[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 28, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H1987-H2010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL SECURITY FOREIGN INVESTMENT REFORM AND STRENGTHENED
TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Arcuri). Pursuant to House Resolution
195 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 556.
{time} 1109
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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, with Mr.
Pastor in the Chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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.
{time} 1115
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. BACHUS. 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
[[Page H1988]]
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. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. 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
[[Page H1989]]
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.
{time} 1130
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
[[Page H1990]]
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. BACHUS. 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.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate our ranking member
yielding the time. And I want to thank Chairman Frank and Ranking
Member Bachus for making this bill a priority in this new Congress. I
want to especially thank Chairman Frank for assuring that the goodwill
and the hard work that went into this bill in the last Congress has not
gone to waste. And I want to thank my good friend, Carolyn Maloney, for
this is not the first bill that we have worked on nor will it be the
last.
The National Security FIRST Act is not a compromise between Democrats
and Republicans, it is a product of bipartisan consensus. We often pay
lip service to bipartisanship in this Chamber, but today we have a
chance to pass a sincerely bipartisan product.
Americans were appalled by the Dubai Ports fiasco, as they should
have been. And the answer to the Dubai Ports problem could have been an
overreacting, overreaching, protectionist response.
It is often joked that legislative bodies do two things well: Nothing
and overreact. But that is not the case here. Instead, this legislation
puts national security first, while not sacrificing job creation and
important relationships with our trading partners. America is a good
investment. The National Security FIRST Act makes important changes to
CFIUS. Responsibility is restored by requiring the chairman and the
vice chairman of CFIUS to put their signature on every deal. A formal
intelligence assessment must be conducted for every transaction. CFIUS
must be accountable to Congress through committee notification of
individual deals and an annual report on every CFIUS transaction.
Investors in the United States deserve certainty that the process by
which deals are reviewed is objective, thorough, and straightforward.
This bill ensures that we continue to protect the United States'
national and economic security while promoting beneficial foreign
investment.
Mr. Chairman, in my State of Ohio, a State admittedly struggling to
keep our manufacturing jobs, international employers provide jobs for
more than 200,000 of us. We have seen the benefits of open markets and
foreign investment. Honda Motor Corporation's capital investment alone
topped $6.3 billion during its time in our State. Honda's North
American plants purchased more than $6.5 billion in parts from 150
different Ohio suppliers in 2005 alone.
H.R. 556 clearly outlines an objective review process that will
encourage future investment in Ohio and elsewhere, just like the Honda
investment, and will help protect American companies from possible
retaliatory measures by other countries. But, most importantly, the
American people can feel confident that this legislation institutes the
oversights and protections needed to determine if a foreign investment
transaction is really in the best interests of the United States'
national security and the safety of our citizens.
I want to thank once again Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, Ms.
Maloney, our whip Mr. Blunt, Representative Crowley, and everyone who
worked so hard on this issue. I urge support for a clean bill.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. BACHUS. 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. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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.
[[Page H1991]]
____
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC, February 23, 2007.
Hon. Tom Lantos,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter concerning
H.R. 556, the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and
Strengthened Transparency Act of 2007. This bill was
introduced on January 18, 2007, and was referred to the
Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the
Committees on Foreign Affairs and Energy and Commerce. The
bill was ordered reported by the Committee on Financial
Services on February 13, 2007. It is my expectation that this
bill will be scheduled for floor consideration in the near
future.
I recognize that certain provisions in the bill fall within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs under
Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. However,
I appreciate your willingness to forego action on H.R. 556 in
order to allow the bill to come to the floor expeditiously. I
agree that your decision will not prejudice the Committee on
Foreign Affairs with respect to its jurisdictional
prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I would support
your request for conferees on those provisions within your
jurisdiction should this bill be the subject of a House-
Senate conference.
I will include this exchange of correspondence in the
Committee report and in Congressional Record when this bill
is considered by the House. Thank you again for your
cooperation in this important matter.
Yours truly,
Barney Frank,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, February 27, 2007.
Hon. Barney Frank,
Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write with regard to H.R. 556,
legislation to overhaul the process for reviewing foreign
investment in the United States, which was reported favorably
by your Committee on February 13, 2007.
As you know, the Committee on Energy and Commerce received
a referral of the bill. The bill concerns section 721 of the
Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170). The
Committee, together with the Senate Committee on Commerce,
wrote that section, which is the so-called ``Exon-Florio
Amendment'' to the Act. (See section 5021 of Public Law 100-
418; 102 Stat. 1425.) Additionally, the bill concerns the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
(``CFIUS''). The membership of CFIUS includes the Secretaries
of Commerce and Energy. The Secretary of Commerce is a vice
chair of CFIUS. CFIUS's annual report will also be directed
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Department
of Commerce must be consulted on the study of foreign
investment in critical infrastructure and industries
affecting national security.
I have reviewed the manager's amendment that was approved
by your Committee. In general, I support the passage of the
bill with that amendment. I will not hold a markup of the
bill in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, notwithstanding
the Committee's strong jurisdictional and policy interests,
because it is my understanding that you agree with me on the
following:
(1) The term ``national security'' should not be defined in
the statute. The term is meant to encompass a wide variety of
circumstances, as indicated by the origins of the Exon-Florio
amendment.
(2) The decision to remove from the bill the requirement of
Inspector General reports should be reconsidered. The
Committee on Energy and Commerce has always found IG reports
to be very effective tools for accountability and oversight.
The bill's requirement of annual reports, while important for
the purpose that they serve, are not an adequate substitute.
The Dubai Ports deal, GAO's critical report, and CFIUS's
failure to file required quadrennial reports, as well as the
multi-agency and department structure of CFIUS, argues in
favor of having an independent entity conduct performance and
systems audits and evaluations in order to identify problems
quickly and efficiently.
(3) The inaction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
with respect to the bill does not in any way serve as a
jurisdictional precedent as to our two Committees.
In the main, I applaud the work that your Committee has
done on this bill. I request that you send me a letter
confirming our agreement and that, as part of the
consideration of the bill on the House floor, you insert our
exchange of letters in the Congressional Record. If you wish
to discuss this matter further, please contact me or have
your staff contact Consuela Washington, Chief Counsel/
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, at extension 5-2927.
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC, February 28, 2007.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter concerning
H.R. 556, the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and
Strengthened Transparency Act of 2007. This bill was
introduced on January 18, 2007, and was referred to the
Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the
Committees on Foreign Affairs and Energy and Commerce. The
bill was ordered reported by the Committee on Financial
Services on February 13, 2007. The bill is scheduled for
floor consideration on February 28th.
I appreciate your input on this bill and am pleased to
confirm our agreement on this bill. I recognize that certain
provisions in the bill fall within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce under Rule X of the Rules of
the House of Representatives. However, I appreciate your
willingness to forego action on H.R. 556 in order to allow
the bill to come to the floor expeditiously. I agree that
your decision will not prejudice the Committee on Energy and
Commerce with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on
this or similar legislation. I agree that the term ``national
security'' should not be defined in the statute and I will
offer an amendment re-instating the Inspector General
reporting requirement as previously discussed.
I will include this exchange of correspondence in the
Congressional Record when this bill is considered by the
House. Thank you again for your cooperation in this important
matter.
Sincerely,
Barney Frank,
Chairman.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 556 the
National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthening
Transparency Act of 2007. I want more foreign investment in America,
not less, but I do not want the kind that threatens our security. CFIUS
exists to make the distinction, and we need to know that it's doing a
good job.
We don't automatically fear foreign investors here in America. The
money provided by foreign investors creates jobs, growth and
opportunity here at home. I just want to ensure the investment we
attract does not jeopardize national security.
H.R. 556 provides consistent criteria with appropriate discretion and
will improve the review process without impairing our ability to
attract significant and needed foreign investment.
Mr. Chairman, I fully support the legislation before us. Importantly,
it provides for mandatory review of foreign-government controlled
transactions and any transaction that affects national security.
Additionally, it provides clear and consistent review criteria for all
other commercial investments, it adds the Secretary of Energy to the
Committee, and it makes the Secretary of Commerce a co-vice chair of
the Committee. Most important, it adds transparency in the process for
Congressional oversight and establishes new reporting requirements many
of us feel are essential to this process.
I support H.R. 556 and urge my colleagues to approve the measure.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the House is considering
this measure today, and I intend to vote for it.
According to the Congressional Research Service, in 2005, direct
foreign investment in the U.S. totaled some $109 billion. By year-end
2004, the latest year for which detailed data are available, foreign
firms employed 5.6 million Americans (just under 4% of the U.S.
civilian labor force) and owned over 30 thousand individual business
establishments. While the impact of foreign investment on our economy
is generally positive, last year we saw how inadequate monitoring of
the foreign investment process can produce threats to our security.
It was just over a year ago that we learned from media reports that
the Bush administration had quietly approved the sale of an American
port operations company to Dubai Ports World (DPW), an entity owned by
the government of the United Arab Emirates. The deal was approved by a
little-known government entity, the Committee on Foreign Investment in
the United States, or CFIUS for short. CFIUS was created by President
Ford in 1975 via executive order in response to Congressional concerns
over OPEC's investment activities in the United States.
In the DPW case, we subsequently learned that at least some elements
of the intelligence community had expressed concerns about the security
implications of the DPW transaction. In Congress, we were concerned
that CFIUS had ignored or downplayed any potential security issues
surrounding the transaction. We were told that DPW is well run and
efficient. That may be, but there was good reason for concern.
The UAE, which owned and controlled the acquiring company in this
case, had previously been identified as a key transfer point for
shipments of nuclear components that were sent to Iran, North Korea,
and Libya, which were sold by Pakistan's nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan.
In addition, the UAE was one of only 3 countries (including Pakistan
and Saudi Arabia) to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government
of Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE
nationals (Fayez Banihamrnad and Marwan al-Shehhi), and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation had previously claimed the money used for the
attacks was
[[Page H1992]]
transferred to the 9/11 hijackers primarily through the UAE's banking
system. Furthermore, after the 9/11 attacks, the Department of Commerce
complained of a lack of cooperation by the UAE and other Arab countries
as the U.S. was trying to track down Osama bin Laden's bank accounts.
