To the Congress of the United States:

In my State of the Union Address, I asked the Congress to give the President a line item veto. Today, I am sending the Congress a legislative proposal to give the President line item authority to reduce wasteful spending. This legislation will help to limit spending and ensure accountability and transparency in the expenditure of taxpayer funds.

Although the Congress achieved significant spending restraint this past year, appropriations and other bills that are sent to my desk still contain spending that is not fully justified, is a low priority, or is earmarked to avoid the discipline of competitive or merit-based reviews. When this legislation is presented to me, I now have no ability to line out unnecessary spending. In 1996, the Congress gave the President a line item veto–an important tool to limit wasteful spending–but the Supreme Court struck down that version of the law in 1998.

My proposed legislation, the “Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006,” would provide a fast-track procedure to require the Congress to vote up-or-down on rescissions proposed by the President. There has been broad bipartisan support for similar proposals in the past. Under this proposal, the President could propose legislation to rescind wasteful spending, and the Congress would be obligated to vote quickly on that package of rescissions, without amendment. The same procedure would apply to new mandatory spending and to special interest tax breaks given to small numbers of individuals.

Forty-three Governors have a line item veto to reduce spending. The President needs similar authority to help control unjustified and wasteful spending in the Federal budget. I urge you to promptly consider and send me this legislation for enactment to reduce unnecessary spending and help achieve my goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009.

George W. Bush.

The White House, March 6, 2006.

The Republican Congress gave President Clinton a line item veto shortly after they gained power. The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional on the grounds that the legislature holds the purse strings. It sounds like this Bush proposal would side step that issue by having his line item veto return the matter to Congress, though on a fasttracked and streamlines process.

Congress never misses an opportunity to play up an issue they think is a political winner. With polls indicating a vast majority of Americans oppose the Dubai Ports World acquisition (ignoring the fact that most are tragically illinformed on the matter) it’s not surprising to find a flurry of legislative action in Congress. While it’s not uncommon for multiple bills to be introduced on the same subject, one has to wonder how much is too much and when do bills with titles like “Port Operations Require Tough Scrutiny (PORTS) Act” and “Americans Securing American Ports (ASAP) Act” become blatant opportunism? When you condsider that it was Congress who established the review process that was used in this case, and used according to the law contrary to some hysterical leftwing blogger claims, it makes you wonder why they all of a sudden are upset to see this process in action.

It’s also worth pointing out that the ladder bill I mentioned, “Americans Securing American Ports (ASAP) Act”, was clearly introduced in response to this issue but has no actually bearing on it. The bill would “require that only United States persons may control security operations at seaports in the United States or enter into agreements to conduct such security operations.” That’s all well and good, but who was suggesting otherwise? We already do all the security (what little of it that is done, anyway), and would continue to do all the security, without this bill. So what purpose does it serve? Political advertising, that’s what.

Senate Resolution 387 was submitted March 2 stating in part:

(1) the United States remains strongly committed to the creation of a new Human Rights Council to replace the discredited United Nations Human Rights Commission (hereinafter `UNHRC’), and the proposal for such a Council should work to assure the integrity of its membership as well as provide a strong mandate for action;

(2) the Senate urges the President to use the present opportunity that has been generated by the international recognition of the need to replace the current UNHRC, and to refrain from supporting any proposal for a Human Rights Council that would result either in only cosmetic changes or changes that would even further degrade the membership and mandate of the current UNHRC;

(3) the Senate urges the President and the governments of other member countries of the United Nations to continue with negotiations for the creation of a Human Rights Council that is a credible human rights institution; and

(4) it is the sense of the Senate that an acceptable proposal for a credible Human Rights Council would–

(A) establish criteria for membership that would serve to exclude the worst human rights abusers, and such criteria would include, but should not be limited to, the automatic exclusion of member countries that are subject to Security Council sanctions;

(B) include a provision allowing full participation by Israel in all operations associated with the Council;

(C) set a size limit that is consistent with the goal of ensuring that only countries that respect human rights are members of the primary human rights body of the United Nations;

(D) establish a human rights review requirement that is tied to a mandatory outcome and takes place prior to elections for membership;

(E) exclude any provision that prevents the consecutive election of member countries to the Council; and

(F) utilize a formula for the distribution of membership among United Nations member countries that gives priority to countries that respect human rights, while also giving consideration to geographical distribution, the representation of different forms of civilization, and the principal legal systems.

