[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 143 (Wednesday, September 21, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H5726-H5732]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5461, IRANIAN LEADERSHIP ASSET 
                            TRANSPARENCY ACT

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 876 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 876

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5461) to require the Secretary of the Treasury 
     to submit a report to the appropriate congressional 
     committees on the estimated total assets under direct or 
     indirect control by certain senior Iranian leaders and other 
     figures, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Financial Services. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No

[[Page H5727]]

     amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.

                              {time}  1245


                             general leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the Reading Clerk 
read through the rule, it sounded a little restrictive. Today, I went 
back and referenced my notes just to make sure that I was right. Mr. 
Speaker, House Resolution 876 is a structured rule, but it provides for 
the consideration of absolutely every amendment submitted to the Rules 
Committee on H.R. 5461, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act. 
Every single amendment that was submitted by this body to the Rules 
Committee for approval was approved and will be made in order by this 
rule.
  The underlying bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to submit 
a report to Congress and make that report available online in its 
nonclassified parts--obviously, the classified parts would be 
restricted to Members of Congress--that estimates the total assets 
under direct or indirect control of senior Iranian leaders, including 
those with ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is well-documented that many of Iran's 
political and military leaders have amassed substantial personal wealth 
on the backs of the citizens of Iran. It gives them control over all 
sorts of sectors of the Iranian economy. In fact, the nonpartisan 
Congressional Research Service estimates that one-third of the Iranian 
economy--that includes telecommunications; it includes construction; it 
includes airports; it includes seaports--is controlled by leaders 
personally in the government--these political and military elites--
through what they will call personal foundations.
  Mr. Speaker, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action--that is what 
most of America knows as the Iran deal, signed by President Obama--has 
allowed many Iranian entities that are tied to government corruption to 
be removed from the list of entities that American businesses are 
prohibited from doing business with--those businesses sanctioned by the 
U.S. Government. Given the large agreement that we have in this Chamber 
that the Iranian Government is embracing corruption at every level, it 
is clear that much of the foreign investment from U.S. companies should 
be limited but is not under the current regime. What is more, U.S. 
businesses today that are able to invest in Iran are doing so without 
any of the knowledge of whom they are supporting and what kinds of 
corruption may be involved. That is bad news for America. It is bad 
news for American national security, and it is bad news for the 
American economy.
  H.R. 5461 will shine a light on that internal Iranian corruption, and 
it will allow American businesses the information they need to 
determine whom and whom not to do business with. We may hear today in 
the underlying bill, Mr. Speaker, that these requirements are too 
burdensome. I tell you that that is nonsense. It is simply a request 
that the Department of the Treasury, using existing resources--public 
resources--as well as our classified resources, make this report to 
Congress. We are talking about only 80 folks. We are talking about the 
Supreme Leader of Iran; we are talking about the President of Iran; we 
are talking about members of the Council of Guardians in Iran; we are 
talking about the Expeditionary Council and about two dozen 
Revolutionary Guard Corps leaders.
  In the war on terror, in the quest for transparency, I am certain 
that the United States Government, through the Department of the 
Treasury, can provide this information. We may hear in the underlying 
debate that such information will expose our intelligence sources 
overseas--again, nonsense. There is not a single Member of this 
Chamber, from left to right, who wants to do that. No one wants to do 
that. Anything that is in a classified setting that needs to remain in 
a classified setting will, in fact, remain in a classified setting.
  Mr. Speaker, if you have any of those concerns--in fact, if any 
Member of this Chamber has any of those concerns--I invite him to 
support this rule. Again, with the passage of this rule, we will move 
to the underlying bill. We will have a full-fledged debate on that 
underlying bill, including a debate over every single amendment offered 
for consideration in this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support 
the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall) for the customary 30 minutes.
  With all that we have to do, I can't believe we are here doing this; 
nonetheless, here we are today, considering H.R. 5461, the so-called 
Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act.
  This bill would require the Secretary of the Treasury to report to 
Congress and post online the estimated total assets under the direct or 
indirect control of certain senior Iranian leaders and other figures, 
along with a description of how these assets were acquired and are 
employed, regardless of whether said figures are subject to U.S. 
sanctions.
  The fact is that this bill--and let's be clear about it--is nothing 
more than another attempt by Republicans to undermine the historic 
agreement the United States worked so hard to achieve to prevent Iran 
from obtaining nuclear weapons. Preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear 
weapons is a big deal. I am sorry my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle don't share that view, but it is a big deal. The world will 
be safer with a nuclear-free Iran.
  Last July, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, 
China, Germany--the P5+1--and Iran agreed to the Joint Comprehensive 
Plan of Action, which required Iran to abandon its nuclear program in 
exchange for U.S., EU, and U.N. sanctions being lifted. The agreement 
officially came into effect on October 18, 2015. U.S. nuclear-related 
sanctions were lifted on January 16, 2016, after the International 
Atomic Energy Agency verified that Iran implemented its key nuclear-
related measures described in the agreement and the Secretary of State 
confirmed the IAEA's verification.
  Since the implementation of the agreement, Republicans have 
repeatedly tried to create the impression of numerous scandals 
surrounding Iran and of supposed violations of the agreement; but the 
reality is that the agreement has, so far, prevented Iran from 
developing a nuclear arsenal. While we will continue to counter Iran's 
hostile activities in the region, we will not undermine the JCPOA.
  H.R. 5461 would absolutely do nothing to increase transparency within 
the Iranian financial industry. Rather, this bill would cause confusion 
regarding compliance obligations, deter non-U.S. banks from reengaging 
with legitimate Iranian business, and undermine the letter and spirit 
of the nuclear agreement the United States worked so hard to achieve.

