[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 28, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H1982-H1987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     NATIONAL SECURITY FOREIGN INVESTMENT REFORM AND STRENGTHENED 
                        TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2007

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 195 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 195

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 556) to ensure national security while 
     promoting foreign investment and the creation and maintenance 
     of jobs, to reform the process by which such investments are 
     examined for any effect they may have on national security, 
     to establish the Committee on Foreign Investment in the 
     United States, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Financial Services. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now 
     printed in the bill. Each section of the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII and except pro forma amendments for the purpose 
     of debate. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by 
     the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee and 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my colleague from Washington (Mr. Hastings). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. ARCURI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 195 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 556, the National Security Foreign Investment 
Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act of 2007 under an open rule 
with a preprinting requirement. The rule provides 1 hour of general 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services.

[[Page H1983]]

  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
except for clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute reported by the Committee on 
Financial Services as an original bill for purpose of amendment, which 
shall be considered for amendment by section with each section 
considered as read.
  The rule provides that any amendment to the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute must be printed in the Congressional Record 
prior to consideration of the bill. Each amendment so printed may be 
offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee 
or her designee and shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule 
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, foreign investment creates jobs and serves as a vital 
component of our Nation's economy. However, we as a Nation cannot 
afford to sacrifice the safety and security with a foreign investment 
review process that jeopardizes American lives. Take, for instance, our 
Nation's ports, which employ thousands of Americans and handle a large 
majority of U.S.-bound cargo. New Yorkers and many of my colleagues 
take the security of these ports very, very seriously. We as a country 
cannot go halfway on port security. We must take all the necessary 
steps to ensure the safety and security of our infrastructure and, more 
importantly, our constituents.
  We took a giant step in the right direction on port security a few 
weeks ago when we approved legislation that would require screening of 
100 percent of all U.S.-bound shipping containers over the next 5 
years. And today we are taking another step by reforming and 
strengthening the interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the 
United States, also known as CFIUS, process by which the Federal 
Government reviews foreign investments in the United States for their 
national security implications.
  As a new Member of Congress, I am new to this institution, but the 
controversy surrounding the Dubai Ports scandal last year echoed far 
beyond the Washington Beltway. I, along with many of my constituents, 
was troubled by the administration's approval of a deal to allow a 
company owned by a government of the United Arab Emirates to manage 
terminal operations at six major U.S. ports. It was clear that the 
administration dropped the ball and that the national security review 
process for foreign investments had failed.
  The National Security FIRST Act would significantly reform the 
foreign investment review process so that we never have another Dubai 
debacle, by ensuring that the proper steps are taken to keep our ports, 
our cities, and our citizens safe and secure. The National Security 
FIRST Act also requires the interagency Committee on Foreign Investment 
in the United States to conduct a 30-day review of any national 
security-related business transaction. After a 30-day review is 
conducted, it would be required to conduct a full-scale, 45-day 
investigation of the effects the business transaction would have on 
