[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4801-4826]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 4802]]

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 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,

[[Page 4803]]

the United Arab Emirates, under the Dubai Ports World. Even worse, this 
deal had been approved by our government through a secretive process no 
one had ever heard of. In fact, Congress and senior administration 
officials learned about this deal by reading about it in the 
newspapers.
  Even before the Dubai Ports World fiasco, the General Accountability 
Office had criticized the Committee on Foreign Investments in the 
United States, or CFIUS, for being overly focused on bureaucratic 
goals, basically getting deals done with little oversight, without 
causing a fuss.
  Well, the Dubai Ports World deal showed the world the weaknesses in 
the CFIUS process. The decision was made, and when they did make that 
decision, they did not involve any high-level government officials. 
They did not report to Congress. They used a very out-of-date 
definition of national security.
  Surely anyone in a post-9/11 world would consider our largest ports a 
national security concern. The 9/11 Commission called it one of the 
areas that we have the most problems and one that needs the most 
attention.
  As a Representative from New York, which is both target number one 
for terrorism and the financial capital in our Nation, I felt very 
strongly that we needed to get something done.
  At the time, along with Deborah Pryce, I was the ranking member on 
the subcommittee which we both served on with jurisdiction over CFIUS, 
and so we had a front-line responsibility for the issue, and we worked 
together to put forward this legislation.
  Our legislation passed the last Congress 421-0. We hope we get the 
same result today, and we resubmitted the bill again earlier this year. 
It is past time to get this done. If you had told the American people 
that a year after Dubai Ports World and the scandal involved with it we 
would still be debating CFIUS reform and had not strengthened the 
system already, I think they would be very surprised.
  The need for reform remains even after DPW. The CFIUS process is not 
catching all the deals that it should.
  Last year I personally called to the attention of CFIUS the fact that 
a company with ties to the Venezuelan Government had purchased a major 
voting machine manufacturer in our country. CFIUS did initiate a 
review, and after some time in the process, the company announced that 
it would withdraw from the U.S. market. Surely we would consider a 
foreign government owning our voting machines a national security 
concern.
  In the end the process did work, but it worked only after prodding, 
and it should work better. That is what this bill would accomplish. It 
puts national security first, addressing the weaknesses in the Dubai 
Ports World.
  The bill requires high-level attention and sign-off on every 
transaction, and particular attention to transactions involving 
foreign-government-owned entities.

                              {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

[[Page 4804]]

     may discourage foreign investment by generating uncertainty 
     and delay for the parties to proposed transactions. The 
     Administration therefore opposes allowing CFIUS to extend the 
     second stage (45-day) investigation period. The 
     Administration notes that the current CFIUS practice of 
     encouraging parties to transactions to consult with CFIUS 
     prior to filing provides CFIUS with additional time and 
     flexibility to examine complex transactions.
       The Administration supports the role of the intelligence 
     community as an independent advisor to CFIUS and appreciates 
     the bill's inclusion of a provision that ensures that the 
     Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is provided adequate 
     time to complete the DNI's analysis of any threat to the 
     national security of a covered transaction. However, language 
     in H.R. 556 also appears to provide the DNI with the ability 
     to force a second-stage (45-day) investigation if the DNI has 
     identified particularly complex intelligence concerns and 
     CFIUS was not able to satisfactorily mitigate the threat. 
     Such a policy role would be inconsistent with the independent 
     advisory role of the DNI envisioned in the legislation and 
     supported by the Administration.

                  Notification and reports to Congress

       The Administration supports enhanced communication with 
     Congress on CFIUS matters to better facilitate Congress' 
     performance of its functions. CFIUS should be required to 
     notify Congress of transactions only after all deliberative 
     action is concluded, as H.R. 556 provides. As discussed 
     above, roll call voting, particularly if reported outside the 
     Executive Branch, would deter the full and open interagency 
     discussion that is required to consider CFIUS cases, and 
     reporting on internal Executive Branch deliberations, 
     including the positions of individual CFIUS members, should 
     not be required.