[[Page H5728]]

  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration 
Policy, which basically ends with this statement, that if the President 
were presented with this bill, his senior advisers would recommend that 
he veto this bill.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


H.R. 5461--Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act--Rep. Poliquin, R-
                         ME, and one cosponsor

       The Administration shares the Congress' goals of increasing 
     transparency and bringing Iran into compliance with 
     international standards in the global fight against terror 
     finance and money laundering. However, this bill would be 
     counterproductive toward those shared goals.
       The bill requires the U.S. Government to publicly report 
     all assets held by some of Iran's highest leaders and to 
     describe how these assets are acquired and used. Rather than 
     preventing terrorist financing and money laundering, this 
     bill would incentivize those involved to make their financial 
     dealings less transparent and create a disincentive for 
     Iran's banking sector to demonstrate transparency. These 
     onerous reporting requirements also would take critical 
     resources away from the U.S. Department of the Treasury's 
     important work to identify Iranian entities engaged in 
     sanctionable conduct. Producing this information could also 
     compromise intelligence sources and methods.
       One of our best tools for impeding destabilizing Iranian 
     activities has been to identify Iranian companies that are 
     controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) 
     or other Iranians on the list of Specially Designated 
     Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) to non-U.S. 
     businesses, so that they can block assets or stop material 
     transfers. This process is labor-intensive and requires the 
     judicious use of our national intelligence assets. 
     Redirecting these assets to preparing this onerous public 
     report would be counterproductive and will not reduce 
     institutional corruption or promote transparency within 
     Iran's system.
       In addition, this bill's required public postings also may 
     be perceived by Iran and likely our Joint Comprehensive Plan 
     of Action (JCPOA) partners as an attempt to undermine the 
     fulfillment of our commitments, in turn impacting the 
     continued viability of this diplomatic arrangement that 
     peacefully and verifiably prevents Iran from acquiring a 
     nuclear weapon. If the JCPOA were to fail on that basis, it 
     would remove the unprecedented constraints on and monitoring 
     of Iran's nuclear program, lead to the unraveling of the 
     international sanctions regime against Iran, and deal a 
     devastating blow to the credibility of America's leadership 
     and our commitments to our closest allies.
       As we address our concerns with Iran's nuclear program 
     through implementation of the JCPOA, the Administration 
     remains clear-eyed regarding Iran's support for terrorism, 
     its ballistic missile program, human rights abuses, and 
     destabilizing activity in the region. The United States 
     should retain all of the tools needed to counter this 
     activity, ranging from powerful sanctions to our efforts to 
     disrupt and interdict illicit shipments of weapons and 
     proliferation-sensitive technologies. This bill would 
     adversely affect the U.S. Government's ability to wield these 
     tools, would undermine the very goals it purports to achieve, 
     and could even endanger our ability to ensure that Iran's 
     nuclear program is and remains exclusively peaceful.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 5461, his senior 
     advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this bill is going nowhere. Quite frankly, 
I think it is an insult to the American people that we are bringing up 
more and more bills that are going nowhere when we have so much here to 
do. Congress has roughly a week before we recess again, and instead of 
focusing on passing a bipartisan bill to actually fund the government, 
House Republicans are wasting more time with partisan bills like this, 
and it really is quite unfortunate.
  But, since Republicans want to talk about transparency so much, let's 
talk about the transparency--or the total lack of transparency--of 
their Presidential nominee, Donald Trump. I have got to tell you that I 
have been doing this a long time, and I think it is safe to say that 
Donald Trump's lack of transparency would make Richard Nixon blush.