The Bush administration initially denied there were any such security
concerns surrounding the DPW deal, so I worked to get a portion of the
United States Coast Guard intelligence estimate declassified so the
public would know the truth. The Coast Guard finally provided me with
the declassified executive summary on May 25, 2006, and I want to make
sure my colleagues and the public are aware of what this assessment
says.
While the USCG assessment stated that the DPW deal posed no
``immediate'' threat to the United States, it also stated that the deal
``could also provide a potential vector for Dubai-based terrorists to
enter the United States, exploiting the port facilities in the same way
that other terrorists have exploited individual shipping companies.''
I note for the record that I spent three months pressing Coast Guard
officials to declassify this single page. Congress should not have to
haggle with the executive branch to get intelligence assessments on
potential security threats to our people in a manner that protects
intelligence sources and methods. The bill before us contains changes
in the law governing CFIUS that should help prevent a repeat of the
Dubai Ports World fiasco, particularly with regards to intelligence
assessments and Congressional notification.
Specifically, the bill before us requires a mandatory 45-day
investigation for all acquisitions involving foreign governments, to
include a requirement that the Director of National Intelligence play a
direct role in evaluating the national security implications of such
acquisitions. The bill also requires automatic notification of Congress
within five days after the conclusion of each investigation. Finally,
the bill requires the Secretaries or Deputy Secretaries of the
Departments of Treasury and Homeland Security to personally approve
such transactions. These are common sense reforms of the CFIUS process
that are long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting
for this important legislation.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 556, the
National Security FIRST Act. I would like to thank the Chairman of the
Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank, for his efforts in making this
legislation one of the committee's first priorities. I would also like
to commend my colleague from New York, Mrs. Maloney, for sponsoring
this important legislation.
Mr. Chairman, it's been a year since the Bush administration thought
it would be a good idea to hand over commercial operations of six of
our nation's ports to the government of Dubai--a country that the 9/11
Commission report named as a source of terrorist financing and which
two of the 9/11 hijackers called home. We have since learned that,
during the review process undertaken by the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, administration officials did
not perform a required thorough investigation of the deal to a
satisfactory level and chose not to require Dubai Ports World to follow
certain security conditions at some of the busiest ports in the
country--over 4 years after 9/11.
Mr. Chairman, the Dubai Ports World debacle was a paragon of
bureaucratic ineptitude and the shining example of why this legislation
is needed. Even those who believe that DPW should currently be
administering our nation's ports must concede that the process is
broken.
The CFIUS process needs more transparency, better oversight and
increased fail-safes to ensure that the administration doesn't next
absent-mindedly sell our nation's airports to Iran Airports World.
This bill mandates that any proposed deal that involves an entity
owned by a foreign government trigger an automatic--and thorough--CFIUS
review. To be clear, this legislation does not increase barriers for
foreign governments interested in investing in the United States--H.R.
556 merely puts in place necessary safeguards to ensure that
investments in the United States do not threaten our national security.
This legislation also requires that the Securities of Treasury and
Homeland Security, or their Deputy Secretaries or Under Secretaries,
sign off on all deals before they are completed. We now know that,
during the review of the Dubai Ports World deal, low-level bureaucrats
approved the transaction without the knowledge of the relevant Cabinet
members. By mandating that the under-secretary level is the lowest
level authorized to approve these transactions, we will build another
fail-safe into the CFIUS process, and, perhaps more importantly, we
will put in place a system of accountability, rather than one of
finger-pointing.
Mr. Chairman, this is a vitally important piece of legislation, which
passed unanimously in the last Congress. I ask my colleagues to once
again support this important national security measure.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 556, I am pleased the
new majority is moving quickly to consider this legislation, which
passed the House in the last Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan
vote. This legislation would require that all transactions involving
foreign state-owned companies be automatically subject to a full 45-day
investigation.
Last year, the attempt by Dubai Ports World (DP World), a port
operations company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates
(UAE), to purchase operating terminals at six U.S. ports was a clear
indicator we must reform the CFIUS process.
Whenever a foreign investment affects homeland security, it deserves
greater scrutiny. It seems to me, this legislation strikes the proper
balance between strengthening our economy and protecting the American
people.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 556, the
National Security FIRST Act, introduced by the Gentlelady from New
York, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney.
A year ago, a secretive committee at the Treasury Department that
most Americans had never heard of approved a transaction to give a
company owned by the United Arab Emirates control over terminal
operations at 6 major U.S. ports.
The decision by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United
States--or CFIUS--to approve this purchase by Dubai Ports World shined
a bright light on an obscure committee and the process it uses to make
decisions that can have important consequences for the security of our
country.
Clearly, the Dubai Ports World transaction did not receive the
scrutiny it deserved. The 9/11 Commission had identified the government
of the UAE--the same entity that would own the terminals at major U.S.
ports--as a ``persistent counterterrorism problem''. Two of the 9/11
hijackers were from the UAE. The 9/11 Commission concluded that the UAE
banking system was used as a conduit for funds for the September 11th
attacks.
Moreover, the UAE was a key transfer point for illegal shipments of
nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya. The UAE was one of
only three nations to recognize the legitimacy of the Taliban
government and still does not recognize the State of Israel.
Despite all of these warning signs, the proposed port deal did not
even lead the Bush Administration to conduct a 45-day investigation,
which is provided in current law and should have been interpreted as
being mandatory when foreign governments--whether involving the UAE,
the UK, the Ukraine or any other nation--seek mergers, acquisitions or
similar transactions that could affect U.S. national security.
Public outrage ultimately sunk the Dubai deal. Last March, Dubai
Ports World agreed to divest itself of the U.S. port operations
involved in the transaction, and AIG purchased these assets earlier
this month.
I commend Congresswoman Maloney for crafting this strong legislation.
It closes the loopholes that had, unbelievably, allowed commerce to
trump commonsense. Specifically, this bill requires that a transaction
involving foreign governments receive extra scrutiny by mandating that
the chairman and vice-chairman of CFIUS certify that the transaction
poses no national security threat or the transaction must be subjected
to a second-stage 45-day national security investigation; ensures that
senior level officials are held accountable for CFIUS decisions by
requiring that the chairman and vice chairman of CFIUS approve all
transactions where CFIUS consideration is completed within the 30-day
review period and mandating that the president approve all transactions
that have been subjected to the second-stage 45-day national security
investigation; and provides for much-needed congressional oversight by
requiring CFIUS to report to the congressional committees of
jurisdiction within five days after the final action on a CFIUS
investigation. CFIUS also must file semi-annual reports to Congress
that contain information on transactions handled by the committee
during the previous six months.
Passage of this bill is an important step towards making our country
safer. As we continue to learn the lessons of the Dubai Ports World
transaction, we also must push forward with efforts to require that all
shipping containers are scanned for nuclear bombs before they leave
foreign countries bound for our shores and sealed to prevent tampering
en route.
The 100 percent scanning mandate was included in the 9/11 Commission
recommendations bill that passed the House last month on a bi-partisan
basis. As the other body considers its version of the bill, this vital
provision should be retained. In New York Times columnist Frank Rich's
piece last Sunday, he reported that the former head of the C.I.A. bin
[[Page H1993]]
Laden unit, Michael Scheuer has stated that the Taliban and Al Qaeda,
having regrouped in Afghanistan and Pakistan, are ``going to detonate a
nuclear device inside the United States.''
Mr. Scheuer is not alone in making this assessment. Harvard
University arms control expert Graham Allison has said that ``more
likely than not'' there will be a terrorist attack using a nuclear bomb
in our country. He has described the detonation of a nuclear explosive
device in a cargo container in one of our ports as a nightmare scenario
for our nation.
Port security expert and former Coast Guard officer Stephen Flynn has
written about the ``catastrophic consequences of terror in a box'' that
would result if a nuclear device hidden in a cargo container were
donated in our country. Admiral James Loy, the former Coast Guard
commandant and former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, has said
that there is evidence that al Qaeda terrorists are already involved in
the maritime trades.
Through the Secure Freight Initiative, the Bush Administration has
begun the process of establishing pilot programs overseas to test the
feasibility and effectiveness of scanning all U.S.-bound containers
before they are loaded onto container ships headed to our country.
The provision in the 9/11 Recommendations bill that Congressman
Nadler and I authored would require that lessons learned during the
Secure Freight Initiative are incorporated into a comprehensive 100
percent scanning and sealing policy for every container headed to our
country. Our provision contains a sensible time frame--3 years for
large overseas ports and 5 years for smaller ones--to implement the 100
percent scanning mandate.
Dubai Ports World--the same company that triggered the reform process
that led us to consideration of the legislation before us today--is
planning to incorporate the capability to perform 100 percent scanning
at its operations overseas.
We have the technology. We know the risks. We need to take action to
require 100 percent scanning and sealing of all U.S. bound cargo
containers OVERSEAS, before they arrive at our shores. If we detect a
nuclear bomb in a container once it arrives at a U.S. port, it's too
late. Once again, I commend the gentlelady from New York for her
leadership on this important issue, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to commend
Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus and Congresswoman Maloney for
putting together this important bill that exemplifies the bipartisan
work of the Financial Services Committee. H.R. 556 succeeds in striking
a balance that ensures neither the national security of the United
States nor the investment climate will be compromised.
This bill was originally introduced in the 109th Congress in response
to the public outcry after the Dubai Ports World case. H.R. 556
formalizes the role of the Director of National Intelligence in the
CFIUS process, establishes accountability in CFIUS by ensuring senior
officials are involved in clearing transactions and establishes better
communication with Congress so that we can perform our oversight
function.
However, I am a strong believer in simplifying processes to achieve
the best possible outcome. I do not think we should make CFIUS an
overly complicated and burdensome process for foreign investment. The
goal is to maintain the attractiveness of the U.S. markets as a
destination for foreign investment, while protecting our national
security.
While I submitted three amendments to H.R. 556 that I was unable to
offer today, they address important issues that deserve consideration
as the bill moves through the Senate and into a conference committee.
