DOBBS: It was only yesterday that his administration refused to review the deal that will hand over control of six key U.S. seaports to a company based in the United Arab emirates, a country with ties to the 9/11 terrorists. Many members of Congress today moving to complain, to criticize, and even block that deal.</p>
<p>Bill Tucker reports.</p>
<p>BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Senators Clinton and Menendez are working on legislation to stop the acquisition of American Port Operations by the Dubai Ports World, but the Bush administration has already made it clear that the deal is approved and not about to be reopened. It’s doubtful that this or any legislation could stop t.</p>
<p>JIM SCHOLLAERT, MADE IN USA STRATEGIES: This legislation has all the hallmarks of an appeal to political emotions of the moment and as such probably will go nowhere.</p>
<p>TUCKER: As some look at possible legislation, others in Congress are raising questions about the review of the deal by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. They note that the deal was reviewed and approved in less than a month, and that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was never even approached by Treasury or the Department of Homeland Security.</p>
<p>REP. PETE KING (R), NEW YORK: Now, here’s, you know, the governmental operation which runs these ports, which has a responsibility for security and maintenance, everything else – they weren’t told about it, not asked for their opinion, not asked about input whatsoever.</p>
<p>TUCKER: In a letter to Treasury Secretary Snow, the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey wants some answers. Specifically, the Port Authority wants to know what was the review process? Was there a background investigation of DP World? Has a security review been conducted? Did Treasury or DHS prepare any reports in the application for approval filed by DP World? At the core of the concerns is the unique nature of port security.</p>
<p>MIKE KREITZER, ELLER & CO.: The ports are guarded by, in effect, private industry, and it is troublesome to know that there may be a foreign government that takes a certain significant responsibility for that, and it’s a foreign government that comes from a place in the world where there is great social unrest.</p>
<p>TUCKER: Kreitzer represent a company, which is currently in a 50/50 joint venture with P&L. His company was never questioned by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.</p>
<p>TUCKER: Now, today the vice foreign minister issued the following statement, quote, “I understand the debate in the U.S. on the issue, but we would like to emphasize that we have been a strong ally of the United States in combating terrorism and will remain so,” end quote – Lou.</p>
<p>DOBBS: Peter King bringing the chairman of the House Committee, Homeland Security Committee, bringing this to the attention, being simply swatted away by the Bush administration. Senators Menendez and Clinton saying they’re going to introduce legislation to stop it.</p>
<p>It’s extraordinary that with this level of complaint within both the Republican and Democratic Parties that the White House is absolutely deaf on this issue.</p>
<p>TUCKER: Well, the White House clearly thinks they can get away with it. And legislation is going to have to pass the desk of the president and he obviously feels like he’s got a veto-proof way to approve the deal.</p>
<p>DOBBS: A veto-proof deal perhaps, but does it meet any reasonable test of a responsibility to secure the national interest? Of course, there is the matter of the security of our borders as well.