                          Authorities of CFIUS

       The Administration believes current law and regulations 
     give the President and CFIUS adequate authority to gather all 
     information needed to conduct CFIUS investigations. The 
     Administration is concerned that provisions of the bill that 
     provide CFIUS with additional statutory authority to collect 
     evidence and require the attendance and testimony of 
     witnesses and the production of documents would make the 
     CFIUS process more adversarial and less effective.
       The Administration believes its ability to protect national 
     security would be enhanced by a statutory grant of authority 
     to impose civil penalties for a breach of a mitigation 
     agreement. This authority to seek civil penalties, which 
     could be calibrated to the seriousness of the non-compliance, 
     would be a useful and effective tool for enforcing those 
     agreements.

                    Presidential review and decision

       The Administration supports requiring the President to make 
     the final decision on a case only when CFIUS recommends that 
     a transaction be blocked or when CFIUS fails to reach a 
     consensus after a second-stage investigation. Requiring 
     Presidential action in a broader set of cases would undermine 
     the President's ability to determine how best to exercise 
     Executive Branch decision-making authority.
       The Administration looks forward to working with Congress 
     on these important issues.

  Mr. 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.

[[Page 4805]]

  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.
                                  ____



                              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.

[[Page 4806]]

  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 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.

[[Page 4807]]

  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 
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.

[[Page 4808]]

  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 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.

[[Page 4809]]