national security, if deemed necessary.
  In addition, the legislation requires the committee to file semi-
annual reports to Congress, keeping the American people informed and 
shedding some much-needed sunlight and transparency on foreign 
investments in the U.S. infrastructure that could have potentially 
devastating consequences to our security and our citizens.
  And while the legislation strengthens and reforms the process, it 
also allows the critical flow of foreign investment into the United 
States economy to continue, which is critical if we are going to 
successfully compete with the rest of the world in this age of 
globalization.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, most Americans, including 
some Members of Congress, had never heard of the Committee on Foreign 
Investment in the United States, that is, until the proposed purchase 
of commercial operations of six U.S. ports by the Dubai Ports World, a 
company controlled by the United Arab Emirates.
  After reviewing the way in which the Committee on Foreign Investment 
in the United States operates, it became clear that we must revamp the 
process by which foreign investments are examined for any effect that 
they may have on national security. The House acted and passed 
legislation last year, but, unfortunately, differences with the Senate 
were not resolved. That is why we are here again today to consider the 
bipartisan National Security FIRST Act, of which I am proud to be a 
cosponsor.
  I would like to take this opportunity to thank my friends on the 
majority for bringing to the floor a bill that mirrors legislation 
championed in the last Congress by Republican whip Mr. Blunt, the 
National Security FIRST Act, which passed the U.S. House of 
Representatives by a unanimous vote last year of 424-0.
  This underlying bill would for the first time establish in law the 
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which is 
currently a creation of a 1975 executive order. It would require the 
committee to increase its scrutiny of foreign acquisitions of U.S. 
assets whenever the transactions involve firms owned by foreign 
governments. The bill would also enhance congressional oversight of the 
committee by ensuring that leaders of both parties in Congress are 
briefed on investigative results before the committee completes its 
reviews of the takeover bids.
  Following the tragedy of September 11, 2001, protecting our homeland 
must be a top priority for Congress. We face no greater challenge than 
protecting Americans from an enemy without borders that we all know is 
determined to destroy our Nation by any means necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we act to revise and review the 
investigative process for foreign investment activities that may affect 
our national security. In the wake of the Dubai Ports World 
controversy, the current foreign investment process lacks confidence, 
predictability, and reliability, trademarks, I might say, of the U.S. 
securities markets.
  The underlying bill, the National Security FIRST Act, restores 
confidence, predictability, and reliability while continuing to 
encourage foreign investments and preserve the over 5 million American 
jobs that foreign investment supports in the United States.
  In my home State of Washington, Mr. Speaker, U.S. subsidiaries of 
foreign companies play a vital role in supporting jobs, employing over 
83,000 Washingtonians. This bill has been carefully balanced so as not 
to discourage these important investments.
  I urge my colleagues to support this open rule, and I hope this will 
not be the last open rule that we have providing for consideration of 
legislation impacting our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the chairman of Financial 
Services.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Rules 
Committee's complying with our preference for this rule, which allows 
any amendments to be offered that are germane.
  And I just want to touch a little bit on a discussion we had in the 
Rules Committee yesterday about whether or not it makes any sense to 
have an open rule. There were a couple Members, one in particular, who 
said, This is no big deal because, after all, this bill passed last 
year overwhelmingly and it could have been done on suspension. And the 
argument that it is an equivalent to pass a bill on a suspension and to 
give it an open rule if it is likely to pass by an overwhelming 
majority is deeply flawed and misunderstands the legislative process, 
and I want to make sure that people have addressed this.
  The important question on a bill may not be ``yes'' or ``no.'' There 
is a large number of bills that are going to pass. There are bills that 
are going to pass because politically they are perceived as impossible 
to oppose. There are bills

