[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 167 (Tuesday, October 22, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8307-H8315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2513, CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 
                                  2019

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 646 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 646

       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. 2513) to ensure that persons who form 
     corporations or limited liability companies in the United 
     States disclose the beneficial owners of those corporations 
     or limited liability companies, in order to prevent 
     wrongdoers from exploiting United States corporations and 
     limited liability companies for criminal gain, to assist law 
     enforcement in detecting, preventing, and punishing 
     terrorism, money laundering, and other misconduct involving 
     United States corporations and limited liability companies, 
     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 amendments specified in this resolution 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 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill, 
     modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
     original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 
     five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall 
     be in order except those printed in part B of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules. Each such further 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 further amendments are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the 
     House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall), 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.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee met last night and 
reported a structured rule, House Resolution 646, providing for 
consideration of H.R. 2513, the Corporate Transparency Act. The rule 
self-executes Chairwoman Waters' manager's amendment and makes in order 
five amendments. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided 
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Financial Services, and provides for one motion to 
recommit.

[[Page H8308]]

  Madam Speaker, I am pleased we are here today to provide for 
consideration of this important, bipartisan legislation to help law 
enforcement do their job and protect our national security. The lack of 
transparency in parts of our financial system has created an 
environment in which criminals, who should be shut out of the financial 
system, can use anonymous shell companies to launder money, finance 
terrorism, and engage in other illicit activities.
  I want to applaud the work of Subcommittee on Investor Protection, 
Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney for 
her work over the last decade to understand these problems and develop 
the solution we have in front of us this week.
  The Corporate Transparency Act would require corporations and limited 
liability companies to disclose their true beneficial owners to the 
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, at the time a company 
is formed and in annual corporate filings thereafter. This beneficial 
ownership information will be available to law enforcement so they can 
learn who controls or financially benefits from the company and end the 
current shell game used by bad actors.
  There are many examples of how individuals have used shell companies 
to hide their activities. For instance, there is one involving Viktor 
Bout, otherwise known as the Merchant of Death, who used shell 
companies to hide his illicit weapons trafficking. In another example, 
a former Russian citizen moved $1.4 billion from Russia into 236 
different U.S. bank accounts through the use of anonymous shell 
companies.
  This bill will be a game changer for law enforcement investigating 
bad actors, and it will ensure criminals can no longer hide behind 
these shell companies. It would also bring the United States in line 
with other developed countries that already require beneficial 
ownership disclosure.

