreement were signed. This is because absent the provision of competitive, economically viable slots and facilities at Heathrow for U.S. airlines, the greatest single impediment to free and fair U.S.-Europe competition will remain in place.” And the Government Accountability Office in its recent report agrees that airport capacity limitations at Heaththrow would not be corrected by such a deregulation agreement.

Should the new rule be adopted, with exception of few areas, all airline operations, including prices, scheduling markets, fleet structure, marketing and alliances have the option of being controlled by foreign investors. Additionally, U.S. labor law protections would be endangered and employees could be replaced by foreign employees. Aviation safety could be jeopardized as foreign-controlled management need only meet minimum FAA standards and on a voluntary basis, falling far short of the programs and practices presently in place in the U.S.

Surprisingly, the Department of Defense as well as the State Department have both agreed with the DOT. But for several Congressmen, it does not pass muster and especially as it concerns the Civilian Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) which is used to transport U.S. troops and officials in times of national emergencies when there are not enough military aircraft to move personnel.

And although the agreement would provide for the U.S. retaining oversight of the CRAF, if the economic control of a U.S. carrier is controlled by an offshore airline, the foreign airlines’ business strategy or country’s allegiance could be in direct conflict with the national security needs of the U.S. According to Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR), “During the Gulf War a European Union member didn’t supply us with a type of carrier we needed when we ran out because they didn’t support the war.” Given the present anti-American sentiment worldwide, it leaves the U.S. vulnerable.

Captain Duane Woerth, President of the Airlines Pilots Association, Intl., appearing in the February 8th hearing pointed out that “When two or more U.S. carriers are commonly controlled, employees of all of them are subject to the Railway Labor Act and therefore have the same collective bargaining rights and opportunities. This allows the employees on all the affiliated carriers to try to equalize their wages and working conditions. When one of the affiliated carriers is foreign and therefore not subject to the same labor law, employees of all the affiliates are placed at a severe disadvantage, facing the prospect of being bid against each other without effective recourse against the foreign entity allocating work.”

The EU, however, has not concerned itself which such issues. The Council of EU Member States, comprised of 25 European countries, has stated that “improvements in the field of ownership and control of U.S. airlines would be an essential element for the deal to be completed.” This would require amending the law stating that the U.S. must maintain 75% ownership of its airlines. Other criteria they have demanded is the right to fly between every city in the EU and every city in the U.S. Presently the U.S. and the EU may take off from one destination and land at one destination only. The EU insists in operating without restriction on the number of flights, the aircraft used, or the routes chosen, including unlimited rights to fly beyond the EU and the U.S. to points in third countries. They would have the agreed upon control to set fares freely in accordance with market demand and to enter into co-operative agreements with other airlines, including leasing.

But still very much unanswered by the U.S. government are legitimate questions of concern and the mechanisms which will ensure the continued safety and security of the U.S. and Americans. How will decisions be made pertaining to deal with Department of Defense issues? How will the U.S. retain a position in order to control decisions and activities relating to aviation security, now controlled by the TSA? What controls and policies will be maintained to ensure carrier policies, safety inspections and maintenance?
And how many more jobs must be lost and concessions be made by airline personnel in the interest of free trade?

It would seem that instead of thorough disclosure before the Congress, policy makers rather than elected officials and the respective agencies presently presiding over U.S. airline carriers, have not been invited to the party. Instead, the words protectionism and sovereignty are echoed and stigmatized, in order to intimidate the Congress, the U.S. airlines, labor and American citizens.

And as much as it is repeated that the “world has changed since 9/11,” proceeding more cautiously, given the obvious security and energy issues at stake, would make sense. Instead, mere appointees of the U.S. government are given unlimited power to wheel and deal with those in ivory towers. And once again the best interests of the American people are but a blip on the radar screen.

CONGRESSIONAL RECOIL FROM LATEST DUBAI TAKEOVER

By Diane M. Grassi


The silence on Capitol Hill has been deafening. On April 28, 2006 the White House announced the approval by President George Bush regarding the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) of its recommendation that Dubai International Capital LLC (DIC), a subsidiary of Dubai Holding and a Dubai government owned conglomerate, to assume the U.S. operations of Doncasters Group Ltd.

Just seven weeks prior, there was political posturing, grandstanding and outrage expressed by both political parties in the U.S. Congress when it was revealed, through the U.S. media, that Dubai Ports World, also of Dubai Holding, would takeover the United Kingdom company, Pinisular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O), and its port operations of six major East Coast ports. It too had been approved by CFIUS. But now, the American public has heard nary a discouraging word, following this latest transaction.

On December 14, 2005, DIC purchased Doncasters, a privately held United Kingdom-based company, for US$1.24 billion. Doncasters is a leader in international engineering, manufacturing precision components and assemblies for the aerospace industry and military aircraft, components for industrial gas turbine engines used in military tanks, in addition to automotive turbochargers and medical orthopaedic devices. Also, DIC manufactures precision parts for defense contractors such as Boeing, Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric.