Meanwhile, shameless former President Jimmy Carter is urging the U.N. to fight against our reasonable interests in this matter and encouraging the passage of the watered-down fake reform changes currently being proposed.

By now we’ve all heard the January 25th results of the Palestinian elections. Hamas, recognized by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization, declares itself committed to the destruction of Israel and has now achieved electoral victory in Palestine. It’s time that we look at how our policies might have helped contribute to this outcome.

A common liberal claim would be that our aggressive foreign policy and intervention in middle-eastern affairs has pushed these hardliners into prominence. The reality is that if we did not intervene these hardliners would have already achieved their stated goal on the destruction of Israel. Our problem is not too much aggression; rather it is too much coddling.

The United States has already donated almost $2 billion dollars to the Palestinian people, mostly through either the United Nations or various other international organizations. House Representative Henry Hyde, chairman of the Committee on International Relations, believes that “without question, continued assistance from the U.S. and other donors is essential to meeting basic human needs and avoiding a worsening of conditions in general.” That is without question, but what we should be questioning is whether or not it’s a good idea for us to be meeting their needs.

We do not believe a welfare state is good for America. The overwhelming support for welfare reform in the mid-nineties illustrated that Americans believe too big a safety net will result in individuals deciding they don’t have to try and better themselves. Why do we expect a different result in Palestine? But this is about more than just the Palestinian people; it’s also about their government, which is currently a terrorist organization.

Mr. Hyde hopes “that the leaders of Hamas will combine their new mandate with wisdom and compassion for their own people and avoid the exhilarating temptations of apocalyptic visions.” Why should they? Why waste energy trying to help Palestinians when there are countless “caring” international bodies ready to do it for them? We didn’t prop up Russia’s failed society in the midst of the Cold War, nor should we have as it would have allowed their dangerous government to hold on to power that much longer. Most Russian citizens weren’t involved in that government, they weren’t threatening our country. How come we weren’t as compassionate then and why didn’t we give them financial support? We didn’t because we recognized that to do so would have negative long term consequences. For just the same reason that a welfare state has long term negative economic effects. Why, then, are we propping up terrorist societies in the midst of our war on terror?

Every parent, rather I should say every good parent, knows there is a time when a leeching child must be cut loose for their own good. It might feel more compassionate to give them everything they need, but to do so means they will never learn to support themselves. The Palestinian government has learned they don’t have to support their citizens as we will “compassionately” do it for them, allowing them plenty of time to work on their other goals, goals like the destruction of Israel.

There has been much misinformation disseminated since this Dubai Ports World acquisition became the talk of Washington. Department of the Treasury Deputy Secretary Robert Kimmitt testified the following before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:

CFIUS operates by consensus among its members. A decision not to undertake an investigation is made only if the members agree that the transaction creates no national security concerns, or any identified national security concerns have been addressed to the satisfaction of all CFIUS agencies…If within the initial 30-day period there is consensus that the transaction does not raise national security concerns or any national security concerns have been addressed, Treasury, on behalf of CFIUS, writes to the parties notifying them of that determination. This concludes the CFIUS review of the acquisition.

If one or more members of CFIUS believe that national security concerns remain unresolved, then CFIUS conducts a 45-day investigation. The additional 45 days enables CFIUS and the parties to obtain additional information from the parties, conduct additional internal analysis, and continue addressing outstanding concerns. Upon completion of a 45-day investigation, CFIUS must provide a report to the President stating its recommendation. If CFIUS is unable to reach a unanimous recommendation, the Secretary of the Treasury, as Chairman, must submit a CFIUS report to the President setting forth the differing views and presenting the issues for decision. The President has up to15 days to announce his decision on the case and inform Congress of his determination. The last report sent to Congress occurred in September 2003, when the President sent a classified report detailing his decision to take no action to block the transaction between Singapore Technologies Telemedia and Global Crossing.