                              {time}  1230

  The rule will amend the bill to also include my friend, Congressman 
Emanuel Cleaver's H.R. 2514, known as the COUNTER Act, which would 
modernize and improve the Bank Secrecy Act.
  This bill passed the Financial Services Committee unanimously in May. 
Specifically, it would expand communication about anti-money laundering 
data within financial institutions and safeguard privacy by creating a 
civil liberties and privacy officer within each financial regulator. 
Additionally, this legislation increases penalties for bad actors and 
reduces barriers to innovation.
  For years, Congress has proposed reforms to the Bank Secrecy Act, but 
this is the first major legislation to receive broad bipartisan 
support. This bill strikes a careful balance between security and 
privacy and will be a big step forward to strengthen anti-money 
laundering tools.
  Together, this combined legislation will create a more secure and 
transparent financial system. I urge all my colleagues to support the 
rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I thank my friend from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) for yielding 
me the time.
  I don't want to take up too much time, because I know we have the 
chairwoman here. And as the gentleman from Colorado pointed out, she is 
one of the most studied Members in this Chamber on this topic.
  We did meet in the Rules Committee last night. And for the second 
week in a row, Madam Speaker, we have brought rules out of the Rules 
Committee that gave the minority a voice that we have not seen 
throughout this Congress.
  Candidly, the record of open rules in the Chamber has been abysmal on 
both sides of the aisle. I don't believe while Paul Ryan was Speaker, 
Republicans on the Rules Committee made a single open rule in order, 
and that has certainly been the way that things have continued in the 
Pelosi majority.
  But I want to mention to my colleagues, as learned as the chairwoman 
is, I believe that Members in this Chamber have something to offer on 
these topics. And I just want to remind the Chamber that in 1970, when 
we passed the Bank Secrecy Act to begin with--that is the bill that 
this bill before us today amends, Madam Speaker, a very small portion 
of the Bank Secrecy Act that this bill amends--we brought the Bank 
Secrecy Act to the floor under an open rule, 2 hours of general debate, 
and then amended it under the 5-minute rule, ended up passing that bill 
unanimously out of this Chamber.
  As my friend from Colorado knows, Madam Speaker, we had witnesses in 
the Rules Committee last night who had ideas that they wanted to have 
considered on the floor of the House by all of their colleagues, ideas 
that I would tell you deserve consideration.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), my friend, brought an 
amendment that said, Listen--as you heard the gentleman from Colorado 
discuss earlier--this is the creation of a new government database for 
the purpose of law enforcement querying it for its enforcement 
activities.
  What my friend from Ohio said is, If this is going to be a law 
enforcement database, if we are creating new government databases, if 
we are creating them for the sole purpose of law enforcement to query 
them for the sole purpose of engaging in criminal prosecutions, 
shouldn't we ask for a warrant to query that database, just like we 
would ask law enforcement for a warrant in any other investigation? 
These are, after all, American citizens.
  Perhaps, because I don't serve on the Financial Services Committee, 
Madam Speaker, I don't fully understand the ramifications of that, but 
I am not afraid of this body considering it in its collective wisdom. 
And I am disappointed that even as broad as the rule was, even the 
amendments that were made in order, Mr. Davidson is not going to have a 
chance to talk about this question of fundamental civil liberties, 
which, again, I know is important, from the most liberal Democrat in 
this Chamber to the most conservative Republican.
  There was a time in this Chamber where we thought enough of ourselves 
as a body and had enough respect for one another as individuals that we 
were not afraid of the open rule process. There is enough blame to go 
around on both sides of that. I am not proud of the Republican record 
of the last several years, but I do believe, and I would say to my 
friend from Colorado, because he has outsized influence on the 
committee, this would be the kind of bill where we could begin that 
open-rule process, a very narrowly tailored bill designed to do very 
specific things.
  I will go one more: I offered an amendment last night, Madam Speaker, 
to allow consideration of an amendment from another Member of this body 
who thought that we should have a cost-benefit analysis done of this 
bill. I mean, undeniably, there is a paperwork burden associated with 
it. That is uncontested.
  So the idea was, because we are doing this on behalf of the American 
people, do the costs outweigh the benefits or do the benefits outweigh 
the cost. Candidly, my constituency back home would imagine that we 
have that conversation about every piece of legislation that we pass 
every day. Of course, the Members of this Chamber know that we don't.
  That amendment was offered for consideration. It was defeated on a 
party-line vote, not the nature of the amendment itself, Madam Speaker, 
but even the ability to discuss it. I don't think any of my colleagues 
would say that the legislative calendar of the last week has been so 
aggressive that they have no bandwidth to consider either civil 
liberties on the one hand or cost-benefit analysis on the other. I 
think we do have that bandwidth.
  And I recognize that in this culture of outrage that we are in, Madam 
Speaker, this culture of offense that we have gotten ourselves into, it 
is oftentimes true that in political discussions, folks will believe 
that they can never do good enough. However good a rule the gentleman 
from Colorado crafts, the other side is always going to say, Well, you 
could have done better. I recognize that. In fact, that was confessed 
from the witness table last night. The gentleman from Ohio said, 
Listen, I have been trying to defeat this bill because I disagree with 
it on its merits.