  For 40 years, America's major party nominees have publicly released 
their tax returns, a simple and basic disclosure made to the American 
people to help them choose which candidate is best fit to be our next 
President. Donald Trump, the nominee of the party that is telling us 
today that they care so much about transparency, has repeatedly refused 
to release his tax returns. This comes even after he promised in 2014 
that he ``absolutely''--and I say that in quotes--would release them if 
he ran for President.
  Let's be honest. In this House of Representatives, if Hillary Clinton 
refused to release her tax returns, there would be an outcry like you 
have never heard from my Republican friends. There would be calls for 
hearings and resolutions and probably even a vote to impeach her 
retroactively once she was elected. We all know that. But, on Donald 
Trump's lack of transparency--the guy who wants to be President of the 
United States--they are silent.
  The secrecy and the lack of transparency doesn't stop with Donald 
Trump's tax returns. This month, Newsweek reported on how Donald 
Trump's extensive financial dealings overseas would pose an 
unprecedented conflict of interest that could threaten our national 
security and global interests.
  In the article, they write:

       Never before has a business posed such a threat to the 
     United States. If Donald Trump wins this election and his 
     company is not immediately shut down or forever severed from 
     the entire Trump family, the foreign policy of the United 
     States of America could well be for sale.

  The Trump Organization has hundreds of business dealings involving 
more than a dozen countries on five continents, including Russia, 
India, Turkey, Libya, China, and South Korea. Newsweek warns that, as 
long as The Trump Organization remains open, foreign governments and 
businesses would be able to funnel money directly into the pockets of 
Trump and his family. That means American foreign policy would be 
literally for sale. It is a situation unlike anything we have ever seen 
in American history.
  For example, Trump's business deals could motivate him to abandon 
NATO allies like Turkey and important Asian allies like South Korea. 
His deals in Azerbaijan could force him to alter his position on Iran 
or undermine U.S. relations with Armenia. His deals in India could 
influence his position over longstanding conflicts with Pakistan--in a 
volatile subcontinent where both nations have nuclear weapons.
  When it comes to Russia, there are concerns about Trump's heaping 
praise and praise and praise on an increasingly hostile foreign leader, 
Russian President Vladimir Putin, at the same time his company is 
seeking business opportunities in Russia and how that conflict of 
interest could evolve if Trump were President of the United States.
  Newsweek also reports that the friction caused by Trump's business 
dealings could jeopardize relationships with our allies like Turkey in 
the fight against ISIS. Additionally, one of Trump's business partners 
is a South Korean company that is involved in nuclear energy, which 
makes you wonder if that is why he suggested South Korea should have 
nuclear weapons.
  So, if you want to talk about transparency and if you are worried 
about conflicts of interest and corruption, you ought to demand that 
the nominee of your party come clean with the American people. You 
ought to demand that he release his tax returns, that he make it clear 
that he would end all of his business ties if, God forbid, he would 
become President of the United States, which is something that, I hope, 
we never, ever get close to.
  The bottom line is that that is something that is real and is right 
before us, and, quite frankly, we ought to be doing more about it. We 
shouldn't be wasting the American people's time with more partisan 
messaging bills that claim to be about transparency--bills that are 
going absolutely nowhere. We should focus on passing a bipartisan 
funding bill that keeps this government open and that takes real action 
to combat the very real Zika virus and other public health crises that 
Americans are actually confronting.
  I urge the Members of both parties to defeat this rule and get back 
to work on real issues that actually matter in the lives of the people 
whom we represent.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts if 
he has any further speakers remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just inform the gentleman that we 
have one additional speaker who says he is on his way.
  Mr. WOODALL. I tell the gentleman I, too, have a rumored speaker who 
is on his way, so we are in the same boat in that space.