Two of my amendments would eliminate the roll call requirement for
both the approval of a deal and as recorded in the annual report. As we
have gone through the Committee process in the 109th Congress and in
the 110th, I have learned a great deal about how the CFIUS process
works. I think it is important that we incorporate this suggestion from
the Administration on CFIUS. Currently, the different agencies that
make up the CFIUS committee work as a team until they arrive at a
consensus view. It is my understanding that the committee does not take
roll call votes agency-by-agency on each transaction deal that is
examined. The current CFIUS approach is much more holistic and fosters
a team effort.
I have concerns that requiring a roll call vote on each deal could
discourage one agency from raising an issue if all the others are
prepared to sign off. I would not want a roll call vote to have any
unintended consequences.
I do not believe we should override the way CFIUS currently works as
a team. It is effective and encourages the agencies to interact and
communicate throughout the examination of the deal.
The third amendment I submitted would eliminate unnecessary
bureaucracy for the transaction deals that are relatively easy to
approve by allowing the actual signing off process to be accomplished
by a Senate confirmed official. This of course does not mean the
Secretary and Deputy Secretary are unaware of the deal or left out of
the loop on CFIUS matters. They are briefed on every deal on a regular
basis. And they will still be required to sign off on certain cases
that are of concern to Congress. However, this amendment would provide
for a more expedient CFIUS process for the majority of transactions
that pose no threat to national security.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, today, the new Democratic Majority in the
House has brought legislation to the Floor--the National Security FIRST
Act--which will strengthen our national security by addressing a
glaring deficiency that became public last year.
Many Members of Congress--and millions of Americans--were shocked
when it was reported in 2006 that the Bush Administration had approved
a deal allowing Dubai Ports World--a company owned by the government of
the United Arab Emirates--to manage terminal operations at six major
ports in the United States.
Let me be clear: There is nothing wrong with foreign investment in
our nation. In fact, we have reason to encourage it. But what was
shocking about the Dubai Ports World deal was that it was approved by
the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States with
only minimal review, and without the 45-day national security
investigation that clearly should have occurred.
In fact, the deal was approved despite the fact that the Department
of Homeland Security had raised security concerns. And, approval
occurred without the input of senior Administration officials, such as
the Secretaries of the Treasury and Homeland Security, and even the
President himself.
Thus, today, I want to congratulate Chairman Frank of the Financial
Services Committee for his strong leadership on this bipartisan
legislation. In short, this bill addresses key failings in the current
CFIUS review process.
First, it will require that in cases involving a company controlled
by a foreign government that either the CFIUS Chairman (the Treasury
Secretary) or the Vice-Chairman (the Homeland Security Secretary)
certify that the transaction poses no national security threat, or that
a 45-day security investigation occur after the initial 30-day review
period. In cases where the second stage 45-day review applies, the bill
requires the President to approve such transactions.
In addition, the bill improves CFIUS accountability to Congress.
Recall that last year, Congress was not notified of the Dubai Ports
World deal. Now, CFIUS must report to the committees of jurisdiction
within five days after the final action on a CFIUS investigation.
Finally, this legislation requires that every transaction be
subjected to an investigation by the Director of National Intelligence.
Again, this is important legislation that will strengthen our
national security. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support
it.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I stand here today as
chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security in support of H.R. 556,
the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened
Transparency Act of 2007. This bill provides needed reform by
formalizing and streamlining the structure and duties of the Committee
on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Indeed, this bill
addresses many of the concerns raised about CFIUS during the past
twelve months, especially its current lack of transparency and
oversight. This bill rectifies these concerns by formally establishing
CFIUS and its membership, while also streamlining how and when a CFIUS
review will be conducted.
Mr. Chairman, the bill formalizes the CFIUS membership and requires
the following to serve: (1) Secretaries of Treasury, Homeland Security,
Commerce, Defense, State, and Energy; (2) Attorney General; Chair of
the Council of Economic Advisors; the U.S. Trade Representative;
Director of Office of Management and Budget; Director of National
Economic Council; and (3) The Director of Office of Science and
Technology Policy; the President's assistant for national security
affairs; and any other designee of the President from the Executive
Office.
Under this bill, the Treasury Department will be the Chair with the
Secretaries of Commerce and Homeland serving as the Vice Chairs. CFIUS
will conduct a review of any national security related business
transaction in which the outcome could result in foreign control of any
business engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. After reviewing the
proposed business transaction, CFIUS will make a determination, the
outcome of which could require conducting a full investigation if one
of four circumstances exists: (1) Transaction involves a foreign
government-controlled entity; (2) Transaction threatens to impair
national security and the review cannot mitigate those concerns; (3)
National Intelligence Director
[[Page H1994]]
identifies intelligence concerns and CFIUS could not agree upon methods
to mitigate the concerns; or, (4) Any one (1) CFIUS Member votes
against approving the transaction.
Incidents such as the Dubai Ports World (DPW) and the China National
Offshore Oil Corporation's attempted bid for control of oil company
Unocal raised and increased awareness around transactions that should
receive CFIUS review. These incidents highlighted the need for
meaningful CFIUS reform.
The bill balances the need for continued foreign investment in the
United States, but reviewing that investment to determine if it would
impair or threaten national security or critical infrastructure.
This bill establishes accountability to key Cabinet level agencies
and, much like other corporate reform, requires personal action by the
Secretaries of Treasury, Commerce, and Homeland Security. Congressional
Research Service's independent report found that for all merger and
acquisition activity in 2005, 13 percent of it was from foreign firms
acquiring U.S. firms. This is up from 9 percent almost 10 years before.
This statistic shows that foreign investment in the U.S. is vital to
the economy. Only through this legislation, will CFIUS have a formal
budget, membership and clear mission--protecting American security
while maintaining a free and growing economy.
In closing, let me thank my colleagues on the Financial Services
Committee for their leadership on this legislation, especially my
Democratic colleagues Representative Carolyn Maloney and Joseph Crowley
of New York for their efforts.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, this urgently needed bipartisan legislation
constitutes an important step forward in our efforts to improve
homeland security. H.R. 556 injects significant doses of transparency,
accountability, and oversight into how our government reviews and
approves U.S. investments by foreign government-owned companies.
Before the proposed transfer of six major eastern shipping terminals
to Dubai Ports World came to light last year, very few Americans had
heard of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or
CFIUS. The concern that greater scrutiny was not applied to this
transaction and its potential impact upon the security of our ports
became a source of shock and outrage--and CFIUS became synonymous for
bureaucratic failure in the face of the post 9-11 challenges America
confronts.
Congress began investigating the CFIUS process immediately following
the resolution of this controversy. The House and Senate passed
legislation last year which enhanced reporting standards while
strengthening congressional oversight; yet a final conference agreement
was not reached before the end of the last Congress.
H.R. 556 builds upon last year's efforts, providing the comprehensive
CFIUS reform that our national security requires without overburdening
the flow of commerce and capital upon which our prosperity depends.
I have listened to American business owners as they urged us to act
for the sake of certainty and stability in international investment
markets--and I am pleased that acting together as Democrats and
Republicans, we are poised to pass legislation today that constitutes
real progress toward addressing their concerns.
We must remain vigilant in our oversight of CFIUS and other long-
established bureaucratic processes that can fundamentally impact our
economy and our security. We can--and we must--protect our homeland
while ensuring that foreign investment remains strong and New Mexico
and America continue to be the best places in the world to do business.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
supports the consideration of H.R. 556 by the House today. This bill
adopts a number of needed reforms to the process by which the Federal
government reviews foreign investments in the United States for their
national security implications. The free and fair flow of capital and
trade is an important goal. At the same time, we face new challenges in
a complex global economy where countries increasingly have clear
national strategies on how to compete in order to increase national
power and their standard of living.
In 1987, the leadership of the Congress was troubled by our nation's
rising trade deficit, and decided to craft an omnibus trade bill.
Congress passed the Omnibus Trade Act in 1988. The so-called Exon-
Florio amendment to the Defense Production Act, written by the Senate
and House Commerce Committees on which Senator Exon and Congressman
Florio served, authorized the President to suspend or prohibit foreign
acquisitions of U.S. companies in instances where the foreign
acquisition poses a threat to national security. The President
delegated this authority to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the
United States.
The 1988 Act's Conference Agreement made absolutely clear that the
term ``national security'' was meant to be broadly interpreted. H.R.
556 continues in this vein by including ``a security-related impact on
critical infrastructure'' and ``whether the covered transaction is
foreign-government controlled'' as additional factors required to be
considered. The Report filed by the Committee on Financial Services
notes that: ``The Committee expects that CFIUS will consider all
aspects of a covered transaction to determine if the investment
threatens to impair national security.'' I wholeheartedly agree. The
Report also makes clear that national security encompasses critical
energy-related infrastructure issues. The Energy and Commerce Committee
appreciates this emphasis on matters within our jurisdiction and of
critical concern to the security of the nation.
I also note that, under this legislation, the membership of CFIUS
includes the Secretaries of Commerce and Energy, the Secretary of
Commerce is a vice chair of CFIUS, the Chairman and Vice Chairmen must
approve all covered transactions and must certify that foreign
government transactions pose no threat to national security, CFIUS's
annual report will also be directed to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and the Department of Commerce must be consulted on the study
of foreign investment in critical infrastructure and industries
affecting national security. I support these changes. I further note
that the Committee on Financial Services has agreed to a request from
Energy and Commerce to require Inspector General reports as an
important oversight and accountability check on the operations of
CFIUS. This agreement is contained in an exchange of letters to be
inserted in the Record.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I look forward to
working with the Committees on Financial Services and on Foreign
Affairs to bring a good law to the President's desk.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered by sections as an original bill
for purpose of amendment, and each section is considered read.
No amendment to that amendment shall be in order except those printed
in the designated place in the Congressional Record and pro forma
amendments for the purpose of debate. Amendments printed in the Record
may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his
designee and shall be considered read.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the bill be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 556
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Security Foreign
Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act of
2007''.
