Supporting the goals and ideals of American Heart Month.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Last year the Bush administration made a grave error. A proposal came from the country of Dubai to buy a company that ran our ports. The response from the administration, and there was an intergovernmental committee called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. which Members will hear us abbreviating as CFIUS, should have said to Dubai, you know, we have found you to be a reasonable group of people, but you are in an area of the world where there is great tension, where there are violent, armed people who wish us ill. You will be subjected to great pressures. There will be efforts to infiltrate and there will be assaults on your integrity, and that makes us nervous about your controlling something as sensitive to security as ports. We have been worrying about the possibility of the shipping ports being entry ports for harmful activity.

So the people of Dubai should have been told, look, we mean you no ill, but we think it is a mistake for you to buy these ports. There are, I would have thought, many other investments I think they could have made.

Instead, incredibly, a series of people from the White House's various offices, from the Departments, did not see this coming; and in consequence, they gave an approval which led to an entirely predictable outcry in the country.

Our job, Mr. Chairman, is to prevent this great lapse in judgment by the Bush administration over the Dubai situation from leading to bad public policy that would extend to restricting and discouraging foreign direct investment in general.

Members should be very clear when we talk about foreign direct investment. All three words are important. We are not talking about buying equities and we are not talking about foreign countries holding our debt, which can be problematic. We are talking about foreign investors, mostly, in some cases government, but mostly private investors, taking money and investing it in real economic activity in the U.S. That is what direct investment means.

And that inevitably, not inevitably, that, in fact, will produce more economic activity here. It is very much in our interest as a Nation to have people investing in real economic activity. That creates jobs and that creates taxation for local governments and that creates the kind of economic activity that we thrive on.

The fear again was that others in other parts of the world, seeing the reaction to Dubai would say, you know what, we better not invest there.

One of the great assets America has economically is we are about as stable a place as there is in the world to invest your money. This is a problem. It is a problem for Russia. Russia is suffering I believe legitimately because of concern from people that if they invest in Russia their investments will not be as fully protected as they should be. The security legally and in every other way of money invested in the U.S. in direct ways is an asset for us. We do not want the political fallout from the Dubai mistake to discourage this.

What we then decided to do together, and while there was an earlier reference to this being a Republican bill, which I regret because this has been a genuinely bipartisan bill and that sort of partisanship doesn't help, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who was then the ranking member on the relevant committee; the gentlewoman from Ohio, who is with us now who was Chair of that subcommittee; the minority whip, then the majority whip; myself; the former chairman of the committee, Mr. Oxley of Ohio, we all worked together to say, look, let us give a set of rules and procedures so that people with money in other countries who want to invest it in the U.S. in ways that will be beneficial to us can get some assurance that they can make that investment and not be buffeted politically.

People say, Look what happened to Dubai. First they got approval, and then it was withdrawn. We want to have a good process so that people can invest with assurance. People who are investing money need stability and certainty.

They also need a certain amount of privacy before the fact. One of the things that we jointly did was to reject efforts to expose potential investments to wide publicity and the political process at too early a stage. There is no point in scaring these things off.

Now it should be noted that entirely independent of this bill authority exists in the President of the United States, delegated as he chooses, to reject investments that would jeopardize our national security. There are also separate statutes that limit investment in particular parts of the economy. Some of those, I think, go too far. None of those are altered. In other words, this bill does not weaken any existing statutory protection against investment that might undermine our security.

What it says is that the great bulk of investments not only do not undermine our security, but add to our prosperity by providing more resources here within the country for good, beneficial, economic activity. We will have a process which gives you some assurance that you can go ahead with that investment. That is what this bill does.

There are some questions about it. There will be some amendments, but that is the core of the bill. It is in the interest of our economy. It protects national security even more than currently because it does have some procedures to require a kind of inspection that would have prevented, we believe, the Dubai mistake.

I should say that this bill is widely supported. We have worked closely with the administration. The Treasury has been very helpful, and they do not like everything in this bill, but on the other hand, I do not like everything in the Treasury. In fact, if you look at the great bulk of it, we are together on this, and this is a bill which the Treasury, I am pleased to say, and you can see in the statement of administration policy, regards this as an advance. They would like some changes, but they clearly regard this bill as an advance. A broad swath of the business community is in favor of it, and all should be in favor of it.

While there are controversial aspects of international policy, this is one that should not be controversial. This is one which welcomes foreign investors who want to take money and engage in real, beneficial, safe economic activity in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who was one of the major authors of this bill and has been a strong proponent of it to this time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute just to say, before I yield back, that there has been a debate about whether or not an open rule was controversial or not. I know in today's Wall Street Journal, there is an editorial grudgingly giving us some credit for moving on this. Essentially they are surprised that, given that we are Congress, we didn't do a lot worse.

But I will note that in the Wall Street Journal editorial this morning, there are two negative references to an open rule. It is clear from this that they are among those that did not want an open rule because they said they were afraid that protectionists in the House would ruin the bill.

So I do, again, want to note the idea that the open rule was somehow something of no particular consequence. This contradicted the Wall Street Journal in its editorial today, and I urge Members to read it. I am not going to put the whole thing in the Record because it takes some shots at some Members that I think are unfair. But I urge Members who think that this was some sort of a slam dunk to read the Wall Street Journal.

I am submitting the following jurisdictional correspondence on H.R. 566:

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, February 23, 2007.

Hon. Barney Frank,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Frank: I am writing to you concerning the

bill, H.R. 556, the National Security Foreign Investment

Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act of 2007. There are

certain provisions in the legislation which fall within the

Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,

including provisions relating to the Defense Production Act

of 1950, as it pertains to the Committee on Foreign

Investment in the United States.

In the interest of permitting your Committee to proceed

expeditiously to Floor consideration of this important bill,

I am willing to waive this Committee's right to sequential

referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving

consideration of the bill, the Committee on Foreign Affairs

does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the

subject matters contained in the bill, which fall within its

Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to

appoint Members of this Committee to any conference committee

which is named to consider any such provisions.