[[Page H8309]]

  Now, if we are going to pass this bill, I think we should protect 
civil liberties. And I am afraid my civil liberties concerns are being 
dismissed because I have developed a reputation for wanting to kill the 
bill altogether. We recognize that is a very real circumstance that we 
have before us. But when we pass the underlying legislation, the Bank 
Secrecy Act, I will remind my colleagues, again, we came together and 
did it unanimously, because it is important.
  The chairwoman of the subcommittee put together a big bipartisan 
majority to move this legislation out of her committee. She recognizes 
how important that is. There are so many opportunities for us to divide 
ourselves in this Chamber, in this day. It is my regret that we have 
not taken this opportunity where the bill was so narrow, where the 
topic was so tailored, and where the expertise that is so obvious, to 
those of us in the Chamber who don't have it as to which Members do 
have it, that we did not allow a more full-throated debate on this 
issue.
  For that reason, Madam Speaker, I will be opposing the rule, but I 
very much would like to get to consideration of the underlying bill. We 
offered an amendment last night to do this in an open rule. That 
amendment was rejected. Our ranking member offered it. It was rejected 
on a party-line vote.
  Let us recognize that we are including more voices today than this 
Congress has historically included. This is, again, for only the second 
time this year that I remember, there being as many voices included as 
there are. But that is a step in the right direction. It is not the 
goal. The goal is to allow every Member, each one of us representing 
700,000 American citizens whose voice needs to be heard, to come to the 
floor and have that debate.
  Part of the reason you see the floor is empty, as you do today, Madam 
Speaker, is because folks know the word has already gone out. Folks 
have already seen the literature. They know their voices have already 
been shut out. Those Members who have offered improvements, they know 
they have already been rejected. They know there will not be a chance 
for their voice to be heard, and, thus, they are not on the floor today 
to pursue it.
  So, again, to my friend from Colorado, I would ask him to use his 
influence. I know we can do it. I know we can be better.
  And this, again, because of the chairwoman's expertise, because of 
the bipartisan way it moved through committee, this would have been the 
way, this would have been the time for us to begin trying to expect 
more of ourselves. And we have not taken advantage of that this time. I 
hope that we will not miss that opportunity next time.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just want to remind my friend that we are dealing with a serious 
law enforcement issue here, something that the chairwoman, who will 
speak, has been dealing with for years, working with law enforcement 
across the country and has full-throated support from virtually every 
law enforcement agency in this country to deal with these phony 
companies. These are phony companies similar to the company that was 
created by Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who were friends of Rudy 
Giuliani, created to upset elections and elsewhere, who were arrested 
as they were leaving the country 2 weeks ago.
  That is the purpose, it is to get bad actors who are using shell 
companies to really contort U.S. law, to park money in buildings where 
they have gotten bribes and they have taken them from their country and 
parked them in, you know, big townhouses in New York City or L.A. or 
Denver, Colorado. This is serious stuff that we are dealing with.
  And I would remind my friend, as he spoke about the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Davidson), he is going to get to debate an amendment he 
proposed. We have five amendments that are going to be considered by 
the full House. That is after any amendment was allowed in committee to 
be, you know, voted up or down. And we have a big committee with a lot 
of Democrats and a lot of Republicans. And there are many Republicans 
supporting this bill, because they understand how important this is to, 
you know, get dirty money out of these shell companies.
  David Petraeus, a former general, former head of the CIA, and Sheldon 
Whitehouse wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post dated March 8, 2019, 
where they said, ``Russian President Vladimir Putin and other 
authoritarian rulers have worked assiduously to weaponize corruption as 
an instrument of foreign policy, using money in opaque and illicit ways 
to gain influence over other countries, subvert the rule of law and 
otherwise remake foreign governments in their own kleptocratic image.''
  And I want to thank the chairwoman for working so hard on this bill 
and gaining so much support from Democrats, Republicans, law 
enforcement, and different organizations all across the country to stop 
this kind of stuff that could really undermine our democracy.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, first, I would 
like to thank the gentleman from the great State of Colorado (Mr. 
Perlmutter), my good friend, for his extraordinary leadership, not only 
on the Rules Committee, but on the Financial Services Committee, and 
his work and support on this bill over a decade. So I thank him very 
much.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this rule which would 
make a number of amendments in order, and I think would improve the 
underlying bill. Most importantly, the rule would make in order the 
Waters manager's amendment, which contains the text of Mr. Cleaver's 
bill, called the COUNTER Act.
  Mr. Cleaver is the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security 
and has been an exceptional leader on anti-money laundering issues. His 
bill would make a number of improvements to the Bank Secrecy Act that 
would protect our national security, make our anti-money laundering 
regime more effective, and would reduce burdens on financial 
institutions.
  For example, the bill would close loopholes for high-risk commercial 
real estate transactions and the transfer of arts and antiquities, 
which we have heard testimony about in our committee.
  It would also make modest increases to the threshold for currency 
transaction reports, which was a compromise that Mr. Cleaver reached 
with Mr. Loudermilk on the other side of the aisle. This would provide 
financial institutions with regulatory relief, while also ensuring that 
law enforcement has the information they need to catch bad actors who 
are using our financial system to hide their illicit money.
  Finally, the bill protects privacy by mandating a privacy and civil 
liberties officer, as well as an innovation officer in each of the 
Federal financial regulators. These officials are required to meet 
regularly, to consult on Bank Secrecy Act policy and regulation.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Cleaver and Chairwoman Waters for 
this amendment, which I strongly believe will make my bill better and 
will improve the chances that it gets passed by the Senate and signed 
into law.
  This bill before us today, the underlying bill, H.R. 2513, would 
crack down on illicit use of anonymous shell companies. This is one of 
the most pressing national security problems we face in this country, 
because anonymous shell companies are the vehicle of choice for money 
launderers, criminals, and terrorists.
  Coming from New York, I am particularly concerned about cracking down 
on terrorism financing. Because of the importance of this bill, it has 
been endorsed by every single law enforcement agency in our country. 
They say that passing this bill will help them protect American 
citizens, Americans, visitors, anyone in our country.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a listing of all of the law 
enforcement agencies that support this bill, and it also has wide 
support from stakeholders, major stakeholders in our country from the 
business community, the NGOs, and the not-for-profit community.

