Drop It, Mr. Hunter

IN 2005 FOREIGN direct investment in the United States -- that's money used to buy companies, factories and real estate, as opposed to stocks and bonds -- came to $128.63 billion. That figure, up 20 percent over the year before, comes on top of the $486 billion worth of U.S. assets that the Treasury reckoned was owned by foreigners the last time it made the calculation, in 2003. Among those assets are Japanese car factories; publishing houses and newspapers, among them the New York Post; and manufacturers of items that millions of Americans use every day, such as telephones and stereo equipment.

Among them also are toll roads, mines, telecommunications systems, chemical plants, sewage treatment plants, power plants, weapons factories and, yes, port facilities. French-owned Sodexho is the largest food service company in the United States, providing meals at, among other places, Marine Corps bases. Swedish-owned Securitas is the largest private security firm in this country. Of the 145 oil refineries in the United States, 27 are owned by foreign companies.

We list these statistics not to frighten Americans but to scare those American politicians who are still riding the populist wave created by the doomed Dubai ports deal, and who still think it's possible to prevent foreigners from acquiring America's "critical infrastructure." Leading this pack is Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who says he still wants to pass a bill that would prevent foreign companies from acquiring anything the Defense Department or the Department of Homeland Security placed on a "national defense critical infrastructure list."

The bill defines critical infrastructure as "any system or asset -- physical or virtual -- that is so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such system or asset would have a debilitating effect on national security, economic security or public health and safety." Even on a narrow reading, that definition clearly includes refineries, chemical plants, power plants, telecommunications, and the 11 percent of U.S. water treatment and sanitation facilities now owned by foreign companies. Passage of such a bill, or one similar to it, would therefore require the government to purchase or force the sale of billions of dollars' worth of assets. Not only would such a sale be forbiddingly difficult to organize, both practically and legally, it would destroy forever America's reputation as a safe place to invest. For a high-ranking House leader even to make such a proposal reflects badly on the current state of Congress.

If congressional leaders really are interested in improving the nation's homeland security, there are steps they could take. They could change the funding formulas that result in a disproportionate amount of homeland security money being spent in places where there is little terrorist threat. They could exercise greater oversight over the Transportation Security Administration and indeed the rest of the Homeland Security Department, forcing the latter to focus more sharply on setting priorities for all of the "critical infrastructure" in the country, not just the assets owned by foreigners. They could pass the legislation on chemical plant security that the chemical industry itself wants. They could pass an immigration reform bill designed to encourage illegal residents in this country to come out of the shadows, which would make the borders safer.

Time spent worrying about foreign-owned assets detracts from these more important issues. Mr. Hunter should drop his bill, and others in Congress should quietly stash their similar proposals away, too -- for good.