…

Contrary to many accounts, the DP World transaction was not rushed through the review process in early February. On October 17, 2005, lawyers for DP World and P&O informally approached Treasury Department staff to discuss the preliminary stages of the transaction. This type of informal contact enables CFIUS staff to identify potential issues before the review process formally begins. In this case, Treasury staff identified port security as the primary issue and directed the companies to DHS. On October 31, DHS and the Department of Justice staff met with the companies to review the transaction and security issues.

On November 2, Treasury staff requested a CARC intelligence assessment from the Office of the DNI. Treasury received this assessment on December 5, and it was circulated to CFIUS staff. On December 6, staff from CFIUS agencies with the addition of staff from the Departments of Transportation and Energy met with company officials to review the transaction and to request additional information. On December 16, after two months of informal interaction, the companies officially filed their formal notice with Treasury, which circulated the filing to all CFIUS departments and agencies and also to the Departments of Energy and Transportation because of their statutory responsibilities and experience with DP World.

During the 30-day review period, members of the CFIUS staff were in contact with one another and the companies. As part of this process, DHS negotiated an assurances letter that addressed port security concerns. The final assurances letter was circulated to the committee on January 6 for its review, and CFIUS concluded its review on January 17. In total, far from rushing their review, members of CFIUS staff spent nearly 90 days reviewing this transaction. There were national security issues raised during this review process, but any and all concerns were addressed to the satisfaction of all members of CFIUS. By the time the transaction was formally approved, there was full agreement among the CFIUS members.

DHS Assistant Secretary Stewart Baker also testified before the committee and brought clarity to other press and Congressional misrepresentations.

Let me first clarify what terminal operators do. They do not run ports. They certainly don?t provide or oversee security for the entire port complex. That is the responsibility of the government and the local port authority, which is usually a government agency. Terminal operators also do not obtain a comprehensive window into the breadth and depth of security measures that DHS employs to protect our ports and the cargo that enters those ports. The public fears that the DP World transaction have generated on this point are misplaced and lack a firm factual foundation…

Terminal operators ordinarily sign a long-term lease for waterfront property in the port. They build a pier for ships, cranes to unload the ship, a parking lot to store the containers they unload, and perhaps a small management office. They make their money lifting containers out of ships and holding them for shippers. That?s what we?re talking about here.

Well, that’s certainly not what the press and the opportunists in Congress are talking about. They’re talking about “selling our national security” and other such nonsense.

Representative Keller (R-FL):

[T]oday I rise to discuss the impact that illegal immigration has on the ranchers along the Mexican border. I recently spent a week along the Mexican-California border to see firsthand how bad the problem was and what Congress could do to fix it.

I sat down in the living rooms of four different families who own ranches along the border. One couple, Ed and Donna Tisdale, documented on home video 13,000 illegal aliens crossing their property in one year alone.

The Tisdales had their barbed wire fences cut by illegals running off the family’s cattle. When their dogs barked to scare off intruders, the dogs were poisoned.

Another rancher told me about numerous break-ins at his home while his family slept, as illegal aliens tried to find food and clothing. One morning his daughters had gone out to feed their pet bunny rabbits, only to find them skinned and taken for food by illegal aliens trying to escape to a nearby highway.

Representative McDermott (D-WA):

[F]or 5 years there was a silence at the White House about the issue of health care and how it is deteriorating in this country. The access has gotten worse and worse and worse under this administration.

The other night, in the State of the Union, the President, apparently the polling told him there is a problem out there. So he came out here with another one of his Band-Aids: Let’s give everybody a health savings account. A more ridiculous proposal could not have been made on the floor to deal with the problems of average Americans.