Please place this letter into the Committee report on H.R.

556 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of

the measure on the House Floor. Thank you for the cooperative

spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and

others between our respective committees.

Cordially,

Tom Lantos,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I offer the manager's amendment to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, this is a compendium of amendments that came from some of our sister and fellow committees. The Chair and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri, the gentleman from California, collaborated on some language. They, for instance, have noted that when we say periodic reports, that means not less than every 6 months. It also clarifies that CFIUS will report to any committee having jurisdiction over any aspect of the transaction, not just the named committees. And at the insistence of the gentleman from Missouri, which we agreed with, it says that if there are risk analysis performed by mitigation agreement, they will be performed by CFIUS.

The gentleman from Michigan, the Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, correctly pointed out that the bill had stricken a report from the Inspector General during our markup. He believed, and his committee believed this is important to reinsert, we agree, and it is reinserted. The gentleman from California, the chairman of the IR Foreign Affairs Committee, moved that we make the one-time report on how people deal with the Israel boycott an annual report, and that has been done. So these are seven amendments that we have incorporated, all of them recommended by three other committees of jurisdiction. They are supported on both sides. We believe they enhance the bill. And I hope they are adopted en banc as one amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, sometimes people get up in the legislative body and say, Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment because it is unnecessary.

It has been my experience that no one who says that is ever telling the truth. That is, no one opposes an amendment simply because it is unnecessary or superfluous or redundant.

Many us are lawyers. We are in the most redundancy-prone profession in the world. We rarely use one word where we can use two, lewd and lascivious, although I do not suggest that this amendment is either.

I say that because I do not think this amendment is necessary. I don't think it adds a great deal, and I support it. That is, it does not detract.

The reason I say that is I do not think that an administration that was cognizant of these elements would have excluded them. The only reason I rise to say that is this, and I hope we will adopt the amendment, but I wouldn't want us to set a precedent that if a factor was not specifically enumerated, it was not to be taken into account.

This enumerates factors that clearly should be taken into account, and I will therefore be supportive. I just want to make clear there is a Latin maxim, and my English does not always translate well over this microphone, so I won't try Latin, but it is when you specify one, you exclude the others. I just want to make clear that this is not a precedent for that.

The fact that we are specifically here singling these out, I am sure the gentleman from Iowa agrees, does not, in any way, denigrate the importance of other factors not mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. And I think what the gentleman from Georgia has offered is very constructive. He called this to my attention. I have discussed this with the ranking member. I certainly believe it improves the bill. He pointed out an instance where he as a Member in whose district an important transaction took place had taken initiative and come up with some information that was directly relevant that should have been shared. I regard Members as useful input sources here.

Now, again, let's understand. The way this is drafted and the gentleman agreed to offer it, no one can say that this is the kind of amendment that might jeopardize the investment. Nothing in here would in any way lead to an investment not going forward. This is postapproval. If there is disapproval, then the issue doesn't arise.

What this does is, and we have all agreed that it is important to be able to monitor these arrangements, it lets the Member of Congress in whose district a transaction took place join in the monitoring.

Frankly, I guess as the chairman of the committee, I get a lot of these reports. I want to tell the Members that the extent to which I am personally going to travel around to these areas and monitor this, I hope no one is relying heavily on that.

On the other hand, knowing that the Members in whose districts these are happening are available and then come and talk to me, talk to the ranking member and talk to others, I think that improves what we had in there. So I hope the amendment is adopted.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and its siblings which are apparently to follow.

I gather, I guess, an open rule, we have had so few of them, people can't resist the temptation to take advantage of them, even on matters that are not relevant to the bill.

Now, there is a different between relevance and germaneness. You can make a bill germane with a certain amount of ingenuity, or an amendment. But ingenuity does not affect logic. It only affects parliamentary rules.

This is a requirement that the administration do a report about taxation as it affects business. It says, to be germane to this bill, that it should see how it affects the foreign businesses. But, in fact, no one thinks that foreign direct investment or foreign-owned businesses are differentially affected than others. This is a call for an annual report on the effective taxation on business.

Apparently the gentleman may think that the Council of Economic Advisors annual report doesn't do a very good job. It is the kind of subject that they are supposed to be talking about. It is an effort, I think, to introduce an ideological debate, which is an entirely legitimate one, into a bill that it really does not pertain to.

I can say we have worked closely with the administration. The Treasury, on behalf of the administration, is not supporting this. They have, in fact, been saying, please keep this to national security.

Now, national security, in the CFIUS context, is meant to be clearly defined. It is possible, of course, to say that everything is national security. Health is a matter of national security. Farm policy, agricultural policy is a matter of national security. But if you try to do everything, you often wind up not doing anything very well.

This is a narrowly targeted bill to talk about the extent to which foreign direct investment does or doesn't affect national security in a very specific definition of national security.

This amendment, and the following amendments, say, let's require the administration to do general reports on the effect of regulation, taxation, and something else, I don't remember what it was, on the economy. And it sort of bootstraps it into here.

It is not useful. It is a diversion. If Members think such a report ought to be done, then there are other fora in which to do it. To burden the CFIUS process with this would be a mistake, and I, therefore, hope that the amendment is defeated.

Will the gentlewoman yield to me for 30 seconds?

I would just say to the gentleman from Texas, yes, everything is connected to everything. Everything that rises must converge. But that does not mean that you don't try to deal with it before it has risen and converged.

The fact is that if you define everything as national security, you really can't do the piece by piece that you want to. And an inability to make those distinctions gets in the way of good public policy. This grew out the Dubai Ports situation. It grew out of a fear that things that were generally good for us economically might have an element that compromised national security narrowly defined, that they

might lead to physical or other kind of problems, espionage, terrorism. And it is an effort to try and harmonize those. It doesn't mean that taxation and health care and a whole range of other things, elementary and secondary education, aren't ultimately related to national security. It does mean that trying to use this specific bill, in which we try to make sure that what is our national economic interest doesn't impinge on national security, but trying to load everything into that gets in the way of the committee that is charged with it, which is why the Treasury doesn't support it, among others.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The gentleman said he is unable to differentiate. I agree. He asked why don't I want this information. Mr. Chairman, I want lunch too, but I am

not asking CFIUS to bring it to me. The question is not what I want. An intelligent, mature adult has a whole set of wants but differentiates, to use a word with which the gentleman said he had difficulty, in where and how you get them.