[[Page H5729]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I read further from the Statement of Administration Policy, the veto 
threat that the gentleman from Massachusetts noted earlier.

                              {time}  1300

  He did read the section that said: If the President were presented 
with H.R. 5461, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the 
bill.
  There is more on this page, Mr. Speaker. He also says: `` . . . the 
Administration remains clear-eyed regarding Iran's support for 
terrorism, its ballistic missile program, human rights abuses, and 
destabilizing activity in the region.''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, what he is referencing, no doubt, ties into the 
report that the State Department released over the summer, naming Iran 
the number one international sponsor of terrorism.
  Now, what this bill asks is: If you know you have a corrupt 
government--again, in the administration's words, Iran's support for 
terrorism, its ballistic program, its human rights abuses, and its 
destabilizing activity in the region--if you know that you have a 
dangerous government and if you know that corrupt leaders of that 
government are hiding their resources in foundations across the nation, 
if you know that those foundations are controlling a third of the 
Iranian economy, continuing to keep its foot on the voice of the 
Iranian people, if you know that this is true, why won't you stand up 
and be counted?
  My friend from Massachusetts says we shouldn't waste our time on this 
because it is going nowhere. Candidly, I believe leadership is taking 
those things that folks believe are going nowhere and making them a 
reality. That is what the President did with this Iran deal.
  When I go back and think about the polling that was going on across 
the Nation while the President was pushing this deal around the globe, 
there was no more unpopular agreement with the American people. The 
American people were livid that we would be making a deal to perpetuate 
the power and control structure in Iran, but the President led on that. 
He forced that through. I don't believe we ever got a majority of the 
American people behind it, but he got a majority of the Congress to 
support him in that effort.
  Mr. Speaker, this is about information. This is about information on 
a known sponsor of global terrorism. This is about providing 
information not just to American citizens, but to Iranian citizens. If 
you live in the nation of Iran, if you have that average annual income 
of $15,000, Mr. Speaker, you might be interested to know how the other 
half lives. You might be interested to know, when your leaders are 
talking about the Great Satan on national television, where it is they 
are stuffing their pockets. You might be interested to know, when folks 
are talking about you rising up to fight the Great Satan, where those 
folks have their relatives working, where their millions are growing, 
what parts of the economy they are controlling. That is all this bill 
is going to ask for.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate the rule today. The rule 
makes it in order to consider the underlying bill as well as every 
single amendment that has been offered by both sides of the aisle to 
perfect the underlying bill.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to be enthusiastic in their support of 
the underlying bill and of the rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just respond to the gentleman that the reason why the 
administration wants to veto this bill has nothing to do with the fact 
that they aren't concerned about Iran's role in promoting terrorist 
organizations around the world or being involved in very bad behavior.
  I think they are opposed to this bill because they don't think it is 
worth anything; that it is not going to work. In fact, rather than 
preventing terrorist financing and money laundering, this bill would 
actually incentivize those affected to make their financial dealings 
less transparent and create a disincentive for Iran's banking sector to 
demonstrate transparency.
  Look, we are all talking about this like this is all on the level. 
The real deal is that my friends on the other side are upset that the 
President of the United States negotiated a deal with Iran that 
prevents them from getting a nuclear weapon. So we see a multitude of 
bills like this coming to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. 
And if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to 
the rule to bring up legislation that would expand the Department of 
Homeland Security's presence overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation would strengthen DHS's operations by 
authorizing and expanding Department of Homeland Security, Customs and 
Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement programs 
that vet and screen individuals before they enter the United States. It 
would add an additional 2,000 Customs and Border Protection officers 
for overseas and domestic operations.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 5 minutes 
to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for allowing me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question so we can bring up my bill, H.R. 5256, the Expanding 
DHS Overseas Passenger Security Screening and Vetting Operations Act.
  Mr. Speaker, everybody we have talked to within the Homeland Security 
arena says that, as Americans, we are safer if we can push our borders 
out. So the notion that we should wait on the bad guys to get here is a 
notion that obviously would put us in harm's way.
  So what we are proposing with this bill is enhancing the ability for 
us to push our borders out. We have had examples of this. They have all 
been successful. So this is another effort to resource the opportunity 
to make sure that our borders not only are just safe, but as safe from 
American soil as possible.
  So 15 years ago, Mr. Speaker, foreign terrorists carried out the most 
deadly and costly terrorist act on U.S. soil. We committed ourselves to 
creating the Department of Homeland Security. We resourced it. We put a 
number of agencies together. We are on a day-to-day basis tracking bad 
people all over the world, preventing bad people from getting into the 
United States. To the credit of our men and women, they are doing a 
good job, but we are only as good as the resources that we put to fight 
terrorism.
  So this, again, is one of the tools in the toolkit that we have 
identified that we have to have, which is to push our borders out so 
that we can not only keep Americans safe, but we can, through our 
enhanced vetting process, keep bad people out.
  So as the 9/11 Commission reported, the terrorists that carried out 
this heinous act on 9/11 were able to exploit legitimate channels of 
travel to the U.S. from countries around the globe. There is no 
question about that. To prevent terrorist travel, the Department of 
Homeland Security has made significant efforts to expand its presence 
and partnerships around the world to vet passengers well in advance of 
their arrival to the U.S.