SEC. 2. UNITED STATES SECURITY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENTS;
CLARIFICATION OF REVIEW AND INVESTIGATION
PROCESS.
Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. App. 2170) is amended by striking subsections (a) and
(b) and inserting the following new subsections:
``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
following definitions shall apply:
``(1) Committee.--The term `Committee' means the Committee
on Foreign Investment in the United States.
``(2) Control.--The term `control' has the meaning given to
such term in regulations which the Committee shall prescribe.
``(3) Covered transaction.--The term `covered transaction'
means any merger, acquisition, or takeover by or with any
foreign person which could result in foreign control of any
person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States.
``(4) Foreign government-controlled transaction.--The term
`foreign government-controlled transaction' means any covered
transaction that could result in the control of any person
engaged in interstate commerce in the United States by a
foreign government or an entity controlled by or acting on
behalf of a foreign government.
``(5) Clarification.--The term `national security' shall be
construed so as to include those issues relating to `homeland
security', including its application to critical
infrastructure.
``(b) National Security Reviews and Investigations.--
``(1) National security reviews.--
``(A) In general.--Upon receiving written notification
under subparagraph (C) of any covered transaction, or on a
motion made under subparagraph (D) with respect to any
covered transaction, the President, acting through the
[[Page H1995]]
Committee, shall review the covered transaction to determine
the effects of the transaction on the national security of
the United States.
``(B) Control by foreign government.--If the Committee
determines that the covered transaction is a foreign
government-controlled transaction, the Committee shall
conduct an investigation of the transaction under paragraph
(2).
``(C) Written notice.--
``(i) In general.--Any party to any covered transaction may
initiate a review of the transaction under this paragraph by
submitting a written notice of the transaction to the
Chairperson of the Committee.
``(ii) Withdrawal of notice.--No covered transaction for
which a notice was submitted under clause (i) may be
withdrawn from review unless--
``(I) a written request for such withdrawal is submitted by
any party to the transaction; and
``(II) the request is approved in writing by the
Chairperson, in consultation with the Vice Chairpersons, of
the Committee.
``(iii) Continuing discussions.--The approval of a
withdrawal request under clause (ii) shall not be construed
as precluding any party to the covered transaction from
continuing informal discussions with the Committee or any
Committee member regarding possible resubmission for review
pursuant to this paragraph.
``(D) Unilateral initiation of review.--Subject to
subparagraph (F), the President, the Committee, or any member
acting on behalf of the Committee may move to initiate a
review under subparagraph (A) of--
``(i) any covered transaction;
``(ii) any covered transaction that has previously been
reviewed or investigated under this section, if any party to
the transaction submitted false or misleading material
information to the Committee in connection with the review or
investigation or omitted material information, including
material documents, from information submitted to the
Committee; or
``(iii) any covered transaction that has previously been
reviewed or investigated under this section, if any party to
the transaction or the entity resulting from consummation of
the transaction intentionally materially breaches a
mitigation agreement or condition described in subsection
(l)(1)(A), and--
``(I) such breach is certified by the lead department or
agency monitoring and enforcing such agreement or condition
as an intentional material breach; and
``(II) such department or agency certifies that there is no
other remedy or enforcement tool available to address such
breach.
``(E) Timing.--Any review under this paragraph shall be
completed before the end of the 30-day period beginning on
the date of the receipt of written notice under subparagraph
(C) by the Chairperson of the Committee, or the date of the
initiation of the review in accordance with a motion under
subparagraph (D).
``(F) Limit on delegation of certain authority.--The
authority of the Committee or any member of the Committee to
initiate a review under subparagraph (D) may not be delegated
to any person other than the Deputy Secretary or an
appropriate Under Secretary of the department or agency
represented on the committee or by such member (or by a
person holding an equivalent position to a Deputy Secretary
or Under Secretary).
``(2) National security investigations.--
``(A) In general.--In each case in which--
``(i) a review of a covered transaction under paragraph (1)
results in a determination that--
``(I) the transaction threatens to impair the national
security of the United States and that threat has not been
mitigated during or prior to the review of a covered
transaction under paragraph (1); or
``(II) the transaction is a foreign government-controlled
transaction;
``(ii) a roll call vote pursuant to paragraph (3)(A) in
connection with a review under paragraph (1) of any covered
transaction results in at least 1 vote by a Committee member
against approving the transaction; or
``(iii) the Director of National Intelligence identifies
particularly complex intelligence concerns that could
threaten to impair the national security of the United States
and Committee members were not able to develop and agree upon
measures to mitigate satisfactorily those threats during the
initial review period under paragraph (1),
the President, acting through the Committee, shall
immediately conduct an investigation of the effects of the
transaction on the national security of the United States and
take any necessary actions in connection with the transaction
to protect the national security of the United States.
``(B) Timing.--
``(i) In general.--Any investigation under subparagraph (A)
shall be completed before the end of the 45-day period
beginning on the date of the investigation commenced.
``(ii) Extensions of time.--The period established under
subparagraph (B) for any investigation of a covered
transaction may be extended with respect to any particular
investigation by the President or by a rollcall vote of at
least 2/3 of the members of the Committee involved in the
investigation by the amount of time specified by the
President or the Committee at the time of the extension, not
to exceed 45 days, as necessary to collect and fully evaluate
information relating to--
``(I) the covered transaction or parties to the
transaction; and
``(II) any effect of the transaction that could threaten to
impair the national security of the United States.
``(C) Exception.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A)(i)(II),
an investigation of a foreign government-controlled
transaction shall not be required under this paragraph if the
Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Secretary of Commerce determine, on the
basis of the review of the transaction under paragraph (1),
that the transaction will not affect the national security of
the United States and no agreement or condition is required,
with respect to the transaction, to mitigate any threat to
the national security (and such authority of each such
Secretary may not be delegated to any person other than the
Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, of Homeland Security, or of
Commerce, respectively).
``(3) Approval of chairperson and vice chairpersons
required.--
``(A) In general.--A review or investigation under this
subsection of a covered transaction shall not be treated as
final or complete until the results of such review or
investigation are approved by a majority of the members of
the Committee in a roll call vote and signed by the Secretary
of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the
Secretary of Commerce (and such authority of each such
Secretary may not be delegated to any person other than the
Deputy Secretary or an appropriate Under Secretary of the
Treasury, of Homeland Security, or of Commerce,
respectively).
``(B) Additional action required in certain cases.--In the
case of any roll call vote pursuant to subparagraph (A) in
connection with an investigation under paragraph (2) of any
foreign government-controlled transaction in which there is
at least 1 vote by a Committee member against approving the
transaction, the investigation shall not be treated as final
or complete until the findings and report resulting from such
investigation are signed by the President (in addition to the
Chairperson and the Vice Chairpersons of the Committee under
subparagraph (A)).
``(C) Presidential action required in certain cases.--In
the case of any covered transaction in which any party to the
transaction is--
``(i) a person of a country the government of which the
Secretary of State has determined, for purposes of section
6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (as continued
in effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act), section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act,
section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or other
provision of law, is a government that has repeatedly
provided support for acts of international terrorism;
``(ii) a government described in clause (i); or
``(iii) person controlled, directly or indirectly, by any
such government,
a review or investigation under this subsection of such
covered transaction shall not be treated as final or complete
until the results of such review or investigation are
approved and signed by the President.
``(4) Analysis by director of national intelligence.--
``(A) In general.--The Director of National Intelligence
shall expeditiously carry out a thorough analysis of any
threat to the national security of the United States of any
covered transaction, including making requests for
information to the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets
Control within the Department of the Treasury and the
Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The
Director of National Intelligence also shall seek and
incorporate the views of all affected or appropriate
intelligence agencies.
``(B) Timing.--The Director of National Intelligence shall
be provided adequate time to complete the analysis required
under subparagraph (A), including any instance described in
paragraph (2)(A)(iii).
``(C) Independent role of director.--The Director of
National Intelligence shall not be a member of the Committee
and shall serve no policy role with the Committee other than
to provide analysis under subparagraph (A) in connection with
a covered transaction.
``(5) Submission of additional information.--No provision
of this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting any
party to a covered transaction from submitting additional
information concerning the transaction, including any
proposed restructuring of the transaction or any
modifications to any agreements in connection with the
transaction, while any review or investigation of the
transaction is on-going.
``(6) Regulations.--Regulations prescribed under this
section shall include standard procedures for--
``(A) submitting any notice of a proposed or pending
covered transaction to the Committee;
``(B) submitting a request to withdraw a proposed or
pending covered transaction from review; and
``(C) resubmitting a notice of proposed or pending covered
transaction that was previously withdrawn from review.''.
SEC. 3. STATUTORY ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN
INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES.
(a) In General.--Section 721 of the Defense Production Act
of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) is amended by striking
subsection (k) and inserting the following new subsection:
``(k) Committee on Foreign Investment in the United
States.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Committee on Foreign Investment
in the United States established pursuant to Executive Order
No. 11858 shall be a multi-agency committee to carry out this
section and such other assignments as the President may
designate.
``(2) Membership.--The Committee shall be comprised of the
following members or the designee of any such member:
``(A) The Secretary of the Treasury.
``(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
``(C) The Secretary of Commerce.
``(D) The Secretary of Defense.
``(E) The Secretary of State.
``(F) The Attorney General.
[[Page H1996]]
``(G) The Secretary of Energy.
``(H) The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.
``(I) The United States Trade Representative.
``(J) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
``(K) The Director of the National Economic Council.
``(L) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy.
``(M) The President's Assistant for National Security
Affairs.
``(N) Any other designee of the President from the
Executive Office of the President.
``(3) Chairperson; vice chairpersons.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall be the Chairperson of the Committee. The
Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Commerce
shall be the Vice Chairpersons of the Committee.
``(4) Other members.--Subject to subsection (b)(4)(B), the
Chairperson of the Committee shall involve the heads of such
other Federal departments, agencies, and independent
establishments in any review or investigation under
subsection (b) as the Chairperson, after consulting with the
Vice Chairpersons, determines to be appropriate on the basis
of the facts and circumstances of the transaction under
investigation (or the designee of any such department or
agency head).