Yes, it is important to know what the effect of taxation is on the economy, and the Ways and Means Committee should be doing a lot of work on that. It is important to know about regulation. And our committee deals with regulation. Energy and Commerce deals with regulation. Other committees deal with regulation. The point is not that these things are not at some point useful, but whether a specific governmental entity, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which is being created for a very specific purpose, ought to be given the burden of doing all that.

We have a Council of Economic Advisers. It is charged with many of these duties. We have the Federal Reserve system. They, under the Humphrey-Hawkins bill, make a monetary report twice a year. It is not that you don't have the information.

Here is, again, the situation. As a result of the Dubai Ports, there was a fear that that reaction would discourage people, foreigners, from investing in the U.S. This has a very specific purpose: to create a system in which people can be reassured that foreign direct investment has no negative effect on national security. In the sense that the gentleman is talking about that, that is not relevant to this bill. No one thinks foreign direct investment unfairly affects the tax system or the regulatory system. The concern is that we might have foreign direct investment that would put foreigners not loyal to this country, perhaps even inimical to this country, in positions where they could do us damage, through espionage, through sabotage, through the planting of bombs. That is what this bill is about.

The gentleman said, Isn't taxation important? Of course it is. Climate change is important. Should they report on climate change? Nutrition is important. Education in the sciences is important. There are a whole lot of important issues. Burdening this particular intergovernmental committee, which has a very specific focus, with all of these other problems doesn't make any sense. That is why, as I said, it is not supported by administration. It is opposed by the business community. The business community would share many of the gentleman's views, many of them, on the specifics of taxation and regulation, but they don't want to dilute the mission of this very specific committee.

Now, in this particular bill, frankly, even in its own terms I have trouble understanding what the gentleman is getting at. He says we ``shall include a detailed discussion of factors . . . including trend information on the number of jobs'' that affect the filing. Now, unemployment, it is hard for me to understand how that affects the filing. Does the gentleman mean that if unemployment goes too low, foreign investors won't come to America because wage rates may go up? I mean, this is an important datum to have. We have this problem. We have annual reports, monthly reports on jobs.

The point we are making is that you should not, for whatever purpose, ideological or whatever else, inject this into this very specific, very important function. We want these people to thoroughly vet whether or not there is a purchase by foreign investors in America that could lead to national security issues in the narrow definition. That doesn't mean that there are not broader factors, such as, as I said, education and the environment and agricultural production, that affect national security. But this is not a bill on national security in general. It is a bill to say that we want very careful vetting of foreign direct investment to make sure that that in itself doesn't do negative things to national security.

There is broad agreement within the administration, within the business community, within our committee that that is an important function. The gentleman has broader purposes. I wish the jurisdiction of the committee encompassed that. We don't have jurisdiction over taxation.

I will yield.

Excuse me. Under the rules, I reclaim my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would say this. He is now focused on the issue. This is not about a bill about national security in general, and it is not a bill about anything that might discourage foreign investment. That is precisely the point. We want to focus on the extent to which the fear of the Dubai situation would discourage foreign investment.

There are other issues that might affect foreign investment. Currency. The gentleman didn't mention currency exchange rates. There are a whole number of things, environmental policies and other things, that might affect foreign investment. The gentleman has stated this is not a bill about whatever might affect foreign investment. We wouldn't have the jurisdiction and nobody in the administration wants to do that particularly. They want to focus specifically on national security. And what the gentleman would do would be to the move the focus on sabotage, espionage, terrorism, those very specific issues that call that forward.

There is room for honest disagreement, but to suggest that I in any way said jobs aren't important is simply silly. Of course jobs are important. A lot of things are important. The war in Iraq is important. Global warming is important. They don't all go in the same bill. The gentleman's inability to distinguish between what is important and what you try to accomplish in a specific piece of legislation is disappointing, although it does not quite reach the level of a threat to national security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the recommittal.

Mr. Speaker, this is fourth effort by the minority to get exactly the same thing voted on. Apparently, this strategy has become if at first you don't succeed, try, try, again and again and again.

I am disappointed at the poverty of their ability to obstruct. Now, here is where we are. We have a bill that is strongly supported by the administration and by the business community, their erstwhile allies.

We were asked by some on the Republican side and in the business community to get a closed rule, because they were afraid of irresponsible and silly amendments.

I rejected that request, and now I see, frankly, some people who asked me to support a closed rule voting for the amendments that came forward because we had an open rule. Apparently the motto of some of my Republican colleagues, when it comes to rules is, stop me before I obstruct again.

I don't intend to do that. I don't intend to protect you from your own worst impulses. After all, no one has protected me from mine.

We have a bill which says we do not want foreign investment which is good for this country, which is job producing and economically stimulative prevented by fears that unnecessary security interests will be raised. So we set up a policy, we set up a committee to vet proposals for foreign investment to make sure that there is no threat to national security and its very specific definition of terrorism, of espionage, of a transfer of information that might hurt us. This is to undo the damage that might have come from Dubai.

Apparently, the minority is dissatisfied because we are not somehow conforming to this stereotype of us. We have brought forward a responsible and balanced bill. We worked with Treasury. We worked with the business community.

They have decided now to expand the scope. What they have asked for, frankly, here, is a report from the committee that is charged with dealing with this very specific set of issues. Does a particular foreign direct investment impinge on national security?

They want to burden that committee over the objection of the Treasury Department, which does not like this recommit and did not like the amendment before that, the amendment before that, which all said the same thing.

They are trying to dilute the work of the committee by doing what? By asking for a report, for example, on hedge funds. Look at page 2. Let's have a report on the stability of the financial markets.

