HUNTER, DUNCAN: I want to thank my colleague for yielding me some time and for the good work that she has done on this bill, as well as my good friend from New York.
HUNTER, DUNCAN: Unfortunately, I oppose this bill, Mr. Speaker, for this reason: We passed out what I think was a pretty good bill out of the House and that bill had in it several critical national security elements.
HUNTER, DUNCAN: 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
HUNTER, DUNCAN: And 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,
HUNTER, DUNCAN: at some point, be utilized in a terrorist activity.
HUNTER, DUNCAN: 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. So we understood that we needed to reform CFIUS.
HUNTER, DUNCAN: Now in those days, during the Dubai Ports problem, before that, you had an arrangement that was largely put together by Presidential directive, and the President, by his directive, gave any member of the CFIUS committee,
HUNTER, DUNCAN: including SecDef, the ability to raise their hand and basically say, I want an investigation.
HUNTER, DUNCAN: Now, we ensured that, as we put this thing together in statute, that we maintained that right. And I'm turning to that House-passed provision that we passed, Mr. Speaker, that I supported.
HUNTER, DUNCAN: It talked about an investigation being triggered by a roll call vote, and I am quoting, 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 one vote by a committee member against approving the transaction,
HUNTER, DUNCAN: meaning that the Secretary of Defense could get up and say, I think there is a problem here, and he could trigger that transaction.
HUNTER, DUNCAN: Now unfortunately, the product that came back from the Senate didn't have that provision. It had this provision; it said that an investigation would be triggered if, quote ``the lead agency recommends and the committee concurs that an investigation be undertaken.'' They've clearly watered down the ability of one person,
HUNTER, DUNCAN: for example, the Secretary of Defense, to say, to trigger an investigation upon his demand.
HUNTER, DUNCAN: I think that's a fatal flaw, because that takes us back to a weaker position than what we've had under the current practice, which involves an investigation being undertaken if a single member of the committee objects under the present Presidential directive.
HUNTER, DUNCAN: So we are actually going back to a lower standard for triggering an investigation than we had before the Dubai ports problem.
HUNTER, DUNCAN: So I think, unfortunately, we've taken a product from the Senate which is fatally flawed in that respect. I would strongly support this provision coming back, this exact same law, coming back with that fix.
HUNTER, DUNCAN: But I don't know any way we can fix it, or even with a colloquy or in any other way, assign a new congressional intent that will clearly reflect that the words that have been changed aren't, in fact, controlling at this point,
HUNTER, DUNCAN: but that there is a congressional intent that controls.
HUNTER, DUNCAN: So unfortunately, I have to object to the passage of this bill, and I will not support the passage of this bill. I thank the gentleman.