[[Page H8310]]

  


            [From FACTCOALITION, Updated: October 15, 2019]

           Endorsements for Beneficial Ownership Transparency


                          Endorsed Legislation

       Anti-Corruption/Transparency:
       Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington (CREW), 
     Coalition for Integrity, Corruption Watch UK, Financial 
     Accountability & Corporate Transparency (FACT) Coalition, 
     Financial Transparency Coalition, Global Financial Integrity, 
     Global Integrity, Global Witness, Government Accountability 
     Project (GAP), Natural Resource Governance Institute, Open 
     Contracting Partnership, Open Ownership, Open the Government, 
     Project on Government Oversight (POGO), Publish What You 
     Pay--U.S. Repatriation Group International, RepresentUs, 
     Sunlight Foundation, Transparency International.
       Anti-Human Trafficking:
       Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking (ATEST), Humanity 
     United Action, Liberty Shared, Polaris, Street Grace, Verite.
       Business (Large):
       Allianz, The B Team, Celtel International, Chobani, Danone, 
     Dow Chemical, Engie, The Kering Group, National Foreign Trade 
     Council, Natura & Co., Safaricom, Salesforce, Thrive Global, 
     Unilever, The Virgin Group.
       Business (Small):
       American Sustainable Business Council, Harpy IT Solutions, 
     LLC (St. Louis, MO), Luna Global Networks & Convergence 
     Strategies, LLC (Washington, DC), Maine Small Business 
     Coalition, Main Street Alliance, Pax Advisory, Inc (Vienna, 
     VA), Small Business Majority, South Carolina Small Business 
     Chamber of Commerce.
       Business (Financial Institutions):
       Alabama Bankers Association, Alaska Bankers Association, 
     American Bankers Association, Arizona Bankers Association, 
     Arkansas Bankers Association, Bank Policy Institute, Bankers 
     Association for Finance and Trade (BAFT), The Clearing House 
     Association, Colorado Bankers Association, Connecticut 
     Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association, Credit 
     Union National Association (CUNA), Delaware Bankers 
     Association, Financial Services Roundtable, Florida Bankers 
     Association, Georgia Bankers Association, Hawaii Bankers 
     Association, Idaho Bankers Association, Illinois Bankers 
     Association, Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA).
       Indiana Bankers Association, Institute of International 
     Bankers (IIB), Institute of International Finance (IIF), Iowa 
     Bankers Association, Kansas Bankers Association, Kentucky 
     Bankers Association, Louisiana Bankers Association, Maine 
     Bankers Association, Maryland Bankers Association, 
     Massachusetts Bankers Association, Michigan Bankers 
     Association, Mid-Size Bank Coalition of America, Minnesota 
     Bankers Association, Mississippi Bankers Association, 
     Missouri Bankers Association, Montana Bankers Association, 
     National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions 
     (NAFCU), Nebraska Bankers Association, Nevada Bankers 
     Association, New Hampshire Bankers Association, New Jersey 
     Bankers Association.
       New Mexico Bankers Association, New York Bankers 
     Association, North Carolina Bankers Association, North Dakota 
     Bankers Association, Ohio Bankers League, Oklahoma Bankers 
     Association, Oregon Bankers Association, Pennsylvania Bankers 
     Association, Puerto Rico Bankers Association, Regional Bank 
     Coalition, Rhode Island Bankers Association, Securities 
     Industry & Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), South 
     Carolina Bankers Association, South Dakota Bankers 
     Association, Tennessee Bankers Association, Texas Bankers 
     Association, Utah Bankers Association, Vermont Bankers 
     Association, Virginia Bankers Association, Washington Bankers 
     Association, Western Bankers Association, West Virginia 
     Bankers Association, Wisconsin Bankers Association, Wyoming 
     Bankers Association.
       Business (Insurance):
       Coalition Against Insurance Fraud.
       Business (Real Estate):
       American Escrow Association, American Land Title 
     Association (ALTA), National Association of 
     REALTORS, Real Estate Services Providers Council, 
     Inc. (RESPRO).
       Faith:
       Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), 
     Interfaith Worker Justice, Jubilee USA Network, Maryknoll 
     Fathers and Brothers, Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, 
     Missionary Oblates, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social 
     Justice, Society of African Missions (SMA Fathers), United 
     Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries, The United 
     Methodist Church--General Board of Church and Society.
       Human Rights:
       Accountability Counsel, African Coalition for Corporate 
