Gregg Hitt reports that the House has passed CFIUS reform legislation: House Bill Boosts Scrutiny of Foreign Deals (Wall Street Journal - subscription required, March 1):
The House approved legislation that would strengthen U.S. scrutiny of overseas-led business deals, underscoring lawmakers' angst over the frictions caused by the international-investment boom.
The measure, approved yesterday on a vote of 423-0, would require the administration to conduct an extended, 45-day investigation of most deals involving foreign governments, give intelligence agencies a formal role in the review process and increase disclosure to Congress, among other things.
The bipartisan legislation was written in consultation with the White House, which has tried to balance the dual goals of protecting national security and ensuring an open investment environment. While raising concern about some details of the bill, the White House moved ahead of the vote to welcome the House efforts to "strengthen" the investment-review process.
The vote is sure to increase pressure on the Senate to take up the issue, and Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut said he intends to act "in the coming weeks." Mr. Dodd vowed to embrace a "balanced approach" that carves a greater role for the intelligence community in investment reviews and gives Congress "a far greater oversight role to prevent the recurrence of Dubai Ports World episodes."...
The U.S. business community, by and large, has swung behind the House bill. This week, a broad business coalition, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, circulated a letter on Capitol Hill urging passage, saying the bill would "enhance confidence" in the CFIUS process.
Here's a Congressional Research Service report on the measure: Exon-Florio Foreign Investment Provision: Overview of H.R. 556 . Here is the bill summary and status file on Thomas: H.R. 556 .
March 19: Here's a report on passage from Bill McConnell at "Law.com": House OKs CFIUS Reform (March 2)
Comments