``(5) Meetings.--The Committee shall meet upon the
direction of the President or upon the call of the
Chairperson of the Committee without regard to section 552b
of title 5, United States Code (if otherwise applicable).
``(6) Collection of evidence.--Subject to subsection (c),
the Committee may, for the purpose of carrying out this
section--
``(A) sit and act at such times and places, take such
testimony, receive such evidence, administer such oaths; and
``(B) require the attendance and testimony of such
witnesses and the production of such books, records,
correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as the
Chairperson of the Committee may determine advisable.
``(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the
Treasury for each of fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011
expressly and solely for the operations of the Committee that
are conducted by the Secretary, the sum of $10,000,000.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The first sentence
of section 721(c) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. App. 2170(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``material filed with'' and inserting
``material, including proprietary business information, filed
with, or testimony presented to,''; and
(2) by striking ``or documentary material'' the second
place such term appears and inserting ``, documentary
material, or testimony''.
SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL FACTORS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED.
Section 721(f) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. App. 2170(f)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall''; and
(B) by striking ``among other factors'';
(2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(6) whether the covered transaction has a security-
related impact on critical infrastructure in the United
States;
``(7) whether the covered transaction is a foreign
government-controlled transaction; and
``(8) such other factors as the President or the
President's designee may determine to be appropriate,
generally or in connection with a specific review or
investigation.''.
SEC. 5. NONWAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.
Section 721(d) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. App. 2170(d)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``The United States shall not be held
liable for any losses or other expenses incurred by any party
to a covered transaction as a result of actions taken under
this section after a covered transaction has been consummated
if the party did not submit a written notice of the
transaction to the Chairperson of the Committee under
subsection (b)(1)(C) or did not wait until the completion of
any review or investigation under subsection (b), or the end
of the 15-day period referred to in this subsection, before
consummating the transaction.''.
SEC. 6. MITIGATION, TRACKING, AND POST-CONSUMMATION
MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT.
Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. App. 2170) is amended by inserting after subsection
(k) (as amended by section 3 of this Act) the following new
subsection:
``(l) Mitigation, Tracking, and Postconsummation Monitoring
and Enforcement.--
``(1) Mitigation.--
``(A) In general.--The Committee or any agency designated
by the Chairperson and Vice Chairpersons may, on behalf of
the Committee, negotiate, enter into or impose, and enforce
any agreement or condition with any party to a covered
transaction in order to mitigate any threat to the national
security of the United States that arises as a result of the
transaction.
``(B) Risk-based analysis required.--Any agreement entered
into or condition imposed under subparagraph (A) shall be
based on a risk-based analysis of the threat to national
security of the covered transaction.
``(2) Tracking authority for withdrawn notices.--
``(A) In general.--If any written notice of a covered
transaction that was submitted to the Committee under this
section is withdrawn before any review or investigation by
the Committee under subsection (b) is completed, the
Committee shall establish, as appropriate--
``(i) interim protections to address specific concerns with
such transaction that have been raised in connection with any
such review or investigation pending any resubmission of any
written notice under this section with respect to such
transaction and further action by the President under this
section;
``(ii) specific timeframes for resubmitting any such
written notice; and
``(iii) a process for tracking any actions that may be
taken by any party to the transaction, in connection with the
transaction, before the notice referred to in clause (ii) is
resubmitted.
``(B) Designation of agency.--The Committee may designate 1
or more appropriate Federal departments or agencies, other
than any entity of the intelligence community (as defined in
the National Security Act of 1947), as a lead agency to carry
out, on behalf of the Committee, the requirements of
subparagraph (A) with respect to any covered transaction that
is subject to such subparagraph.
``(3) Negotiation, modification, monitoring, and
enforcement.--
``(A) Designation of agency.--The Committee shall designate
1 or more Federal departments or agencies as the lead agency
to negotiate, modify, monitor, and enforce, on behalf of the
Committee, any agreement entered into or condition imposed
under paragraph (1) with respect to a covered transaction
based on the expertise with and knowledge of the issues
related to such transaction on the part of the designated
department or agency.
``(B) Reporting by designated agency.--
``(i) Implementation reports.--Each Federal department or
agency designated by the Committee as a lead agency under
subparagraph (A) in connection with any agreement entered
into or condition imposed under paragraph (1) with respect to
a covered transaction shall--
``(I) provide periodic reports to the Chairperson and Vice
Chairpersons of the Committee on the implementation of such
agreement or condition; and
``(II) require, as appropriate, any party to the covered
transaction to report to the head of such department or
agency (or the designee of such department or agency head) on
the implementation or any material change in circumstances.
``(ii) Modification reports.--Any Federal department or
agency designated by the Committee as a lead agency under
subparagraph (A) in connection with any agreement entered
into or condition imposed with respect to a covered
transaction shall--
``(I) provide periodic reports to the Chairperson and Vice
Chairpersons of the Committee on any modification to any such
agreement or condition imposed with respect to the
transaction; and
``(II) ensure that any significant modification to any such
agreement or condition is reported to the Director of
National Intelligence and to any other Federal department or
agency that may have a material interest in such
modification.''.
SEC. 7. INCREASED OVERSIGHT BY THE CONGRESS.
(a) Report on Actions.--Section 721(g) of the Defense
Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) is amended to
read as follows:
``(g) Reports to the Congress.--
``(1) Reports on completed committee investigations.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 5 days after the
completion of a Committee investigation of a covered
transaction under subsection (b)(2), or, if the President
indicates an intent to take any action authorized under
subsection (d) with respect to the transaction, after the end
of 15-day period referred to in subsection (d), the
Chairperson or a Vice Chairperson of the Committee shall
submit a written report on the findings or actions of the
Committee with respect to such investigation, the
determination of whether or not to take action under
subsection (d), an explanation of the findings under
subsection (e), and the factors considered under subsection
(f), with respect to such transaction, to--
``(i) the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the
Senate;
``(ii) the Speaker and the Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives; and
``(iii) the chairman and ranking member of each committee
of the House of Representatives and the Senate with
jurisdiction over any aspect of the covered transaction and
its possible effects on national security, including the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Financial
Services, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the
House of Representatives.
``(B) Notice and briefing requirement.--If a written
request for a briefing on a covered transaction is submitted
to the Committee by any Senator or Member of Congress who
receives a report on the transaction under subparagraph (A),
the Chairperson or a Vice Chairperson (or such other person
as the Chairperson or a Vice Chairperson may designate) shall
provide 1 classified briefing to each House of the Congress
from which any such briefing request originates in a secure
facility of appropriate size and location that shall be open
only to the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the
Senate, the Speaker and the Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives, (as the case may be) the chairman and
ranking member of each committee of the House of
Representatives or the Senate (as the case may be) with
jurisdiction over any aspect of the covered transaction and
its possible effects on national security, including the
Committee on International Relations, the Committee on
Financial Services, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce
of the House of Representatives, and appropriate staff
members who have security clearance.
``(2) Application of other provision.--
[[Page H1997]]
``(A) In general.--The disclosure of information under this
subsection shall be consistent with the requirements of
subsection (c). Members of Congress and staff of either House
or any committee of the Congress shall be subject to the same
limitations on disclosure of information as are applicable
under such subsection.
``(B) Proprietary information.--Proprietary information
which can be associated with a particular party to a covered
transaction shall be furnished in accordance with
subparagraph (A) only to a committee of the Congress and only
when the committee provides assurances of confidentiality,
unless such party otherwise consents in writing to such
disclosure.''.
(b) Annual Report.--Section 721 of the Defense Production
Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) is amended by inserting
after subsection (l) (as added by section 6 of this Act) the
following new subsection:
``(m) Annual Report to the Congress.--
``(1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Committee shall
transmit a report to the chairman and ranking member of each
committee of the House of Representatives and the Senate with
jurisdiction over any aspect of the report, including the
Committee on International Relations, the Committee on
Financial Services, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce
of the House of Representatives, before July 31 of each year
on all the reviews and investigations of covered transactions
completed under subsection (b) during the 12-month period
covered by the report.
``(2) Contents of report relating to covered
transactions.--The report under paragraph (1) shall contain
the following information with respect to each covered
transaction:
``(A) A list of all notices filed and all reviews or
investigations completed during the period with basic
information on each party to the transaction, the nature of
the business activities or products of all pertinent persons,
along with information about the status of the review or
investigation, information on any withdrawal from the
process, any rollcall votes by the Committee under this
section, any extension of time for any investigation, and any
presidential decision or action under this section.
``(B) Specific, cumulative, and, as appropriate, trend
information on the numbers of filings, investigations,
withdrawals, and presidential decisions or actions under this
section.
``(C) Cumulative and, as appropriate, trend information on
the business sectors involved in the filings which have been
made, and the countries from which the investments have
originated.
``(D) Information on whether companies that withdrew
notices to the Committee in accordance with subsection
(b)(1)(C)(ii) have later re-filed such notices, or,
alternatively, abandoned the transaction.
``(E) The types of security arrangements and conditions the
Committee has used to mitigate national security concerns
about a transaction.
``(F) A detailed discussion of all perceived adverse
effects of covered transactions on the national security or
critical infrastructure of the United States that the
Committee will take into account in its deliberations during
the period before delivery of the next such report, to the
extent possible.
``(3) Contents of report relating to critical
technologies.--
``(A) In general.--In order to assist the Congress in its
oversight responsibilities with respect to this section, the
President and such agencies as the President shall designate
shall include in the annual report submitted under paragraph
(1) the following:
``(i) An evaluation of whether there is credible evidence
of a coordinated strategy by 1 or more countries or companies
to acquire United States companies involved in research,
development, or production of critical technologies for which
the United States is a leading producer.
``(ii) An evaluation of whether there are industrial
espionage activities directed or directly assisted by foreign
governments against private United States companies aimed at
obtaining commercial secrets related to critical
technologies.
``(B) Critical technologies defined.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `critical technologies' means
technologies identified under title VI of the National
Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities
Act of 1976 or other critical technology, critical
components, or critical technology items essential to
national defense or national security identified pursuant to
this section.