[[Page H1984]]

that achieve a purpose that everyone is for. In many cases, and it 
would appear to be the case with this bill, the important question is 
not whether or not it passes but in what form. That is, the amending 
process has a relevance and an importance, whether or not the bill is 
ultimately going to pass. And when you rely, as it was suggested 
yesterday that we should, on a suspension, as long as we know the bill 
is going to pass because, as Members understand, a suspension does not 
allow for the amendment process, then you are constricting the ability 
of Members to legislate sensibly.
  The question is not just ``yes'' or ``no.'' That, as I said, is a 
denigration of the legislative process. And having an open rule, as 
opposed to a suspension, means a number of amendments are offered. I am 
opposing many of the amendments, as are my colleagues on the other 
side. I am not opposing all of the amendments. Even where an amendment 
is defeated, remember, our purpose is not simply to stamp out an end 
result. It is to participate in the democratic process of discussion 
and debate. The process is diminished when a bill that is important is 
given only 40 minutes with no amendments because it is 
noncontroversial. We will talk for more than 40 minutes today. We will 
have some amendments.
  So I hope this will stand, this process today, as a repudiation of 
the notion that it is an equivalent to pass a bill under suspension of 
the rules, with no amendments and only 40 minutes of debate, and to go 
through this process of an open rule. Even though I expect this bill to 
pass overwhelmingly, as it passed last year, this House, this country, 
this democratic process benefit. And, of course, it is just one bill.
  As a general rule, I would hope that we would not use the suspension 
process for bills that are complex where Members might have some 
difference of view not as to whether or not the bill should pass, but 
in what form it should pass. This process today, I think, will show the 
superiority of the choice we are making under the current leadership of 
the Congress to go ahead with a more open debate than last year when 
the question was simply can we get the votes to pass, and if so, let's 
shut down the debate and shut down the amendment process. That is ill-
served democracy. Today is a much better way, and I thank the Rules 
Committee for it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
from Massachusetts for making his remarks. For a minute I thought he 
was making an argument about the debate we had last week regarding the 
Iraq resolution where we were asking for an open debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 556. This 
bill strikes the correct balance between the need to increase foreign 
direct investment and national security.
  Let me first make clear that I am a strong supporter of foreign 
direct investment, which represents the insourcing of capital and local 
jobs to America. The congressional district that I am pleased to 
represent has had several manufacturing facilities that have benefited, 
and some have been saved as a direct result of foreign direct 
investment. This includes investment from businesses located in Great 
Britain, Sweden, Canada, Israel, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, 
Switzerland, Japan, Brazil and Italy. Even a Chinese enterprise bought 
a nonsecurity-sensitive manufacturing facility in my congressional 
district at a time when no other financing was available.
  These investments have been critical for saving and creating jobs in 
the 16th District of Illinois. While I very much am interested in 
maintaining full foreign direct investments, I recognize it is 
important for our national security to regulate the types of businesses 
that receive such investment.
  The bill before us ensures us that the Committee on Foreign 
Investments in the United States, known as CFIUS, will conduct an 
extended review when a foreign government tries to purchase a company 
within the United States. The bill also mandates greater transparency 
by ensuring that Congress is informed of a CFIUS investigation in a 
timely manner.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and in favor 
of final passage.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman, my 
colleague from the Rules Committee, Ms. Sutton.
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 556, the National Security 
FIRST Act, and I believe this bill is a good example of how we can 
ensure our Nation's security and still encourage foreign investment to 
help create and maintain jobs.
  While I didn't have the honor to serve in the last Congress, I can 
tell you that the Dubai Ports World deal was not well received in 
northeast Ohio. Myself, and many of our constituents, wondered how such 
a concerning deal could have been approved. The answer was that there 
was little accountability, oversight and transparency with the way the 
Committee on Foreign Investment and the United States, or CFIUS, 
worked. The DPW deal was so concerning to this Congress last year, as 
has been mentioned, that legislation very similar to that which we are 
passing today passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 424-0. H.R. 556 
ensures that these matters are addressed and gives both the 
administration and Congress greater responsibilities for dealing with 
foreign investment in our Nation.
  We can have oversight, accountability and transparency and still 
support American businesses and workers. That is the lesson of this 
bill. This bill enjoys broad support, including the Chamber of 
Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and other business 
organizations. This bill represents another bipartisan success. I am 
pleased to support it, and I encourage its passage to ensure our 
national security.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the distinguished Republican Conference chairman, Mr. Putnam 
of Florida.
  Mr. PUTNAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I thank my 
former colleagues on the Rules Committee for bringing to the floor the 
second open rule of the year. I think that it yields better policy when 
all of us work together and hash things out on the floor and can move 
forward with something that is productive for the entire Nation.
  The virtues of this legislation are well known to Members on both 
sides of the aisle. The bill brings much needed clarity and oversight 
to the insourcing process. More importantly, it applies a post-9/11 
mindset to a pre-9/11 infrastructure.
  It was about a year ago at this time that Dubai Ports World's 
acquisition of a stake in our ports became a very hot topic around 
America. When we discovered the DP World transaction, we reacted as 
strongly as we did not only because of the potential imminent threat 
being posed to our security, but because the deal was so far along in 
the process before it came to light. So we acted in the last Congress 
to pass a substantially similar bill to what we are considering today, 
giving CFIUS the authority necessary to review legitimate foreign 
transactions. The Republican bill considered last year passed the House 
unanimously, again, a bipartisan product, on an issue important both to 
national security and the national economy.
  Here we are a year later with the benefit of hindsight, but our 
charge remains the same, to establish that balance between the momentum 
of the global market and the needs of our national and homeland 
security. Our ports remain an important example of why this 
legislation, which involves all foreign transactions, is so critical. 
The worldwide shipping industry sends to our shores over 9 million 
shipping containers each year. These containers are transported on 
megaships that can deliver 3,000 containers at a time. And at the same 
time our ports are critical to keeping our economy competitive in a 
global marketplace. These 9 million containers account for a whopping 
95 percent of our imports by weight, and 75 percent by value.
  Keeping foreign transactions secure is our first priority, and this 
legislation is a very important start because we must put in place an 
interagency