  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. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened 
Transparency Act of 2007, H.R. 556, of which I am also an original co-
sponsor.
  Last year, the proposed sale of the P&O firm--which manages terminal 
operations at major East Coast ports, including the Port of Baltimore--
to a company controlled by the government of Dubai raised several 
significant issues to the attention of Congress.
  In addition to making many aware for the first time that operations 
in American seaports are frequently managed by foreign interests, the 
sale brought renewed attention to the significant gaps in our port 
security regime.
  Further, the proposed deal revealed the inadequacy of our systems for 
assessing the security risks that the increasingly global nature of 
business ownership relationships may pose--not just in the port 
management industry but in almost all critical industries in the U.S.
  Fulfilling our unwavering commitment to the security of our homeland, 
the Democratic leadership has moved systematically to address the 
security concerns raised by the proposed sale of P&O to Dubai.
  The first piece of legislation the House considered and passed this 
year--H.R. 1--would close an enormous gap in port security by requiring 
the examination of all shipping containers bound for the U.S.
  The bill before us today, H.R. 556, will reform the processes of the 
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to ensure 
that this Committee casts greater scrutiny on transactions involving 
entities owned by foreign individuals or governments--and to ensure 
that Congress receives the information it needs to oversee this 
process.
  As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation, I understand the critical need to balance security and 
economics--particularly at our ports.
  However, we must ensure that the CFIUS process--which is as much a 
part of our homeland security system as any scanner or radiation 
detector--is adequate to ensure that the implications of all 
transactions involving foreign entities are fully understood and that 
only those investments that pose no national security risks are allowed 
to move forward.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 556.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
556, the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened 
Transparency Act. This legislation strikes the delicate balance between 
the need to encourage foreign direct investment in the United States 
and the ability to critically review potential investment deals that 
threaten our national security.
  I am particularly pleased that this bill formalizes the Committee on 
Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) membership and 
designates the Secretary of the Treasury as the Chair. It is crucial to 
our economy that we continue to encourage foreign countries to freely 
invest in the United States, and the legislation before us will do just 
that.
  It is, however, equally important to ensure that in cases where 
potential investment deals could impact our national security, we have 
a stopgap measure allowing us to critically review the potential 
ramifications and to proceed with caution. I am therefore also pleased 
that this legislation designates the Secretary of Homeland Security as 
the Vice Chair of CFIUS. The United States has historically been open 
to foreign direct investment and has provided foreign investors with 
fair, equitable and non-discriminatory treatment, and I believe this 
legislation will be implemented within this context.
  Foreign direct investment continues to provide benefits to our 
economy in terms of jobs, technology, management expertise, and 
capital. The legislation we are considering today will continue to 
encourage such investment while strengthening the process through which 
we can ensure that none of these arrangements hinder our national 
security interests. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this legislation.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I was a strong supporter of 
H.R. 5337, the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and 
Strengthened Transparency Act of 2006, which passed the Financial 
Services Committee as well as the House in the 109th Congress. First, I 
want to again acknowledge the work of our distinguished chairman of the 
Committee of Financial Services, Mr. Frank and Mr. Gutierrez, chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, 
Trade and Technology for supporting this bill. Let me also thank Ms. 
Maloney, a member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International 
Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology, for again introducing this 
important national security legislation, H.R. 556. In addition, the 
bill now has more than 50 co-sponsors.
  Last year, the House approved a comprehensive set of reforms to the 
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) process. 
It is a testament to the diligence of Ms. Maloney and other members of 
the Committee on Financial Services that H.R. 556 is being considered 
so early in this session.
  It has been almost a year since we learned of the Committee of 
Foreign Investment's (CFIUS) activities related to Dubai World Ports 
and the implications of the proposed deal for national security. I can 
genuinely say that the members of the Committee on Financial Services 
have been most directly involved in this issue since that time.
  The bill the House passed last year, H.R. 5337, was designed to 
reform the CFIUS process based on the information gleaned from earlier 
hearings on the subject. We have heard about the negative impact of 
cutting off foreign direct investment in the U.S. However, it would be 
foolish to assume that we would take any such steps to prohibit foreign 
direct investment. At the same time, we need to consider safeguards to 
ensure that the CFIUS process is consistent with the original intent of 
the Congress concerning national security and investments.
  It is time that CFIUS operated within the law, and that it is made 
clear who is responsible for what in the decisionmaking process. 
Another critical issue is how decisions are actually made, and what 
entity is principally responsible for protecting the national security 
interests of this Nation as they pertain to foreign direct investment.
  This bill enables CFIUS to unilaterally initiate a review where an 
issue of concern is raised; any foreign government backed deal would be 
subject to review; both the Secretaries of the Treasury and Homeland 
Security must sign off on reviews, while the Homeland Security 
Secretary would be vice-chair of the Committee; and all reviews are 
subject to review by the Director of National intelligence.
  In addition, everyone knows that transparency and accountability 
were, in part, at the heart of the congressional uproar over the Dubai 
World Ports deal. Importantly, H.R. 556 like its predecessor bill 
requires that CFIUS report biannually to Congress on its activities. 
This is strong legislation that will only make Congress' job less 
difficult on the issue of national security and foreign direct 
investment.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 556 without any weakening 
amendments. Unfortunately, there are those who would have you believe 
that the bill in not balanced. I would submit that the bill represents 
a comprehensive well-balanced measure in view of the global situation. 
Indeed, this bill will not undermine foreign investment in the U.S.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 556, National 
Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act of 
2007, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of it.
  Many Americans were rightfully concerned in 2006 by the Dubai Ports 
World scandal. I support H.R. 556 because this bill provides the needed 
reform to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States 
(CFIUS). By reforming CFIUS, the United States can better balance the 
critical issue of national security with the billions of dollars in 
foreign investment that helps keep our economy strong. H.R. 556 
formally establishes CFIUS and its membership and streamlines the 
process for reviews by the committee. This bill mandates a 30-day 
review for all national security-related business transactions and a 
full-scale 45-day investigation to follow if necessary. This bill also 
ensures these decisions are made at a senior level and requires CFIUS 
to report to Congress five days after their final action on an 
investigation. The United States Chamber of Commerce supports this bill 
as do other groups concerned about responsible policy for foreign 
investment.
  I oppose any amendments that weaken H.R. 556, National Security 
Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act of 2007. 
The three amendments introduced by Rep. McCaul all place burdensome 
reporting requirements on CFIUS and detract from the committee's 
mission. Reporting on tax issues is outside the scope and expertise of 
the committee. CFIUS and its resources should be focused on foreign 
transactions, and most importantly, on national security.
  I support H.R. 556 and urge my colleagues to join me in improving our 
national security while safeguarding America's economy.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.

[[Page 4810]]

  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 
     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)).

[[Page 4811]]

       ``(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.
       ``(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

[[Page 4812]]

     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.--
       ``(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

[[Page 4813]]

     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 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:


[[Page 4814]]

       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.
  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

[[Page 4815]]

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 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

[[Page 4816]]

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 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.

[[Page 4817]]

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 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.

[[Page 4818]]

  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 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.

[[Page 4819]]

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 
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

[[Page 4820]]

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 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

[[Page 4821]]

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. Mc Caul 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)
     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,

[[Page 4822]]

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. Mc Caul 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. Mc Caul 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.
  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

[[Page 4823]]


     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 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.

[[Page 4824]]

  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:

                             [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

[[Page 4825]]


     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)
     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

[[Page 4826]]


     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.

                          ____________________