``(C) Release of unclassified study.--That portion of the
annual report under paragraph (1) that is required by this
paragraph may be classified. An unclassified version of that
portion of the report shall be made available to the
public.''.
(c) Study and Report.--
(1) Study required.--Before the end of the 120-day period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary
of State and the Secretary of Commerce, shall conduct a study
on investments in the United States, especially investments
in critical infrastructure and industries affecting national
security, by--
(A) foreign governments, entities controlled by or acting
on behalf of a foreign government, or persons of foreign
countries which comply with any boycott of Israel; or
(B) foreign governments, entities controlled by or acting
on behalf of a foreign government, or persons of foreign
countries which do not ban organizations designated by the
Secretary of State as foreign terrorist organizations.
(2) Report.--Before the end of the 30-day period beginning
upon completion of the study under paragraph (1) or in the
next annual report under section 721(m) of the Defense
Production Act of 1950 (as added by subsection (b)), the
Secretary of the Treasury shall submit a report to the
Congress, for transmittal to all appropriate committees of
the Senate and the House of Representatives, containing the
findings and conclusions of the Secretary with respect to the
study, together with an analysis of the effects of such
investment on the national security of the United States and
on any efforts to address those effects.
SEC. 8. CERTIFICATION OF NOTICES AND ASSURANCES.
Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. App. 2170) is amended by inserting after subsection
(m) (as added by section 7(b) of this Act) the following new
subsection:
``(n) Certification of Notices and Assurances.--Each notice
required to be submitted, by a party to a covered
transaction, to the President or the President's designee
under this section and regulations prescribed under such
section, and any information submitted by any such party in
connection with any action for which a report is required
pursuant to paragraph (3)(B)(ii) of subsection (l) with
respect to the implementation of any mitigation agreement or
condition described in paragraph (1)(A) of such subsection,
or any material change in circumstances, shall be accompanied
by a written statement by the chief executive officer or the
designee of the person required to submit such notice or
information certifying that, to the best of the person's
knowledge and belief--
``(1) the notice or information submitted fully complies
with the requirements of this section or such regulation,
agreement, or condition; and
``(2) the notice or information is accurate and complete in
all material respects.''.
SEC. 9. REGULATIONS.
Section 721(h) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. App. 2170(h)) is amended to read as follows:
``(h) Regulations.--The President shall direct the issuance
of regulations to carry out this section. Such regulations
shall, to the extent possible, minimize paperwork burdens and
shall to the extent possible coordinate reporting
requirements under this section with reporting requirements
under any other provision of Federal law.''.
SEC. 10. EFFECT ON OTHER LAW.
Section 721(i) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. App. 2170(i)) is amended to read as follows:
``(i) Effect on Other Law.--No provision of this section
shall be construed as altering or affecting any other
authority, process, regulation, investigation, enforcement
measure, or review provided by or established under any other
provision of Federal law, including the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act, or any other authority of the
President or the Congress under the Constitution of the
United States.''.
SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply after the end
of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment
of this Act.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer the manager's
amendment to the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
Page 20, line 12, insert ``, conducted by the Committee,''
after ``analysis''.
Page 22, line 17, strike ``provide periodic reports'' and
insert ``report, as appropriate but not less than once in
each 6-month period,''.
Page 23, line 23, strike the closing quotation marks and
the 2nd period.
Page 23, after line 23, insert the following new clause:
``(iii) Compliance.--The Committee shall develop and agree
upon methods for evaluating compliance with any agreement
entered into or condition imposed with respect to a covered
transaction that will allow the Committee to adequately
assure compliance without--
``(I) unnecessarily diverting Committee resources from
assessing any new covered transaction for which a written
notice has been filed pursuant to subsection (b)(1)(C), and
if necessary reaching a mitigation agreement with or imposing
a condition on a party to such covered transaction or any
covered transaction for which a review has been reopened for
any reason; or
``(II) placing unnecessary burdens on a party to a covered
transaction.''.
Page 25, line 6, insert ``, at a minimum,'' after
``including''.
Page 25, line 12, insert ``, or on compliance with a
mitigation agreement or condition imposed with respect to
such transaction,'' after ``covered transaction''.
Page 26, beginning on line 5, strike ``the Committee on
International Relations'' and insert ``, at a minimum, the
Committee on Foreign Affairs''.
Page 27, beginning on line 10, strike ``the Committee on
International Relations'' and insert ``, at a minimum, the
Committee on Foreign Affairs''.
Page 28, line 23, insert ``, including a discussion of the
methods the Committee and any lead departments or agencies
designated under subsection (l) are using to determine
compliance with such arrangements or conditions'' before the
period.
Page 30, line 21, insert ``and annually thereafter'' after
``of this Act''.
Page 31, line 13, strike ``completion of the study'' and
insert ``completion of each study''.
[[Page H1998]]
Page 31, line 21, insert ``described in paragraph (1)''
after ``to the study''.
Page 31, after line 24, insert the following new
subsection:
(d) Investigation by Inspector General.--
(1) In general.--The Inspector General of the Department of
the Treasury shall conduct an independent investigation to
determine all of the facts and circumstances concerning each
failure of the Department of the Treasury to make any report
to the Congress that was required under section 721(k) of the
Defense Production Act of 1950 (as in effect before the date
of the enactment of this Act).
(2) Report to the congress.--Before the end of the 270-day
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury shall
submit a report to the chairman and ranking member of each
committee of the House of Representatives and the Senate with
jurisdiction over any aspect of the report, including, at a
minimum, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on
Financial Services, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce
of the House of Representatives, on the investigation under
paragraph (1) containing the findings and conclusions of the
Inspector General.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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. BACHUS. 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.
{time} 1145
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
Page 18, after line 20, insert the following new paragraph
(and redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
``(7) the potential effects of the covered transaction on
the efforts of the United States to curtail human smuggling
(and such term, for purposes of this paragraph, means any act
constituting a violation of section 274(a) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act) and to curtail drug smuggling with
regard to any country which is not described in paragraphs
(1) and (2) of section 1003(a) of the Controlled Substances
Import and Export Act.''.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I bring an, actually, very simple
amendment to the floor here. What it does is it just adds to the list
of the issues that shall be considered by the President when
considering one of the covered transactions. The simple language out of
the amendment is that the President shall consider the potential
effects of the covered transaction on the efforts of the United States
to curtail human smuggling and to curtail drug smuggling. It covers a
focus on human smuggling and drug smuggling.
I support the underlying bill, and I recognize the important role
played by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States in
protecting the American people and the security interests of the United
States.
One important piece of this legislation will require the President to
consider certain factors relating to national security when deciding
whether to prohibit the acquisitions, mergers or takeovers that this
legislation is intended to scrutinize.
The provisions of the bill provide the President with good criteria
to use when deciding what actions should be taken to halt a merger
acquisition, but it does not go quite far enough.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment of this bill would add a simple and
straightforward requirement to the subject matter of things that the
President should take into consideration when making these decisions.
My amendment would require that the President consider the potential
effects of the transaction on our work to stop human smuggling and drug
smuggling.
This bill rightfully calls for the President to consider important
factors relating to our national security, but it doesn't make any
mention of the two important national security issues that threaten the
United States, and we face it every day, and that is human smuggling
and drug smuggling.
To give us some background, in the year 2000, the Interagency
Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports, reported that of the
12 major U.S. seaports that it visited, narcotics seized in commercial
shipments at the 12 ports constituted 69 percent of the total weight of
cocaine, 55 percent of the marijuana and 12 percent of the heroin
seized at U.S. borders.
Now that is the amount seized, not necessarily the amount that
crosses across the border. There has been some effectiveness there, but
we know the DEA has some numbers that also are shocking and might have
a little different sense of proportionality.
But not surprisingly, the commission also stated that smuggling of
illegal aliens is a problem, and those same 12 ports in that period of
time, 1,187 stowaways and 247 individual fraudulent documents arrived
aboard sea vessels. This is something that needs to be focused on by
the President, and that is just those that were caught.
Of the many threats that face the United States in the global war on
terror, we must closely evaluate every merger, every acquisition and
every takeover that could put our country at risk, and especially those
through drug and human smuggling and especially in this time when we
are faced with this global war on terror.
This amendment, I think, is an amendment that improves the bill. I
support the underlying bill, and I appreciate the work that is done on
the part of the Finance Committee and on the part of the chairman and
the ranking member.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
[[Page H1999]]
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.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CROWLEY. 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. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I thank the gentleman for the time, and I am particularly pleased to
follow my good friend, Mr. Crowley, at this moment in the debate. I
want to recognize others later, but he and others, as he just said,
made this a real bipartisan effort for many of us in the Chamber.
September 11 fundamentally changed the way we looked at the world. It
also changed a number of important and substantive ways the way we
defend against and react to things that could happen that would be
unthinkable. It was really within the context of that change of rural
view that Americans expressed the outrage they did over the Dubai Ports
World deal last year.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a
previously obscure government agency, known to some and referred to in
some debate, often referred to as CFIUS, approved that acquisition, and
it didn't take long for the committee to attract all sorts of critical
attention.
The reason for all the concern is that the CFIUS decision brought to
light some very serious national security issues with equally serious
implications for the safety and protection of vital points of the
American infrastructure.
Thankfully, as the Congress set last year to consider ways to shore
up security protocols over at CFIUS, we found ourselves agreeing that
any reform of CFIUS ought to take great care to both encourage foreign
investment in the future of America while balancing the need to
maintain a strong program of national security. We can, as this bill
does, protect America's families physically while protecting their
jobs, their investments, and their pension plans.
Congress has no more important responsibility than to ensure the
security of the Nation. But I don't believe
[[Page H2000]]
that wholesale protectionism either protects our vital national
security interest or advances our economic interest in the world.
During the last Congress, Congresswoman Pryce, Congresswoman Maloney,
Congressman Crowley and I crafted a responsible bipartisan bill that
addressed the problems exposed in the CFIUS process during the Dubai
Ports World incident. Congressman Frank and Congressman Bachus helped
to see that we got that debate on the floor and have done so much to
see that we bring that debate back.