So instead of focusing their energies on whether or not a particular investment is a national security threat, this committee is supposed to give us a report on hedge funds and on derivatives, the stability of the financial markets. They are supposed to talk about nondiscriminatory treatment of entrepreneurs and the deleterious effect of burdensome regulation.

Of course, that is the right-wing premise that regulation is necessarily burdensome. There might, of course, be a conflict if you are going to talk about the deleterious effect of burdensome legislation, that might be in conflict with your ability to promote the stability to promote financial markets.

They don't belong in this bill. It is an effort to bring in right- wing ideological precepts into a bill that plays an important role. Now, I guess I regret their frustration that we haven't given them a better target to shoot at. But this proposal to take the Committee on Foreign Investments in the U.S. and turn it into the Federal Reserve Board and the Council of Economic Advisers, and God knows what else, will detract from the mission of that committee, make it harder for them to focus on national security, and serves no other purpose.

I would ask the Members for the fourth time to vote against the same issue. I would say to my Republican friends, I know you are not going to be worried about our time, I know you are not going to be worried about civility and comity, but could you take boredom into account.

The next time you are being obstructive, could you be a little creative, could you think of at least a couple of variations and could you not ask for the same vote four times. I have Members asleep over here because they are so bored for what you are doing.

I ask Members to rally themselves for one more ``no'' vote for the fourth time. I don't think there is any other means by which you can do it again, and let's then pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership.

I want to thank in particular Chairman Frank for making this bill, the National Security FIRST Act, a priority of this Congress. Democrats and Republicans have supported this bill, demonstrating a desire to enhance national security while avoiding a freeze of beneficial and safe economic investment in our country.

I would like to thank in addition my other Democratic colleagues, Luis Gutierrez and Joe Crowley, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Deborah Pryce, Roy Blunt and Ranking Member Bachus, for their continued support and leadership on this important legislation.

A year ago, Mr. Speaker, Americans woke up to find out that six of the largest ports in our Nation would be controlled by a foreign government, the United Arab Emirates, under the Dubai Ports World. Even worse, this deal had been approved by our government through a secretive process no one had ever heard of. In fact, Congress and senior administration officials learned about this deal by reading about it in the newspapers.

Even before the Dubai Ports World fiasco, the General Accountability Office had criticized the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, or CFIUS, for being overly focused on bureaucratic goals, basically getting deals done with little oversight, without causing a fuss.

Well, the Dubai Ports World deal showed the world the weaknesses in the CFIUS process. The decision was

made, and when they did make that decision, they did not involve any high-level government officials. They did not report to Congress. They used a very out-of-date definition of national security.

Surely anyone in a post-9/11 world would consider our largest ports a national security concern. The 9/11 Commission called it one of the areas that we have the most problems and one that needs the most attention.

As a Representative from New York, which is both target number one for terrorism and the financial capital in our Nation, I felt very strongly that we needed to get something done.

At the time, along with Deborah Pryce, I was the ranking member on the subcommittee which we both served on with jurisdiction over CFIUS, and so we had a front-line responsibility for the issue, and we worked together to put forward this legislation.

Our legislation passed the last Congress 421-0. We hope we get the same result today, and we resubmitted the bill again earlier this year. It is past time to get this done. If you had told the American people that a year after Dubai Ports World and the scandal involved with it we would still be debating CFIUS reform and had not strengthened the system already, I think they would be very surprised.

The need for reform remains even after DPW. The CFIUS process is not catching all the deals that it should.

Last year I personally called to the attention of CFIUS the fact that a company with ties to the Venezuelan Government had purchased a major voting machine manufacturer in our country. CFIUS did initiate a review, and after some time in the process, the company announced that it would withdraw from the U.S. market. Surely we would consider a foreign government owning our voting machines a national security concern.

In the end the process did work, but it worked only after prodding, and it should work better. That is what this bill would accomplish. It puts national security first, addressing the weaknesses in the Dubai Ports World.

The bill requires high-level attention and sign-off on every transaction, and particular attention to transactions involving foreign-government-owned entities.

The bill also creates a formal role for the intelligence community and sets up an independent intelligence assessment. It requires a broad and flexible definition of national security that includes the concerns of 12 different agencies, and it sets up a system for monitoring deals that are withdrawn from the process.

The bill contains very tough provisions to protect national security, including the ability of CFIUS to reopen reviews when companies do not comply with mitigation agreements designed to reduce security risks. This is such a severe remedy that we have hedged it with many procedural protections, and we expect CFIUS to use it only in exceptional cases.

This bill also puts Congress in the picture, making sure that we learn about these deals from CFIUS, not from the newspapers but after the decisions have been made. And by providing greater certainty and predictability in the process, we can encourage foreign investors. I am glad he yielded me this time, because a very important part of CFIUS is we build in predictability and clarity for foreign investment, so that it is not gray, but black and white of where they can go to get a swift approval for safe foreign investment.

This is critical to our economy. Over 5.1 million jobs came into our economy from foreign investment in 2004, and there were 50,000 jobs recently created in New York City after 9/11 from foreign investment. It is very important to economic growth in our country. We want to encourage it, but at the same time, we want to protect our citizens, our number one responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, may I say to Ms. Pelosi, I appreciate your making this a priority and moving it to the floor so quickly. We will be able to work with our colleagues in the Senate to get a strong bill and pass it and sign it into law. I appreciate the support from the business community, the intelligence community, and from the executive office.

I request unanimous consent to place in the Record the statement from the Executive.

What can I say, it is a win-win situation. It is a bipartisan bill. Let's move forward and pass it and enact it into law.

Statement of Administration Policy

h.R. 556--national security foreign investment reform and strengthened

transparency (rep. maloney (d) ny and 58 cosponsors)

The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 556 and

appreciates the efforts of the House Financial Services

Committee to strengthen the Committee on Foreign Investment

in the United States (CFIUS). The Administration regards the

Nation's security as its top priority. In addition, the

Administration views investment, including investment from

overseas, as vital to continued economic growth, job

creation, and building an ever-stronger America. Therefore,

the Administration seeks to improve the CFIUS process in a

manner that protects national security and ensures a strong

U.S. economy and an open investment environment that will

serve as an example and thereby support U.S. investment

abroad.

