[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.
____________________