While the bill we passed didn't have a single dissenting vote, even
though we asked for and had a roll call, we weren't able to resolve our
differences with the other body before the end of the Congress, and so
we didn't get that bill done. Today we come back with essentially an
identical bill, I think slightly improved, that Congresswoman Maloney
was the principal sponsor of. Our goal is to strike the right balance
here between securing the country and open engagement in a global
economy.
The bill before us today accomplishes these objectives while dealing
with the main issues the Dubai Ports World incident exposed.
{time} 1200
It does this in a couple of ways. First, it reaffirms congressional
intent relating to the so-called Byrd rule, which mandates a 45-day
investigation for companies controlled by foreign governments. Any
state-owned enterprise that poses any type of security risk will
trigger an automatic CFIUS investigation.
Secondly, it increases accountability in the CFIUS process by
establishing CFIUS in statute and adding the Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of Commerce as vice chairs of the
committee.
Third, our bill greatly expands congressional oversight and includes
important language protecting proprietary business information.
The administration has raised some concerns regarding how these
things will impact the process operationally. I look forward to working
with the administration as we move forward to achieve our shared goal
of creating a reasonable framework for approving foreign investments in
the United States, while at the same time protecting our national
security and ensuring that the mistakes of the Dubai Ports situation
are not repeated.
The other thing we don't want to do also is make it so hard to invest
in this country that American businesses aren't able to invest in other
countries. We don't want to start an investment war, and this bill
clearly is headed in the right direction to do the things it needs to
do. We are fortunate to have the bill on the floor.
Congresswomen Pryce and Maloney, Congressmen Frank, Bachus, Crowley,
King, Hoekstra and Barton have all been instrumental in coming with a
bill that doesn't just respond to the excitement of the moment, but
reaches a long-term conclusion that protects Americans and also
protects the value of American companies. I am pleased to support it.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Barrow
Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Barrow:
Page 24, line 26, strike ``and'' after the semicolon.
Page 25, line 9, strike the period at the end and insert
``; and''.
Page 25, after line 9, insert the following new clause:
``(iv) Senators representing States and Members of Congress
representing congressional districts that would be
significantly affected by the covered transaction.''.
Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, it is long past time to fix what is broke
with the CFIUS process, and I want to commend all involved in bringing
us thus far on the project. I want to thank Mrs. Maloney and Mr. Frank
and the Financial Services Committee for their work in bringing this
important legislation to the floor.
Last year, in response to the Dubai business, we had sort of a
reprise of the Dubai business in my district. We had yet another CFIUS
deal that actually came to public light, the Doncaster's deal that
affected a plant and a business in my district. In response to the
concerns that were swirling then around the Dubai business, I
introduced a bill in the Congress last time, the Protect America First
Act. And I am pleased to say that the bill before us incorporates many
of the basic features of the Protect America First Act that I drafted
in the last Congress.
One important area that I want to focus on has to do with the subject
of postapproval oversight, the process or the lack of process under the
existing law whereby Congress knows what is going on as it happens and
after it happens. Congress has had no effective postapproval oversight
of the project for the last 14, 16 years, and as a result, we have had
many, many transactions without anybody having any idea what is going
on.
Section 7 of the bill before us greatly addresses that problem by
providing some meaningful postapproval oversight, the first real,
effective oversight that Congress has had in this process since it was
launched back in 1988.
The purpose of my amendment is to significantly enhance the
postapproval oversight of Congress by making sure that not just folks
with the greatest need to know, but the folks who know the most about
the deals are also provided postapproval oversight.
My amendment does one thing and one thing only; it simply expands the
universe of those folks who will be told what has happened after it has
happened, to include the Members of the United States Senate from the
States affected; and the Members of the House, not just the chairmen of
the respective committees, but the Members of the House whose districts
include the businesses and the employees of the businesses involved.
That is the purpose of my amendment. That is all it does. I urge
approval of the amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas:
Page 30, line 17, strike the closing quotation marks and
the second period.
Page 30, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
``(4) Contents of report related to barriers to investment
into the united states.--In order to assist the Congress in
its oversight role of ensuring the national security of the
United States by ensuring a healthy investment climate, the
President, and such agencies as the President shall
designate, shall include in the annual report
[[Page H2001]]
submitted under paragraph (1) a detailed discussion of
factors, including the effective rate of taxation on
entrepreneurs and businesses and other sources of capital in
the United States as compared to other countries, that affect
the number of filings, changes in the types of business
sectors involved in filings, and changes in the number of
investments originating from specific countries.''.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. First, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the
chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their important
work on this bill. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I
certainly see the importance and value of what we are doing here today.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which requires the
Secretary of the Treasury to include in his reporting information the
rate of taxation in the United States as compared to other countries
and how that would affect the investments examined by CFIUS.
And while I support the underlying bill, this amendment improves on
the oversight requirements included in it. It requires the report to
include information on how taxation affects foreign investment in the
United States. Congress will be better informed on how our actions make
it harder or easier for foreign countries to invest in our critical
infrastructure.
The report is also required in the text of the bill, and this
amendment merely ensures that we, as a Congress, know all the
information we need to perform effective and better oversight.
The underlying bill is about how foreign investment affects national
security, and there is no way to understand why foreign investments
would be made here, or what it would do to our economy, without
understanding the economic factors such as taxes.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and support a thorough
report that examines all the factors affecting foreign investments in
the United States.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas:
Page 30, line 17, strike the closing quotation marks and
the second period.
Page 30, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
``(4) Contents of report related to barriers to investment
into the united states.--In order to assist the Congress in
its oversight role of ensuring the national security of the
United States by ensuring a healthy investment climate, the
President, and such agencies as the President shall
designate, shall include in the annual report submitted under
paragraph (1) a detailed discussion of factors, including the
amount of burdensome regulation in the United States as
compared to other countries, that affect the number of
filings, changes in the types of business sectors involved in
filings, and changes in the number of investments originating
from specific countries.''.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this
amendment which requires the Secretary of the Treasury to include in
his reporting information on the amount of regulation in the United
States, as compared to other countries, and how it affects the
investments, the foreign investments, examined by CFIUS.
I support the underlying bill. This amendment simply improves on the
oversight requirements. By requiring the report to include information
on how burdensome regulation affects foreign investment in the United
States, I believe Congress will be better informed on how our actions
in the Congress can either make it harder or easier for foreign
countries to invest in our critical infrastructure.
It is already required in the text of the bill. This would ensure us
better oversight capability.
The underlying bill again is about foreign investment. I believe
foreign investment affects national security. Issues relating to
taxation and regulation certainly impact the foreign investments that
are made both in this country and outside.
I ask my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to simply conclude that, and the chairman
is certainly an expert and a leader in terms of financial security
issues. Certainly he would recognize that our viability as an economic
superpower is vitally important in this country as we look at countries
like China and India.
So I do believe it is relevant. I believe our ability to globally
compete is not just an economic issue, but really is an issue of
national security.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentlewoman yield to me for 30
seconds?
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the chairman.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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
[[Page H2002]]
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.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. 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.
{time} 1215
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. CROWLEY. 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.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas:
Page 30, line 17, strike the closing quotation marks and
the second period.
Page 30, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
``(4) Contents of report related to barriers to investment
into the united states.--In order to assist the Congress in
its oversight role of ensuring the national security of the
United States by ensuring a healthy investment climate, the
President, and such agencies as the President shall
designate, shall include in the annual report submitted under
paragraph (1) a detailed discussion of factors, including a
detailed discussion, including trend information on the
number of jobs in the United States related to foreign
investment resulting from covered transactions, that affect
the number of filings, changes in the types of business
sectors involved in filings, and changes in the number of
investments originating from specific countries.''.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this
amendment, which requires the Secretary of the Treasury to include in
his report information on the net effect of foreign investment on
American jobs.
While I support the underlying bill, this improves our oversight
capability and gives the information to Congress that we need on how
jobs will be impacted by foreign investment. Congress will be better
informed on how our actions lead to the creation or outsourcing of
American jobs overseas. This report is already required in the text.
This amendment will ensure we have better oversight.
The underlying bill is about, again, how foreign investments affect
national security. There is no way to understand why foreign
investments would be made here or what it would do to our economy
without information, understanding the effect on jobs that foreign
investments would have. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
And I would like to respond, if I may, that it is hard to imagine how
our taxation and regulatory process is not related to foreign
investment. And when we look at taxation, regulatory policies in this
country, and when we look at jobs, particularly jobs being outsourced
in countries like China and India, when we talk about viability, I
appreciate the chairman's arguments and the gentleman from New York and
the gentlewoman from New York, but it is hard for me to differentiate
and dissect how national security is not impacted by our economic
security and economic viability. If we are not a global superpower
anymore, if we are not economically viable in this country, if we are
losing jobs in this country, if our taxation and regulatory burden is
so cumbersome that we are discouraging investment, including foreign
investment in this country, I would argue that we are impacting our
national security.
It is hard for me to conceive why the Congress wouldn't want this
kind of information in evaluating our national security policies as
they relate to economics. And the chairman, again, is an expert on
financial security. I don't understand why you wouldn't want this
information.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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
[[Page H2003]]
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.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will yield.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. You correctly state the issue and the purpose of
the bill, and that is a fear of discouraging foreign investments. And I
would argue that our system of taxation and regulatory burden in this
country has a direct impact on foreign investments.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Excuse me. Under the rules, I reclaim my
time.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. And the loss of jobs, outsourcing of jobs is a
national security issue, in my view.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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.
Mr. BACHUS. 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.
{time} 1230
I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this is a healthy discussion, a
[[Page H2004]]
healthy debate. This bill is about foreign investment. This bill is a
reporting requirement, hardly an outrageous request; I think a very
sound request to the contrary on, as the gentleman stated, what are the
barriers in this country to foreign investment?
It is hard for me to completely dissect our security and viability
from one of national security, which is apparently what the gentleman
from Massachusetts is attempting to do. I think they go hand in hand. I
think we need to look at our ability to compete globally in this
country. And when we do that, we are talking about national security.