In light of the President's responsibility to ensure the

Nation's security, and in the context of comity between the

executive and legislative branches, we believe the President

should retain substantial flexibility to determine CFIUS's

membership and administrative procedures and to make

adjustments when national security so requires. Accordingly,

the Administration has concerns with some of the provisions

of H.R. 556 and looks forward to working with Congress to

address these concerns, to strengthen CFIUS, and to ensure

the protection of America's homeland and the strength of our

economy.

Establishment and membership of CFIUS

The President should retain the flexibility to determine

and adjust the appropriate Executive Branch membership of

CFIUS and their roles. H.R. 556 should not mandate that CFIUS

have Vice Chairs, nor that CFIUS include members of the

Executive Office of the President. Further, the President

should retain the flexibility to determine roles and

responsibilities of CFIUS and its members. For example, the

Administration opposes any language in Section 6 that would

call for the designation of a lead agency or agencies to

represent other agencies or the Committee in negotiating,

entering into, imposing, modifying, monitoring, or enforcing

mitigation agreements.

Deliberations and decision-making of the committee

The Administration is concerned that the legislation

imposes procedural requirements, such as roll call voting and

motions, which are ill-suited for executive bodies such as

CFIUS and are inconsistent with the vesting of the executive

power in the President. Given the bill's reporting

requirements, such procedures will deter the full and open

interagency discussion that is required to consider CFIUS

cases properly.

The Administration fully shares Congress' goal of ensuring

senior-level accountability for CFIUS decisions. The

Administration supports requiring the Secretary, Deputy

Secretary, or an Under Secretary of the Treasury to sign

CFIUS decisions at the conclusion of a second-stage (45-day)

investigation, as H.R. 556 provides. With respect to cases

for which CFIUS concludes its action at the end of the first-

stage (30-day) investigation, the Administration supports

the House Financial Services Committee's decision to

authorize delegation of this authority. However, in view

of the volume and variety of cases and to ensure that our

most senior officials are able to focus on those cases

that do raise national security concerns, this authority

should be further delegable to other officials appointed

by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

The Administration believes that the current 30-day and 45-

day time frames for first-stage and second-stage

investigations provide CFIUS with sufficient time to examine

transactions. The possibility of extensions may discourage

foreign investment by generating uncertainty and delay for

the parties to proposed transactions. The Administration

therefore opposes allowing CFIUS to extend the second stage

(45-day) investigation period. The Administration notes that

the current CFIUS practice of encouraging parties to

transactions to consult with CFIUS prior to filing provides

CFIUS with additional time and flexibility to examine complex

transactions.

The Administration supports the role of the intelligence

community as an independent advisor to CFIUS and appreciates

the bill's inclusion of a provision that ensures that the

Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is provided adequate

time to complete the DNI's analysis of any threat to the

national security of a covered transaction. However, language

in H.R. 556 also appears to provide the DNI with the ability

to force a second-stage (45-day) investigation if the DNI has

identified particularly complex intelligence concerns and

CFIUS was not able to satisfactorily mitigate the threat.

Such a policy role would be inconsistent with the independent

advisory role of the DNI envisioned in the legislation and

supported by the Administration.

Notification and reports to Congress

The Administration supports enhanced communication with

Congress on CFIUS

matters to better facilitate Congress' performance of its

functions. CFIUS should be required to notify Congress of

transactions only after all deliberative action is concluded,

as H.R. 556 provides. As discussed above, roll call voting,

particularly if reported outside the Executive Branch, would

deter the full and open interagency discussion that is

required to consider CFIUS cases, and reporting on internal

Executive Branch deliberations, including the positions of

individual CFIUS members, should not be required.

Authorities of CFIUS

The Administration believes current law and regulations

give the President and CFIUS adequate authority to gather all

information needed to conduct CFIUS investigations. The

Administration is concerned that provisions of the bill that

provide CFIUS with additional statutory authority to collect

evidence and require the attendance and testimony of

witnesses and the production of documents would make the

CFIUS process more adversarial and less effective.

The Administration believes its ability to protect national

security would be enhanced by a statutory grant of authority

to impose civil penalties for a breach of a mitigation

agreement. This authority to seek civil penalties, which

could be calibrated to the seriousness of the non-compliance,

would be a useful and effective tool for enforcing those

agreements.

Presidential review and decision

The Administration supports requiring the President to make

the final decision on a case only when CFIUS recommends that

a transaction be blocked or when CFIUS fails to reach a

consensus after a second-stage investigation. Requiring

Presidential action in a broader set of cases would undermine

the President's ability to determine how best to exercise

Executive Branch decision-making authority.

The Administration looks forward to working with Congress

on these important issues.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the chairman.

Reclaiming my time, I will yield to the gentleman on his own time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The CFIUS process already requires comprehensive reporting to Congress on just about every factor conceivable that is relevant to the subject of national security and foreign direct investment. That is the purpose of this bill.

This is not the place to evaluate whether our tax or our regulatory system, our jobs should be changed to encourage foreign investment. That is not the purpose of this bill, and we cannot dress it up like a Christmas tree with all these other items.

I would suggest the gentleman put forward a stand-alone bill or address it in an economic development package, but that is not the purpose of this legislation.

The CFIUS process is put in place and should focus on national security. And while we value foreign investment, we certainly do not want CFIUS to be weighing the value of foreign investment, as per regulation or tax burden or jobs, against any national security risk. The primary purpose is national security. And if there are national security risks that cannot be fixed with an agreement, these transactions should not go forward, period.