     Accountability (ACCA), Amnesty International USA, Business 
     and Human Rights (BHR), Business & Human Rights Resource 
     Centre, Center for Constitutional Rights, EarthRights 
     International. EG Justice, Enough Project, Freedom House, 
     Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, International 
     Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR), International 
     Labor Rights Forum, International Rights Advocates, National 
     Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), 
     Responsible Sourcing Network, Rights and Accountability in 
     Development (RAID), Rights CoLab, The Sentry.
       International Development:
       ActionAid USA, Bread for the World, ONE Campaign, Oxfam 
     America.
       Law Enforcement:
       ATF Association, Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
     Association (FLEOA), Dennis Lormel, former Chief of the FBI 
     Financial Crimes and Terrorist Financing Operations Sections, 
     Donald C. Semesky Jr., Former Chief of Financial Operations, 
     Drug Enforcement Administration, John Cassara, former U.S. 
     Treasury Special Agent, National Association of Assistant 
     United States Attorneys (NAAUSA), National District Attorneys 
     Association (NDAA), National Fraternal Order of Police 
     (FOP), Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI; U.S. 
     Marshals Service Association.
       Lawyers:
       Group of 11 business and human rights lawyers.
       NGOs (Misc.):
       Africa Faith & Justice Network; Amazon Watch; American 
     Family Voices; Americans for Democratic Action (ADA); 
     Americans for Financial Reform; Americans for Tax Fairness; 
     Association of Concerned Africa Scholars (ACAS); Campaign for 
     America's Future; Center for International Policy; Center for 
     Popular Democracy Action; Coalition on Human Needs; Columban 
     Center for Advocacy and Outreach; Columbia Center on 
     Sustainable Investment; Consumer Action; Consumer Federation 
     of America; Corporate Accountability Lab; CREDO Action; 
     Demand Progress; Economic Policy Institute.
       Environmental Investigation Agency; Fair Share; First 
     Amendment Media Group; Foundation Earth; Friends of the 
     Earth; Fund for Constitutional Government; Greenpeace USA; 
     Health Care for America Now; Heartland Initiative; Institute 
     for Policy Studies--Program on Inequality and the Common 
     Good; Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy; 
     International Campaign for Responsible Technology; 
     iSolon.org; MomsRising; National Employment Law Project; 
     National Organization for Women (NOW); New Rules for Global 
     Finance; Patriotic Millionaires; People Demanding Action; 
     Project Expedite Justice.
       Project on Organizing, Development, Education, and Research 
     (PODER); Public Citizen; Responsible Sourcing Network; 
     Responsible Wealth; Responsive to Our Community II, LLC; 
     RootsAction.org; Stand Up America; Sustentia; Take On Wall 
     Street; Tax Justice Network; Tax Justice Network USA; Tax 
     March; Trailblazers PAC; United for a Fair Economy; U.S.-
     Africa Network; U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. 
     PIRG); Voices for Progress; Win Without War; Working America.
       Shareholders:
       Avaron Asset Management; Batirente; Boston Common Asset 
     Management; Candriam Investors Group; Capricorn Investment 
     Group; Clean Yield Asset Management; CtW Investment Group; 
     Domini Social Investment LLC; Dominican Sisters of Hope; 
     Hermes Equity Ownership Services; Hexavest; Inflection Point 
     Capital Management; Local Authority Pension Fund Forum; Magni 
     Global Asset Management LLC; Maryknoll Sisters; Mercy 
     Investment Services, Inc.; NorthStar Asset Management, Inc.; 
     Oblate International Pastoral Investment Trust; Sisters of 
     Charity, BVM; Sisters of Saint Joseph of Chestnut Hill, 
     Philadelphia, PA.
       Sisters of St. Dominic of Blauvelt, New York; Sisters of 
     St. Francis of Philadelphia; Trillium Asset Management; 
     Triodos Investment Advisory & Services BV; Ursuline Sisters 
     of Tildonk, U.S. Province; Verka VK Kirchliche Vorsorge VVaG; 
     Zevin Asset Management.
       State Secretaries of State:
       Delaware
       Unions:
       Alliance for Retired Americans; American Federation of 
     Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); 
     American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 
     (AFCSME); American Federation of Teachers; Communications 
     Workers of America (CWA); International Brotherhood of 
     Teamsters; International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, 
     and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW; National 
     Education Association; National Latino Farmers & Ranchers 
     Trade Association; Service Employees International Union 
     (SEIU).