And when we talk about that issue, we have to examine our taxation and
regulation policies in this country. And we have to look at the impact
that these investments are having on jobs in this country. It is hard
to tell the American people that their job is not an area of
importance; it is important to our economic viability and security, and
I would argue, I know the gentleman disagrees, that it is important to
our national security.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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. CROWLEY. 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.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CROWLEY. 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.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. I thank the gentleman from New York.
Again, this bill is about foreign investment. Is the gentleman
arguing that our economic policies in the United States have nothing to
do with foreign investment?
Mr. CROWLEY. 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.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. 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.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word,
and I yield to my colleague from Texas.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, just in a very short conclusion, I
think we are ready to move on, but it is a healthy debate that we are
having.
The relevance, as the gentlelady from New York mentioned, of jobs and
national security, the relevance of our taxation policies and our
economic policies and regulatory policies and our economic security
does directly impact our national security in this country.
I fully support the underlying bill. It is needed legislation. It is
a great piece of legislation. I commended the chairman and ranking
member for this bill in response to the Dubai Ports issue. But, again,
I don't think we can look at this, and why wouldn't we want this
information in the Congress? Our taxation policy in this country or
regulatory burden, does that have an impact on foreign investment? Why
wouldn't we want that information in the Congress? Wouldn't we want to
know whether foreign investment one way or the other impacts jobs in
this country? I would argue that is a healthy examination that is
useful information for the Congress in examining our economic viability
as a superpower, our economic security in this country, which again is
a national security issue.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Let me thank the chairman of the full committee and Chairman Frank
and the ranking member of the full committee for the heavy lifting that
has been done.
I rise to support H.R. 556, and in the course of it, let me try to
remind my colleagues why we got here. Among many reasons, I think the
incident involving the Dubai Ports was not only a shock to the very
fine Financial Services Committee, but a shock to Homeland Security, it
was a shock to America. And the focus was not around I don't want jobs
created by foreign investment; it was around, you mean to tell me we
have been exposed to the potential of terrorist activities or control?
Certainly some of the suggestions and allegations were probably far-
blown because people are fearful. And that is why we have come together
to work on these issues from a collective Financial Services
perspective and a number of other jurisdictions. On the CFIUS committee
is the Secretary of Commerce, is the Secretary of Homeland Security, so
therefore, these diverse issues can be addressed.
I rise to support H.R. 556 because of one particular reason. There is
transparency. There is no more of the shock value. Across America we
are now selling roads. We don't know what else we will be selling. We
may be selling doors to banks as it relates to foreign investment. Not
that we disagree with foreign investment. We want it to be balanced.
And the way the bill has been constructed, one, there is a wide
diversity of responsibility, including the Secretaries of Treasury,
Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, State and Energy, very
appropriate, Attorney
[[Page H2005]]
General, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, the U.S. Trade
Representative, Director of Office of Management and Budget, Director
of National Economic Council, and the Director of the Office of Science
and Technology Policy. I can't imagine a more inclusive group to be
able to make a very studied assessment, one, of protecting us, which is
the real question that Americans ask, who's in my backyard, who's at my
back door, and also not to reject legitimate, forthright and job-
creating opportunities.
In the transaction process that has been laid out by this bill, it is
a study in thoughtfulness. And I think it will work. This determination
will be assessed: whether the transaction involves a foreign
government-controlled entity, whether the transaction threatens to
impair national security, and the review cannot mitigate the concern.
So there you are again, no cover-up, transparent. The National
Intelligence Director identifies concerns and if CFIUS cannot agree
upon methods to mitigate these concerns, any one CFIUS member agency
votes against approving the transaction. So one entity, it may be
Commerce, it may be Homeland Security, can raise a concern about this
transaction.
This is, I think, a fast action on a matter that could not be
addressed and did not get addressed in the last Congress. But we are
here today talking about ways of securing America and working
financially and businesswise with the various constituencies that would
be impacted. I find this as a wonderful first step. Coming from the
State of Texas, I can assure you that there is a lot of busy-ness about
selling roads. It again raises its head of concern about security
questions. I have always made the point, do we put making money over
security? I believe that we have made a very important first step to
strengthen this process, of recognizing the balance. My subcommittee on
this question looks forward to hearings after the fact on the actual
practical aspects of the selling of infrastructure in the United
States, but we now have a body of thought through H.R. 556 which we can
use as a form of study and relief.
In conclusion, let me again thank the sponsors of this bill, I am a
cosponsor of it as well, but the chairman and ranking member and also
for moving this swiftly and quickly and really answering the question
of both transparency, jobs and security, might I say security being
number one. I ask my colleagues to support the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise today in support of H.R. 556. This bill will make national
security an important factor in foreign business transactions. Last
year's news that the Government of the United Arab Emirates was going
to take control over a number of U.S. ports shocked many Americans and
it alarmed us here in Congress as well, even though the United Arab
Emirates is a close and respected ally.
Congress came to understand that the Committee on Foreign Investment
in the United States, or CFIUS process is broken. This process by which
the United States sells property and assets to a foreign entity is not
fully disclosed, has no congressional oversight and merely glances at
the national security implications before a decision is made. Today we
are working on passing the National Security FIRST Act to fix this
problem.
As cochairman of the Port Security Caucus and the Member who
represents the Port of Baltimore, we must commit to strong security
while not adversely impacting commerce. After an initial review is
conducted, CFIUS would immediately conduct a full-scale investigation
on the effects the transaction has on national security. Understanding
the national security implications is vital to these transactions, but
it must be done in a reasonable time frame. We live and conduct
business in a global environment and we must remain competitive. But we
need to make sure that we keep our national security at the forefront
of any decision.
{time} 1245
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. McCaul of Texas;
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. McCaul of Texas;
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. McCaul of Texas.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198,
noes 228, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 106]
AYES--198
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--228
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
[[Page H2006]]
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Brady (PA)
Carson
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Honda
Hunter
Inslee
Mica
Rothman
Space
Stark
{time} 1314
Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Sires, Ms. Giffords, Mr. Melancon,
Mrs. Tauscher, Messrs. Sestak, Barrow, Kagen, Langevin, Ms. Norton, Mr.
Stupak, Mr. Dingell, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Messrs.
Jefferson, Al Green of Texas and Lewis of Georgia changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. Conaway, Saxton, McHugh, Flake and Frelinghuysen changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 106, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 6 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197,
noes 231, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 107]
AYES--197
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--231
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Brady (PA)
Carson
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Hunter
Inslee
Mica
Rothman
Space
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes
remain in this vote.
{time} 1323
Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
[[Page H2007]]
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197,
noes 231, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 108]
AYES--197
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--231
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Brady (PA)
Carson
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Hunter
Inslee
Mica
Rothman
Space
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes
remain in this vote.
{time} 1333
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 106, 107, and 108, had I
been present, I would have voted ``no.''
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, due to my attendance at the Arlington
National Cemetery funeral of U.S. Army SGT John D. Rode, my constituent
from Lake Mary who died from injuries inflicted by a terrorist IED in
Iraq on February 14, 2007, I was unable to cast votes on rollcalls 106,
107, and 108. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on each of
these measures.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, the question is on
the Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Weiner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pastor, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House Resolution
195, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted
by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on
the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Neugebauer
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. In its current form, yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Neugebauer moves to recommit the bill H.R. 556 to the
Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendments:
Page 30, line 17, strike the closing quotation marks and
the 2nd period.
Page 30, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
``(4) Contents of report relating to barriers to investment
in the united states.--In order to assist the Congress in its
oversight role of ensuring the national security
[[Page H2008]]
of the United States by assuring a healthy investment
climate, the President, and such agencies as the President
shall designate, shall include in the annual report submitted
under paragraph (1) detailed analysis of factors in the
United States, such as--
``(A) the deleterious effect of burdensome regulations;
``(B) fair, equitable and nondiscriminatory treatment of
entrepreneurs, businesses and other sources of capital;
``(C) the stability of the financial markets; and
``(D) economic competitiveness driven by innovation,
that, when compared to similar conditions in other countries,
may negatively impact the number of filings, cause changes in
the types of business sectors involved in such filings, and
adversely affect the number of investments originating from
specific countries, or that may induce retaliatory actions by
other countries that directly impair United States global
investments.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit I offer today is
straightforward and simple.
If adopted, it would require the President's annual report to the
Congress on CFIUS operations to analyze the factors that promote the
healthy investment climate and scrutinize the aspects of our regulatory
environment that discourages such investment. I hope that all Members
can agree that supporting foreign investment in the United States, with
appropriate exceptions to protect our national security, benefits all
Americans.
I also hope that all Members recognize that just as important to
welcome direct investment in the United States, it is also important to
identify and address the barriers that have been erected in this
country that chill such investment. Open markets and national security
support one another.
The U.S. regulatory climate is driving investment away. It is time to
consider broad overhaul of our Nation's rules, enforcement policies and
litigation system. The annual report required by this bill, the
``Report Related to Barriers to Investment into the United States,'' is
an important venue for Congress to seek information that can lay a
foundation for such examination.
National security cannot become a pretext for protectionism. As well,
it must be understood that artificial barriers to foreign investment
will only induce international retaliation against U.S. investments
overseas.
If the United States trends towards restricted markets, others will
follow. Should such scenario play out, our country has the most to
lose. I urge the House to adopt this motion to recommit with
instructions so that we can better understand the impediments to
legitimate foreign investment and to our country, promote our interests
abroad and to ensure that the United States economy remains the envy of
the world.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in
opposition to the recommittal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute
votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and the motion to suspend the
rules and agree to House Concurrent Resolution 52.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193,
noes 229, not voting 11, as follows:
[[Page H2009]]
[Roll No. 109]
AYES--193
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--229
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Brady (PA)
Burton (IN)
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Hunter
Inslee
Jones (OH)
Rothman
Space
Towns
{time} 1404
Mr. FILNER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 423,
noes 0, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 110]
AYES--423
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
[[Page H2010]]
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Brady (PA)
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Diaz-Balart, M.
Hunter
Inslee
Rothman
Space
Sullivan
{time} 1413
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________