I would like to add that the process that we have, the CFIUS process, requires annual reporting to a board setup of a committee on, among other things, all filings with CFIUS, details on the trends in filings, investigations, withdrawals, and Presidential decisions. It requires reporting on mitigation agreements and enforcement, the impact of foreign investment on critical infrastructure, critical technologies, and whether there is a coordinated strategy by one or more countries to acquire critical technologies in the United States.

But to force CFIUS to opine on policy matters outside of its mandate and expertise, CFIUS is not the right body to report on regulation matters or tax matters that the gentleman has put forward in his amendment, and this requirement will also distract CFIUS from focusing on its prime focus, which is protecting our American citizens, our national security first.

These are legitimate issues to raise, and I compliment the gentleman on his thoughtful research and concern, but this is not the area where it should be legislated.

So I join the chairman in strongly urging a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I join Chairman Frank and my colleague from New York in stressing that the CFIUS process is first and foremost for national security, and to give clear guidelines and predictability to foreign businesses to invest in America.

The CFIUS process is supported, if the gentleman is concerned about jobs and the private sector, this is supported almost unanimously by the business sector of our country. They have come out, a whole list of groups, supporting this well-balanced legislation and have called upon it not to be dressed up like a Christmas tree. My other colleague said this did not dress it up like a Christmas tree, yet it is adding unrelated items to the bill. We have bills on commerce, we have bills on education, we have bills in other areas, and that is where this should be discussed.

Foreign investment is very important to our country. It provides 5.1 million American jobs, $1.9 trillion in equity investment; and some 50,000 jobs in New York City are created at this point by foreign investment. But not one of these jobs or dollars is worth risking our national security. That is why we have CFIUS. We do not want to risk our national security for any job, and we have a template, we have a procedure placed in the CFIUS process for direct, safe foreign investment.

I join my colleague in opposing this amendment.

Madam. Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 42: Passage of H. Res. 475. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

January 22, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 43: Table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair for H. Res. 476. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 44: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. No. 52. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 45: Motion to suspend the rules and Agreed to H.R. 390. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 46: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 29. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

February 8, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 87: Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 547, and amendment to include language which encourages the Assistant Administrator to utilize Land Grant Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions and other minority serving institutions among other resources to undertake research for programs covered by the bill. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district. I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 88: Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 547, an amendment to add a new paragraph to section 3, Biofuel Infrastructure and Additives Research and Development, to include issues with respect to where in the fuel supply chain additives optimally should be added to fuels. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 89: Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 547, an amendment to add a new paragraph to section 3 which includes issues with respect to certification by a nationally recognized testing laboratory of components for fuel dispensing devices that specifically reference compatibility with alcohol blended and biofuels that contain greater than 15 percent alcohol. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 90: Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 547, an amendment to add a new section 7 entitled Additional Funding. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 91:

the Motion to Recommit with Instructions of H.R. 547. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 92: Passage of H.R. 547. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

February 28, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 111: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Con. Res. 52. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

March 12, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 136: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended on H.R. 85. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 137: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 136. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 138: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 89. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 187: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as amended on H.R. 802. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 188: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended on H.R. 137. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 189: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended on H.R. 580. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

May 14, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 342: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass on H.R. 1124. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 343: Motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 223. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 344: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree (H. Res. 385). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

May 16, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 358: Call in Committee Quorum. Had I been present, I would have voted ``present.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 359: Motion that the Committee Rise (H.R. 1585). Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

June 11, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district. I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 448: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass on H.R. 2356. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 449: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on S. 676. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district. I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 450: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 418. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

July 23, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 687: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 404, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 688: Motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 553. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 689: Motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 519. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 690: On ordering the previous question on H. Res. 558. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

August 1, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 781: Motion to adjourn. Had I been present. I would have voted ``no.''

september 4, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 847: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 694, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 848: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3020, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 849: Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2669. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

september 17, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 867: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3246, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 868: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1657, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 869: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3527. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

october 1, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 924: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 185. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 925: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 2276. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 926: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3325. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

october 15, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 961: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 738. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 962: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 2089. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 963: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 20, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

October 17, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 980: Passage of H.R. 2095. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

october 29, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1010: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3224, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1011: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 573, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1012: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 747. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

November 5, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1034: Closing Portions of the Conference on H.R. 3222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1035: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 513, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1036: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 744. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

november 7, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1058: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Con. Res. 236, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

november 13, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1082: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3315. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1083: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1593, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1084: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3403, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1085: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3461, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

november 14, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1095: Motion to Adjourn. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

december 6, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1141: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 2085. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 556, the National Security FIRST Act. It makes important

reforms to the process by which we ensure our national security is protected, while maintaining and welcoming a healthy flow of foreign investment into the United States.

Reform of the Nation's foreign investment vetting process became an issue last year, as we all know, when the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS, received criticism for failing to question the safety and security implications stemming from the Dubai Ports World's purchase of commercial operations of American ports.

The bipartisan legislation we have before us today makes needed changes in the CFIUS process, changes that were highlighted by the Dubai Ports deal.

It promotes executive branch accountability enforced by a requirement that the chairman and vice chairman of CFIUS sign every decision. It increases interagency coordination within CFIUS and ensures that the Director of National Intelligence does a thorough analysis of any proposed transaction without becoming part of the policy-making aspects of the review. It dramatically improves CFIUS reporting to Congress on its activities so that Congress can perform regular and much-needed oversight of the process to ensure that the CFIUS process remains vigilant, but does not unnecessarily interfere with foreign investment or discourage foreign investment.

But, Mr. Chairman, of everything I would say here today, I would like to stress that the key issues we face here today transcend the Dubai Ports deal. They transcend CFIUS. They are more important than the CFIUS process.

H.R. 556 meets our challenges by advancing three important objectives, while leaving the essential sound foundation of CFIUS intact.

The first objective of this legislation is to continue to encourage opportunities for foreign investment in our economy. The surest way to ensure America remains strong and secure is to strengthen our economy and maintain global competitiveness. While we should never underestimate the threat to U.S. interests from economic espionage or from critical technologies falling into the wrong hands, we must also recognize that discouraging foreign investment or otherwise restricting global capital flows poses a very serious threat to our economic security and prosperity as well. The welcome mat for foreign investment must be out.