[[Page H1985]]

review process that is comprehensive without being counterproductive.
  This bill should not be the launching point for legislative 
micromanagement of foreign transactions. Unnecessary bureaucracy will 
certainly deter foreign companies from investing their resources here, 
which is precisely what we want to be, a magnet for investment from 
around the world.
  And there is a danger of politicizing the foreign investment process. 
There is clearly a difference between a transaction that runs contrary 
to an individual's parochial priorities as opposed to one that 
conflicts with this body's national priorities. And we must, again, be 
careful not to send the wrong message to the world's investors that 
America is closed for business. Our citizens, also, should be aware 
that our national security is not for sale.
  This bill should become law without delay. It strengthens our 
national security, while recognizing our role, America's role, in a 
global market. If we are diligent in seeing these reforms through, we 
can have both safer transactions and a stronger economy.
  I thank all of the authors and the sponsors of the bill and the work 
that has gone into this.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him so much for his leadership on this bill and so many other 
important issues to our State and country.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for National Security FIRST, 
the underlying bill, and in strong support for the open rule that is 
before us.
  Democrats have pledged a return to democracy on the floor of the 
House of Representatives with an open rule process, and I am very happy 
to support that pledge with a debate on my bill, H.R. 556.
  As Congressman Dreier said last night in the Rules Committee, he said 
that this doubles the amount of times the Republicans allowed for an 
open rule on a legislative bill in the last Congress; of course this is 
legislative bills, not appropriations bills. And even though this bill 
has strong bipartisan support, we did get several amendments last 
night.
  I appreciate deeply that Chairman Frank supported and called for an 
open rule, and that in addition he asked for and obtained a preprinting 
requirement, since the bill is complicated, and Members on both sides 
of the aisle need to have time to read the amendments and put them in 
context.
  This is the second time this bill has come to the floor. It passed 
overwhelmingly last year, 421-0, and it is a sound bill that 
strengthens national security, while encouraging safe foreign 
investment that helps create American jobs.
  I hope and expect that the bipartisan effort that got this bill 
passed in the last Congress will be here today, and I believe that this 
open rule reflects the spirit of our bipartisan work.
  I would just like to point out that a year has passed since the Dubai 
World's fiasco, the scandal, and if you had told me that it would take 
a year to pass this bill, I would not have believed it. And I think my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle share this sense of urgency to 
get this bill done. I am deeply grateful for their support. This is not 
a political issue; it deserves strong bipartisan support. Nothing is 
more important than our national security, our homeland security and 
promoting American jobs.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as 
much time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the 
Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of California.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  I have to say, as I listen to my good friend from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney), who has worked long and hard on this, it didn't take a year 
for us to pass this measure through the House of Representatives; it 
passed, as the gentlewoman said, by a vote of 421-0 in the last 
Congress, and that was in response to the DPW deal, which obviously 
raised a number of concerns from a number of people in this 
institution.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a Republican bill, which, as the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Financial Services pointed out in the 