  For instance, Mr. Speaker, there are over 200 airports around the 
world. The last-point-of-departure airports, to speak of, where unless 
we can vet all those individuals who are trying to come here, they 
can't get on the plane. So what we are trying to do is continue to 
enhance that effort and others to make sure that anyone trying to get 
to this country--and we can identify that they are bad people--that we 
will keep them away.
  My legislation, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5256, will strengthen these 
operations to deal with evolving terrorist threats, including the 
threats posed by individuals traveling without visas from European and 
other countries with visa waiver agreements with the U.S.

[[Page H5730]]

  Now, to prevent these terrorists and other dangerous people from 
entering the U.S., Mr. Speaker, this legislation directs DHS to 
strategically expand its program that vets and screens travelers. It 
specifically authorizes key DHS vetting and screening programs. It also 
provides for an additional 2,000 Customs and Border Protection officers 
for not only overseas operations, but also to address domestic 
shortages, particularly at U.S. international airports.
  Mr. Speaker, even as we absorb the events of this weekend where 
Americans carried out terrorist attacks in Minnesota, New York, and New 
Jersey, we must do all we can to prevent foreign terrorists, including 
an estimated 3,000 Europeans trained as foreign fighters by ISIL, from 
entering the United States.
  Defeating the previous question, Mr. Speaker, will allow Members to 
consider my bill, H.R. 5256, that will do just that. Again, Mr. 
Speaker, we are only as good as we resource the Department to fight 
terrorism.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the 
great State of Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), one of the great leaders of this 
conference.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I do want to commend the 
gentleman from Georgia for the great work that he does on the Rules 
Committee. Once again, he has done yeoman's work on this legislation 
before us.
  Frankly, I have some reservations about the underlying bill, but I do 
respect the goal of this legislation. I also respect the gentleman from 
Mississippi in his efforts to come up with some legislation so that we 
can have enhanced interrogation of certain people wanting to come into 
this country. I think almost everyone on this side of the aisle 
believes in more detailed vetting of people wanting to come here, 
especially from countries that we deem as dangerous.
  I rise at this time, though, just to make the point that--in response 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who spent almost 
his entire time talking about this bill, talking about the transparency 
of the Republican nominee for President, I also, though, might make the 
point that the Democratic nominee, Secretary Clinton, has refused for 
many months to release the transcripts or copies of her many speeches 
that she gave to Wall Street firms for really what most people would 
consider to be small fortunes. In addition to that, she has refused to 
give out details of the approximately 60 percent of the people she met 
with while Secretary of State who had contributed to the Clinton 
Foundation, in some cases, very large amounts of money from foreign 
countries, which really is possibly more closely related to this 
legislation than is the tax return of the Republican nominee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  I would ask my colleagues respectfully to support us in our effort to 
defeat the previous question so we can bring up the legislation that 
Mr. Thompson mentioned, legislation that would strengthen the 
Department of Homeland Security's overseas screening and vetting 
programs.
  I would like to think that even though Democrats and Republicans 
don't always agree on everything, we can agree on something and that 
this is something that we ought to be able to agree on, and hopefully 
we will be able to have a vote on it.
  Again, I regret that we are bringing up a bill that, again, is 
another attempt to try to undermine the deal that we have brokered with 
other nations around the world to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear 
power, but here we are yet with another bill. The President is going to 
veto it. We can continue to debate the merits, but it is kind of a 
waste of time.
  Again, I would hope my colleagues would vote ``no'' on the rule and 