In fact, last year, and we hear lots about American capital going overseas and American companies investing overseas, but last year alone, over a half a trillion, $500 billion, net inflow of foreign capital in our country, more than foreign outflows of capital.

Because of the Dubai Ports situation, we have seen a fall-off on a lot of these inflows. We talk about our deficit. We talk about the need to export more. Well, in fact, foreign investment in this country, if you took away the foreign investment in this country, the recent foreign investment, it would reduce our exports by between 15 and 20 percent. The foreign-owned companies or foreign investments have created jobs in this country which result in about one-fifth of our exports today.

Also, the majority of a lot of those companies are actually owned by Americans. The Wall Street Journal talks about a company today in an editorial that 55 percent of it is owned by Americans, a Swedish company. I believe it was a Swedish company.

The second objective of this legislation, while we want to continue to say to foreigners investment in the United States, it is a good market, America is a good investment, we also want transparency in the process when they do invest. Many Members of Congress learned of the Dubai Ports deal when they picked up the newspaper or turned on the TV. This bill will ensure that as a matter of policy that does not happen again. CFIUS keeps Congress informed, this CFIUS legislation.

Third, we need empowerment of experts best qualified to assess national security issues. To that end, this bill ensures that the Director of National Intelligence can provide important and timely input into the CFIUS process based on the most current intelligence available, and guarantees the Department of Homeland Security will be a full participant in the process.

Mr. Chairman, we moved legislation very similar to this in the last session of Congress. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) constructed that legislation, led that effort along with the former chairman of the committee, Mr. Oxley, and Ms. Pryce from Ohio, and I would like to acknowledge at this time their contributions last year. This Congress, this body, passed that legislation last year because we wanted nothing to stand in the way of people investing in our country, creating jobs here, creating capital here, and that legislation passed unanimously.

This legislation is even stronger than that legislation, and I commend Chairman Frank for having the insight and the intellect to make this one of his first priorities in the new Congress because, as we saw yesterday, when the stock market in Shanghai fell, we are in a global economy, and the worst thing that can happen in that global economy is outflows of capital from the United States. This legislation will ensure that those outflows continue to come to America to create jobs here in America.

I will comment during the manager's amendment on some important changes in this legislation that have been proposed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), which I believe greatly strengthens this legislation, but let me close simply by saying this.

Mr. Chairman, the world is a lot different than it was back in 1975 when President Ford first created CFIUS, and it is far different than 1988 when the outline of the current review process was established. Terrorism requires us to exercise increased vigilance, while the demands of the global economy necessitate that America compete aggressively for foreign investment capital.

The siren song of protectionism is one that must be resisted if we are to be serious about maintaining America's competitive standing in the world.

This bill modernizes the way CFIUS does business, ensuring that both our security and economic needs are met, but without fundamental changes which make this country a protectionist country.

The foreign markets and people wanting to invest in America are watching us today, waiting to see what we do. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the sponsors of this legislation, and I urge the Members of this body to unanimously join together and pass this legislation and send it to the other body.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio. And as I do, I would like to commend her for her leadership last year when the Dubai Ports deal came to light, in shepherding that bill through.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to simply say that as we close this debate on the main text of H.R. 556, I hope that all Members of this body recognize the benefits to our economy from the robust level of foreign investment that is coming into this country. A few minutes ago, I mentioned a company that 55 percent of it was owned by one American company, and it is Nokia, which is a Finnish company, yet 55 percent of the stock in that company is owned by American companies.

So even those foreign companies are making investments in the United States. A large percentage of those companies are American-owned. You have these foreign investments in our country, foreign-owned companies, the subsidiaries of them employ 5.5 million Americans, and the average wage for those workers is $60,000.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairman Frank for the manager's amendment. It makes a number of changes to the bill that was passed unanimously by the Financial Services Committee 2 weeks ago.

Formerly, I thanked Mr. Blunt and Ms. Pryce for their leadership on the bill. I omitted at that time to include the lady from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who obviously has been a key Member in maintaining this legislation in a proinvestment stance and ensuring that flows of capital investment are not restricted. So I thank her.

As I said, the manager's amendment makes several key changes to the legislation we passed 2 weeks ago, and they are all designed to clarify existing provisions. They are made at the suggestion, as the chairman said, of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) with the consent, cooperation, and assistance of the chairman of that committee, Chairman Skelton. They dramatically strengthen both the way CFIUS assures itself that companies are complying with mitigation agreements imposed as a condition of permitting a transaction and the way that CFIUS assures Congress that it is staying on top of compliance.

Every single one of these changes is designed to protect national security, and it is a significant strengthening of the bill for which we all can thank Mr. Hunter and Chairman Skelton.

Mr. Chairman, I urge strong support for the passage of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, during this debate we have talked about, and I think correctly so, the need to attract foreign investment. And that is one thing that we bipartisanly agree on, that it is very, very important.

There are barriers to foreign investment today, and I do believe it is appropriate in this legislation because this is the committee for foreign investment in the United States to look to see if there are not barriers to that foreign investment, which is chilling those investments that are so important for the economy. For that reason, I am supporting the gentleman's amendment.

Now, I do want to say this, not about the gentleman's amendment, and I rise to say at this time we, in the CFIUS bill as it moves forward, have got to resist the temptation to load this bill up like a Christmas tree, and I am not talking about the gentleman from Texas' legislation, because every requirement that we put on foreign investment has a tendency to alienate those making those foreign investments. And most of the time they are our allies.

In fact, even with Dubai Ports, Dubai is one of our strongest allies in the Middle East, and anyone that thinks that terminating that transaction is not without risk in the Middle East is simply naive because we took a country that welcomes our Armed Forces and is one of our strongest allies, and we basically told them, We don't trust you.