Rules Committee last night, enjoys strong bipartisan support, and it 
enjoys the kind of support that motherhood and apple pie enjoy. There 
is no controversy to this bill whatsoever. And I am very proud of the 
fact, as the gentlewoman from New York said, that we are now, by 
passing an open rule for the second time in the 110th Congress, 
doubling the record that we had in the 109th Congress when it came to 
open rules. But the true test will come when we are dealing with a 
controversial issue that does not enjoy strong bipartisan support. That 
is where this Madisonian vision of a clash of ideas is very important, 
Mr. Speaker.
  And so I hope very much that as we bring measures, both of which in 
the 110th Congress were passed by unanimous votes in the 109th 
Congress, to the floor, and we are very proud of the fact that they are 
being considered on an open rule, I hope very much that we will do 
everything that we possibly can to ensure that debates like the one 
that we had 2 weeks ago on the issue of Iraq are considered under a 
process that will allow maybe a chance for the minority to consider a 
substitute, or a process that would, again, bring that clash of ideas, 
because it is very clear there was complete agreement on the fuels bill 
that we dealt with 2 weeks ago under an open rule, extraordinarily 
strong bipartisan support. There is complete agreement on the goal of 
CFIUS reform. Yes, we know that 12 amendments were filed by seven 
Members last night that will be considered here on the House floor 
under this open amendment process, but at the end of the day, 
Republicans and Democrats will come together in support of this.
  The true test, Mr. Speaker, will be whether or not we take up a 
measure where there is strong, vigorous disagreement on the part of our 
Members. But I will say that we need to recognize that the two most 
important issues that we face as Members of this institution are the 
issues of, first and foremost, our national security; and, second, 
ensuring that we create economic opportunity for all Americans and 
maintain the strong, bold, dynamic growth that we have in our economy.
  This measure that we are addressing today actually addresses both 
issues, Mr. Speaker. It will strengthen the process by which our 
national security stakeholders in the administration, from the Defense 
Department to the National Security Agency, review and investigate 
foreign investors in the U.S. economy. It focuses in particular on 
those companies that are controlled by foreign governments or are based 
in countries that support terrorism. These are commonsense reforms that 
again enjoy strong bipartisan support that will provide an adequate 
level of scrutiny to ensure that no investment poses a national 
security threat to our interests. However, it also ensures a process 
that, while thorough, is not prohibitive. This legislation is a 
reflection of the need for a review process that does not close us off 
to the vital foreign investment that is a major source of our economic 
strength.
  I again praise the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Financial 
Services who last night in the Rules Committee talked about the 
importance of foreign direct investment. FDI is very important to us, 
and if we look at our economic growth, there is a strong, strong 
reliance that we have had. Because economic security underpins national 
security, it is absolutely imperative that we work to ensure that our 
economy remains the world's best place to invest and do business.
  Mr. Speaker, let me provide some numbers that not everyone is 
familiar with. Foreign companies currently employ 5.3 million Americans 
here in the United States. We just got the report of this Toyota plant 
that is going to be opening in Tupelo, Mississippi. It is important to 
note that those foreign investors who employ 5.3 million Americans 
actually pay wage rates that are 50 percent higher than the average 
wage paid here in the United States. Companies like Toyota, Siemens, 
Novartis come to the United States in order to tap into our powerful 
market, innovative environment and superior workforce. In the process, 
they generate greater economic activity, create high-paying jobs and 
improve our