vote ``no'' on the bill if we are presented with it.
  I would just say one final thing to my friend from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan), who I have a great deal of respect for: The deal is that Mr. 
Trump is the first nominee, I think, that I can recall, who has not 
released his taxes. Secretary Clinton has released years and years and 
years of her taxes. We know more about Secretary Clinton than we know 
about any other nominee, I think, in history.
  I have always kind of wondered why Mr. Trump says some of the things 
he says, which, quite frankly, I sometimes find unbelievable, some of 
the comments on foreign policy. But when you look at his financial 
interests and his investments in these various countries, you can kind 
of understand why he defends dictators, why he never mentions the words 
``human rights,'' why he says some of the things he says about urging 
other countries to become nuclear powers when we should all be talking 
about how we control nuclear weapons in this country.

                              {time}  1315

  If we are worried about transparency and you are worried about 
conflicts of interest, and if we are truly worried about corruption, 
now is the time, I would urge my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, to tell the nominee of your party to come clean. There are so 
many tangled webs in The Trump Organization, so many financial ties to 
things that, quite frankly, should give every one of us concern. I 
don't know what the problem is about a little sunshine.
  Like I said in the beginning, if Secretary Clinton did not release 
her tax returns, there would be calls for hearings and resolutions and 
there would be Special Orders, and it would go on and on and on; yet, 
with regard to their nominee, it is okay for him to withhold all this 
information from the American people. I think that is unfortunate.
  So if we are talking about transparency here today and if we are 
worried about corruption and if we are worried about conflicts of 
interest, there is that old saying, ``Physician, heal thyself.'' I 
would urge my Republican colleagues to hold their nominee, hold their 
standard-bearer to a higher standard when it comes to transparency.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to refrain 
from engaging in personalities toward nominees for the Office of the 
President.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate you issuing that reminder. I don't particularly enjoy 
this time of year on the House floor because we do have important 
business that needs to occur here, and we often get off base.
  I don't think this is the right time to talk about the FBI 
investigation into Secretary Clinton. I don't think this is the right 
time to talk about the pay to play investigation going on with the 
Clinton Foundation. I don't think this is the right time to talk about 
all of her employees who have been questioned about her behavior and 
are pleading the Fifth, one right after the other, and are refusing to 
answer those questions. I don't think this is the right place for that. 
This is the right place to talk about something that brings us 
together, which is the defeat of a corrupt Iranian regime.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend from Massachusetts is absolutely right. There 
are many of us on this side of the aisle who do not like the agreement 
that the President made with the Iranians. In fact, there are many on 
that side of the aisle who do not like the agreement that the President 
made with the Iranians, and you need go no further than this debate 
today to understand why.
  I will read again from the President's own veto statement of this 
bill. It says: ``This bill's required public postings''--these are the 
public postings of the assets and the corrupt arrangements that are 
involved in these top high officials of the Iranian regime. ``This 
bill's required public postings . . . may be perceived by Iran and 
likely our Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) partners as an 
attempt to undermine the fulfillment of our commitments, in turn 
impacting the continued viability of this diplomatic arrangement that 
peacefully and verifiably prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear 
weapon.''
  I will say it again, Mr. Speaker, the President's concern is that, by 
making information public to the American people and the Iranian 
people--and this information would be published in four languages so 
that it would be available