And that is a problem. Alienating one's allies, scaring away investors. And as this bill moves forward, my point is national security and foreign investment are not mutually exclusive. We can have both, but we should not use this mantra of national security to undermine our economy, whether it is through a CFIUS process that foreign investors just throw up their hands and walk away from to our detriment or through regulations over excessive taxation because this money is going to go into competitive markets.

So I think the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Massachusetts are both right in that we need to take a serious look at anything which says to foreign investors, who are basically financing our economy today, anything that is said to them that has a chilling effect on their investments.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding me this time, and I want to thank my good friend from Massachusetts, the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank, for bringing this legislation before us today.

In particular, I want to thank my colleague and friend from New York, Carolyn Maloney, who has done an outstanding job in moving this bill so quickly through the House this year, through the committee, and now to the floor. Carolyn, as myself, being from New York City, understands a number of issues as they come together here on this particular issue, that is, the need to make sure that our country is secure from the interests of terror, and, at the same time, wanting to ensure that our country is open to direct foreign investment.

Direct foreign investment is for two reasons, one, because it is good for America, it is good for New York, it is good for America. But also what we do here in the House of Representatives, and how we transform and change the CFIUS process, if we don't do it quickly and do it properly it can be reciprocated in other parts of the world against the interests of American corporations.

I also want to thank my good friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Blunt, a gentleman with whom I had an opportunity to work with last year on this very similar legislation, as well as Representative Pryce, for their hard work in ensuring that this bill came to the floor in such a fashion.

I have to harken back to last year just momentarily, and that is when we look at the overall issue of what brought this legislation to the floor right now, we have to understand the historical context that brought this legislation to the floor. What happened last year, what I call the Dubai Ports debacle, in the administration's inability to explain to the American people just what was happening and why it was in the interests of the United States to walk softly here.

But we have come a long ways since then. Last year, in a very politically contentious year, we would have passed unanimously out of committee very similar legislation as we have on the floor today and then passed unanimously out of the House that legislation, again, in a very hotly contested political year.

But this issue did not fade away because we failed to reach an agreement with the Senate last year and were never able to codify into law the CFIUS process, which was an executive order put into place in the early 1970s that has been amended several times, but never codified in a way which Mr. Frank wishes to do today, which I would certainly wholeheartedly support.

This bill is a good jobs bill, it is pro-business and it is pro- labor. That is why I want to support this bill. This bill is about keeping the flow in foreign investment coming into the United States and not driving these funds and subsequent jobs out of the United States.

But H.R. 556 includes new tough safeguards put in place to ensure the security of America first. This entire legislative initiative, which has been pursued in a bipartisan fashion, is the result of the botched handling, again, of the Dubai Ports deal. That transaction involved a government-owned company from Dubai buying into various port assets here in the United States.

As a result, a significant and appropriate focus of the committee's work has been to toughen the scrutiny for acquisition by government- owned companies, since some government-owned companies will make decisions based on government interests and not merely on commercial interests.

No job, no deal, no transaction, is worth threatening the safety of Americans, and this bill puts those conditions in place.

We all know this to be true, but, again, being from New York, it is even more true. This bill will provide strong new safeguards to ensure our Nation's security and to protect our critical infrastructure but also continues to give CFIUS the flexibility to exercise discretion, allows CFIUS to focus on the deals that raise real national security issues and not get bogged down into those deals with no national security ramifications whatsoever.

This is a good bill protecting national security, guaranteeing the continued flow of direct foreign investment in the U.S. and ensure we will not have a Dubai Ports debacle.

I therefore urge my colleagues to support this very worthy piece of legislation. Again, I want to thank the Chair of the committee, the ranking member for bringing this bill, Mr. Bachus, for bringing this bill so quickly to the floor; the gentlelady from New York, once again, Carolyn Maloney, for all of her work on this issue; my good friend, the minority whip, Mr. Blunt, for his work, as well as Representative Pryce.

This truly is a bipartisan piece of legislation and deserves every Member's support.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I, too, want to rise in opposition to my good friend from Texas's amendment, which I believe is a noble attempt to improve the legislation. I just don't think it belongs here, as the gentlewoman from New York described as well.

What you are asking for, though, that is kind of interesting, is requiring CFIUS to report on the burdens placed upon potential companies entering into the United States through direct foreign investment. Where does this end? We could have an investigation on the burdens, on the burdens, on the burdens, creating more burden for both the companies that have to be investigated, asking them to give that information to CFIUS, as well as placing additional burdens on CFIUS. As the gentlewoman has said, diverting them from the attention that they need to focus on: national security.

And as the gentleman from Massachusetts has said, what is national security? What we have thought was an issue of national security 10 years ago no longer is today, and what we think of national security today may not be an issue of national security 10 years from now. It is ever changing and in flux. But clearly, creating more burden on direct foreign investment is not helpful in this process, I really believe.

Therefore, I would ask my colleagues to reject this amendment, to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, can anyone argue that investment in the United States does not create jobs? I mean, that is what this is all about, encouraging direct foreign investment from other countries in helping to create jobs here in the United States.

How the job market is touched in some way by the CFIUS process by a loan from direct foreign investment is, I am sure, an issue that someone may have some desire to know more about, but that is not the role of CFIUS.

I will yield in a moment.

That is the role of the Commerce Department to do those kind of studies. They can do that. Let them spend the time. Let's not divert the attention of CFIUS, which is to allow for a steady stream of flow of foreign investment in the United States, and at the same time checking the national security interests of our country, making sure that state-owned businesses that are entering into foreign investment of the United States are not in some way compromising our national security, the private-owned industry that are making investments in the United States are not jeopardizing or compromising our national security. That is the role of CFIUS.

It is not for CFIUS to become the Commerce Department. They have a role to do as well. They can do studies on the implications of the CFIUS process and foreign investment and how it is affecting the growth or loss of jobs in the United States, not the role of CFIUS.

I would yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, no one is arguing that the CFIUS process and the direct foreign investment has an implication on the jobs of the United States. I am arguing that it will actually increase opportunities for jobs in the United States.

And it is not the role of CFIUS to make those investigations, that is the job of the Commerce Department.