[[Page H1986]]

standard of living. And we have enjoyed these benefits, Mr. Speaker, 
because of the openness, strength and dynamism of the U.S. economy.
  As we debate the need for national security reforms to our review 
process, we must recognize that to close off our economy to the world's 
investors would be to close ourselves off to the prosperity and 
opportunities that we have long enjoyed as the world's best investment. 
We cannot lose sight of the fact that we have prospered not in spite 
of, but because of our Nation's openness.
  I believe that this bill charts a smart path that preserves both 
national security and our ability to attract investment and grow our 
economy. My colleagues, as I said, all agree with me. We have been 
through this process before, as I said, in the 109th Congress.

                              {time}  1100

  The bill that was passed in the last Congress was sponsored by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished minority whip, 
and this legislation which is virtually identical to the bill we are 
considering today, was considered by an overwhelming unanimous 
bipartisan vote.
  Personally, I would very much like to see these good, well-crafted 
utterly noncontroversial bills where they belong, and that is on the 
suspension calendar where we passed it quickly and expeditiously in the 
last Congress.
  But the fact of the matter is we are where we are, Mr. Speaker. It is 
important for us to recognize our priorities of national security, 
number one; and, number two, our economic strength and making sure that 
we expand that economic growth.
  I urge support of this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear the 
flaws in the reasoning we have just heard.
  Equating a suspension of the rules procedure which allows only 40 
minutes of debate and no amendments with an open rule simply because 
the final bill will get a large vote misunderstands, indeed, denigrates 
the democratic process.
  The gentleman says this belongs on the suspension calendar. There are 
amendments offered, some I will support and will improve the bill; 
others that will not. But for one thing, why only 20 minutes of debate 
on each side on an important issue. When the gentleman says 
noncontroversial bills belong on the suspension calendar, he 
undervalues the process of debate and amendment. Very often the 
questions are not whether the bill will pass ultimately or not, but in 
what form. And let us be very clear, the suspension calendar eliminates 
amendments.
  To say because a bill can ultimately pass with a large majority 
Members should not be given a chance on the floor to alter it or amend 
it seems to me to denigrate the process.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply argue that the need for us to 
consider measures under an open amendment process is something I 
support. I am standing here in support of this open rule. I also would 
like to say that the argument for us to come forward and debate issues 
here on the floor is very important. The issue of Iraq was considered 
under an open rule.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am reclaiming my time because the 
gentleman is evading the point he made. He is the one who said this 
should be suspension. He is the one who said suspension is where, if it 
is going to pass by a lot in the end, you don't need an open rule you 
can have suspension. He said we should put these noncontroversial bills 
back on the suspension calendar.
  There are two separate sets of bills. There are bills that are going 
to be controversial in the end that you have to debate, and there are 
also bills that are controversial in part.
  As far as the committee I chair is concerned, unlike the practice 
under the gentleman's chairmanship of the Rules Committee, we will be 
bringing out the bills from our committee that are controversial in all 
aspects open to amendment if I have anything to say about it, and I 
will fight for that. But that doesn't mean that you go for suspension 
and no amendments.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 
bringing this National Security FIRST Act under an open rule today.
  As we move forward, Mr. Speaker, when we have important bills, and I 
am glad to hear my friend from Massachusetts say if there are 
controversial bills that come out of his committee, if he has anything 
to say, he will ask for an open process. I think that is good, and I 
commend him for that. I would hope as we move forward with bills 
regarding national security, health care and education, as they are 
brought to the Rules Committee and to the floor, I hope that all 
Members will be able to offer input and shape legislation through an 
open process.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would just say to the gentleman that I 
intend to make the same request for openness this year from our 
committee that I did last year when he was in the majority. I am hoping 
for a better result this time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The gentleman, I remember, I am sure he 
was part of the majority that when the process was closed, there was a 
great deal of outrage. I would hope, I would hope that if there is a 
more closed process under a new majority that there would be similar 
outrage from the gentleman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would continue to yield, 
I am talking about the last year when the gentleman was on the Rules 
Committee and when the committee I was on brought forward amendments to 
the Rules Committee and offered amendments, the Rules Committee 
wouldn't allow us to vote on them on the floor.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, I would just remind 
my friend that when that happened last year, which is acknowledged on 
our side, that there was a bit of outrage on your side. I am simply 
saying I would hope as we move forward and you ask for the same 
consideration as you asked last year, but say it was denied, I hope 
that there will be the same outrage on your side if you are denied an 
open process. That is all I am saying. I am looking prospective. That 
is all I am saying.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I am hoping for votes, not outrage.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, last night during the debate in the Rules Committee, 
some questions were raised as to the appropriateness of an open rule as 
opposed to bringing this bill under a suspension of the rules.
  I think that question was answered clearly in that 12 amendments were 
filed on the bill, three by Democrats and nine by Republicans. I think 
that question was clearly answered, an open rule is preferable and 
there are amendments filed.
  Protecting the safety and security of Americans is without question 
our top priority as Members of this institution. It is overwhelmingly 
clear that the current process is in place for the Federal Government 
to review foreign investment is broken.
  The National Security FIRST Act will provide the necessary reforms to 
the process and keep our infrastructure, our cities, and most 
importantly, our constituents safe and secure.
  It will also ensure that a debacle like the one that occurred last 
year at Dubai Ports does not happen again, while still continuing to 
encourage the very important foreign investment in our economy here in 
this country. I would strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, and the 
previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                             General Leave

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that

[[Page H1987]]

all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks on H.R. 556, and insert into the Record extraneous 
material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________