[[Page H5731]]

to the Iranian people as well--by making information public about the 
corrupt business dealings of Iranian leaders, we will be violating the 
agreement the President signed with Iran.
  How could this Nation possibly have signed an agreement, Mr. Speaker, 
that trades away our opportunity to shine sunlight on corrupt 
practices? I don't believe that we have. But my friend from 
Massachusetts said, Mr. Speaker: It undermines the letter and the 
intent of the agreement. To shine sunlight on corrupt practices.
  Mr. Speaker, this is why the American people were concerned about the 
Iranian agreement. This is why we continue to be concerned about the 
Iranian agreement; but more importantly, this bill is not about that 
agreement.
  The chairman of the Committee on Financial Services testified in 
front of the Committee on Rules last night, Mr. Speaker, and he said he 
just can't imagine why it is controversial for us to publish a list of 
officials and their holdings online. I agree.
  It is baffling to me that the disclosure of what is, in many cases, 
publicly known information but that has not been compiled in a 
particular place could be a threat to preventing Iran from developing 
nuclear weapons. In fact, I would argue shining sunlight on the corrupt 
regime will empower the Iranian citizens to perhaps help us in this 
cause.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a controversial piece of legislation. This 
is, in fact, a transparency piece of legislation. The motion to 
recommit that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) discussed, 
candidly, most of what he said I agree with. I don't believe a motion 
to recommit is the right place to do it. He was not in front of the 
Committee on Rules last night. The bill he offers as a bipartisan, 
commonsense compromise has absolutely no Republicans on it whatsoever; 
but I do believe that pushing out our borders, pushing out our vetting 
process is exactly the right idea for this country. This happens to be 
a bill from the Committee on Financial Services. The gentleman from 
Mississippi happens to be the ranking member on the Committee on 
Homeland Security. I hope the Committee on Homeland Security will get 
about that business. I support it 100 percent.
  But what I ask of my colleagues here today, Mr. Speaker, is to 
support this rule so we can debate this bill. Folks on both sides of 
the aisle like it, don't like it. Debating the bill is the right place 
to expose it. Transparency is good for the Iranians, and it is good for 
us as well. If we support this rule, we will also consider every 
amendment that was offered in the Committee on Rules. Every alternative 
idea, every perfecting idea, every improvement that this body came up 
with and brought to the Committee on Rules last night, Mr. Speaker, we 
are going to make in order for debate here on the floor.
  This is a tough time of year. Politics don't often bring out the best 
of policy, but we have got a good shot at it today. We have got a good 
shot at it with this rule. We have a rule here that I think everybody 
can be proud to vote for; and, as my friend from Tennessee said 
earlier, then we will debate the merits of the underlying bill and have 
the House work its will.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 876 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     5256) to enhance the overseas operations of the Department of 
     Homeland Security aimed at preventing terrorist threats from 
     reaching the United States, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 5256.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair once again will remind Members to 
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the nominees for the 
Office of the President.
  The question is on ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

[[Page H5732]]

  

                          ____________________