Unfortunately, I oppose this bill for this reason: We passed out what I think was a pretty good bill out of the House. That bill had in it several critical national security elements. One of those elements was that any member of this committee, of the CFIUS committee, including, for example, the Secretary of Defense, or a leader in another agency, could, by a single vote, trigger an investigation if they thought there was a national security problem. Remember, this bill grew out of the Dubai Ports problem. When we were faced with this takeover of our port operations in a number of key ports by a foreign-owned company, we realized that that company could access information about vulnerable aspects of those particular ports that could, at some point, be utilized in a terrorist activity. So we understood, and that was a good illustration of how critical this CFIUS process is, especially with this array of foreign investments taking place in this country.
Editor's note · Context
Opposing a bill related to national security and the CFIUS process during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Andrew P. Hunter
once again, these Status of Forces Agreements, which are pretty run of the mill, do not manifest security commitments by the United States to protect the countries that they are made with. They talk about the treatment and describe the…
Taking back my time, I don't think we are going to be appropriating any melting shirts, or authorizing any melting shirts. We do serious stuff. And when you have a defense bill which is over $500 billion and it has thousands and thousands…
What we found is that the magnitude of the reduction in contract obligations for R&D is much greater than what you see overall.
I rise today because in this last week and next week, we are going to be considering in this Congress spending more than we've ever spent since World War II. With the Troubled Assets Relief Program, otherwise known as TARP, and I like to…