Presently, Doncasters operates 9 industrial plants located in the U.S., which includes manufacture of turbine fan parts for the U.S. Abrams Battle Tank, and sensitive components for the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet. The plants are based in Connecticut which has two factories and two in Alabama, with one each in Georgia, Massachusetts, California, Oregon, and South Carolina.

Connecticut and Georgia, however, are locations where manufacture of most of the sensitive technologies takes place. Georgia is home to Ross Catherall U.S. Holdings Inc., owned by Doncasters, which now must divest its interest to DIC. Ross Catherall supplies turbine engine blades for the U.S. Department of Defense and the military’s tanks. In Connecticut, New England Airfoil Products and Doncasters Precision Castings, manufacture precision alloy parts for both aircraft and tank engine parts.

But the national security implications of a foreign entity operating key factories that are Department of Defense suppliers might well have demanded the same call for scrutiny from the Congress as the P&O deal. According to Senator Charles Schumer, (D-NY), who launched the immediate outcry for the lack of disclosure from both the Bush administration and CFIUS on the ports deal, stated on April 28th that “There are two differences between this deal and the Dubai ports deal. First, this went through the process in a careful, thoughtful way, and second, this is a product not a service and the opportunity to infiltrate and sabotage is both more difficult and more detectable.”

Schumer’s statement, however, is so transparent that it is now clear to those who were skeptical about the theatrics on Capitol Hill over the ports deal, were more right than they were wrong. For example, the only difference between the CFIUS investigation over the ports and Doncasters deals is that the port deal went through a 30-day investigation, rather than both a 30-day and 45-day review as in the Doncasters deal. The contents of the CFIUS review for the ports deal was revealed but to a handful of Congressional leaders and only subsequent to its recommendation to approve it, due to the outcry to the White House, which was so politically overwhelming.

To date, we do know that the President did distribute some of the classified information on the Doncasters deal to House Speaker, Dennis Hastert, and other undisclosed lawmakers on April 28th. Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Peter King (R-NY), also joining Schumer in his relentless criticism over the ports deal, has been brief in his latest statements regarding the Doncasters deal. “This investigation was a significant improvement over what happened before.” But the CFIUS review, presided over by the Secretary of the Treasury, remains a secret process by law, accounting to no party or entity, during its review process. And CFIUS need only enjoin appointed underling representatives of 12 government agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.

Representative John Barrow (D-GA) who represents the Congressional district, in which Ross Catherall is located, has a different point of view than his colleagues in New York, however. “We’ll never know if continuing down this path of selling of our national defense industries will end up hurting us in the long run. We all have to draw the line when it comes to selling our national defense establishment. We don’t want to outsource our military industrial complex one piece at a time.”

Barrow was not satisfied with denial of access as to the status of the CFIUS review or any details forthcoming since the deal has been approved by the President and remains unconvinced that American companies could not make the tank components necessary for the tank engines. He recently visited the Doncasters’ facility in Rincon, Georgia, joined by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. “Doncasters was more forthcoming than our government,” Barrow commented, with respect to the proposed deal.

Barrow and various other members of the Congress have proposed numerous pieces of legislation, since the ports deal, to provide more transparency between CFIUS and the Congress. This, they believe, would enable more Congressional input as well as oversight on key transactions involving U.S. national security assets and interests. But when and if such legislation will ever be realized remains in question. And the Congress as a governing body does not have a good track record for oversight generally of any legislation it passes, nor does the Congress project commitment in doing so.

The Bush Administration did add some conditions to the agreement with DIC, however. One included that there would be assurances made that there would be no interruption of the supply stream of product, necessary for military operations, especially in a time of war. In addition, all manufacturing is to remain in the U.S. The need for those two agreement amendments alone implies the dangerous precedent being set with foreign entities having control of strategic U.S. assets. The absence of such language in the agreement would have left the flow of supply and the source of manufacture up to Dubai. Yet, the mechanisms in place in the agreement to police such requirements have not been publicly disclosed nor does the public know if the Congress will eventually get access to the agreement’s requirements.

Many U.S. economists project that as long as the U.S. is saddled with an over $800 billion trade deficit as well as being dependent on foreign oil from the Middle East, that more and more U.S. assets, whether strategic or otherwise remain at risk of being sold. While at the moment we do not have any alternatives for direct sources of petroleum, we do have control over which U.S. assets are sold off, keeping in mind the best interests of the American people and the U.S. economy.

But sadly, it appears that the ruckus from Congress over the ports deal not only inflamed the emotions of the American people, with respect to national security being put at risk, but was but a pretense in the name of political expedience. And such equivocation and lack of fortitude from U.S. lawmakers will continue to remain the biggest liability to U.S. national security and for the foreseeable future.