To expect average Americans to be able to put aside enough money to pay a $10,000 deductible and then buy a catastrophic plan is simply not from the real world. The average American in this country is fighting day to day, paycheck to paycheck, and our President comes up with another one of his tax giveaways to the rich.

Maybe if the average American wasn’t paying ridiculous unAmerican taxes they could afford such things. Regardless, Mr McDermott is promoting a gross distortion of what a Health Savings Account is. What sensible people want to do is, instead of taking the “average Americans” money through taxes and dumping it into inefficient and costly government programs, it should be put into efficient and cost effective savings accounts that are accountable to the public. What a nifty idea! Unfortunately, that would mean less tax moneys to buy votes with for Mr. McDermott, which most certainly cannot be tolerated!

Representative Foxx (R-NC):

[T]he positive economic news…continues to pour in. These new numbers demonstrate that Republicans’ pro-growth economic policies are working.

January’s unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent, which is the lowest monthly rate since 2001, and lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. There have been 29 consecutive months of job gains. The economy has created over 2 million jobs over the past 12 months.

Real household net worth is at $51.1 trillion, an all-time high. And finally the Commerce Department just reported that the GDP grew at a 1.6 percent rate in the fourth quarter, up from an original estimate of 1.1 percent.

Representative Blackburn (R-TN):

[O]ur economy is booming. I know that may come as a surprise to some of our colleagues across the aisle, and certainly to some of the mainstream media. But our unemployment rate is now at 4.7 percent, and that is lower than the average unemployment rate in the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. Yes, lower than each of those decades.

And where are the headlines that would praise the smart tax plan that helped to get us there? In January, America created 193,000 new jobs. That is 2 million new jobs in just over the past year.

From Representative Stupak (D-MI):

The United Arab Emirates port deal is nothing new from the Bush administration. Over the past 5 years, President Bush has mastered back-room deals and secrecy, but now his administration’s actions are threatening our homeland security. The United Arab Emirates deal was approved by the Bush administration despite national security concerns raised by both the Department of Homeland Security and the United States Coast Guard.

First of all, he is right this is “nothing new from the Bush administration”, seeing as how this is not from the Bush administration at all. This is a business acquisition of one foreign firm over another. Yes, DHS and the Coast Guard both rasied concerns, initially.

Those concerns were then investigated and looked at and found to be unwarranted. But true to liberal form, it’s the act of being “concerned” that is most important, not the facts of the matter. That these concerns were raised and already addressed doesn’t make any difference. The fact that these concerns ever existed makes them, in the liberal’s emotional-nonlogic-thought-process, fact for all eternity, even when the organizations involved have received satisfactory answers.

Remarks by Sen. Ted Stevens at the opening of the Senate Commerce Committee’s February 28, 2006 hearing on Security of Terminal Operations at U.S. Ports:

Much has been reported over the past few weeks concerning the proposed port terminal operations transaction between Dubai Ports World, a Dubai-owned company, and P&O Ports, a British company. Many of the reports have contained incorrect or misleading information…

…[T]his transaction would be one between two foreign-owned companies, subject to federal government approval through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. This is not an agreement between the Dubai company and the federal government…

…[N]either the British nor the Dubai terminal operator would own any U.S. ports. State and local port authorities own our ports. These companies are terminal operators, and manage American longshoremen in the loading or unloading of cargo from ships, subject to coast guard and customs inspection and security procedures.

…[T]erminal operators such as these companies are not responsible for securing U.S. ports. The Coast Guard, TSA, customs and border protection, the FBI, and local law enforcement secure our ports. Cargo arriving at U.S. ports is assessed for risk, and screened accordingly…

…[T]he document released yesterday regarding coast guard?s analysis about this acquisition is misleading because it is only a portion of the overall analysis. After completing its review, the Coast Guard concluded publicly that ?DPW?s acquisition of P&O?does not pose a significant threat to U.S. assets?…

So remember, when democrats like Ms. DeLauro stand up and assert some government or another is going to be “controlling” our ports, it’s a flat out lie.