                            Endorsed Concept

       Anti-Human Trafficking:
       3 Strands Global Foundation; Agape International Missions; 
     Amirah, Inc.; Baptist Resource Network; Candle of Hope 
     Foundation; Freedom Network USA; Shared Hope International; 
     Youth Underground.
       Business (Large):
       BHP; Deloitte; International Chamber of Commerce; Philip 
     Morris International; Rio Tinto; Siemens AG; Thomson Reuters.
       Business (Financial Institutions):
       BMO Capital Markets.
       Business (Small):
       77% of U.S. small business owners; O'Neill Electric 
     (Portland; OR); Paperjam Press (Portland; OR); Popcorn Heaven 
     (Waterloo; IA); Rivanna Natural Designs; Inc. 
     (Charlottesville; VA).
       Human Rights:
       Better World Campaign; Center for Justice and 
     Accountability; Center for Victims of Torture; Futures 
     without Violence; Global Rights; Global Solutions; Physicians 
     for Human Rights; Project on Middle East Democracy; United to 
     End Genocide.
       Law Enforcement:
       National Sheriffs' Association.
       National Security Officials:
       2019 letter from bipartisan group of 61 national security 
     experts; 2018 letter from bipartisan group of 3 dozen former 
     national security leaders (military and civilian); David

[[Page H8311]]

     Petraeus, GEN (Ret.) USA, former director of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency; Ben Rhodes, former deputy national 
     security adviser to President Barack Obama.
       Scholars (Think Tanks):
       Anders Aslund, Atlantic Council; David Mortlock, Atlantic 
     Council; Josh Rudolph, Atlantic Council; William F. Wechsler, 
     Atlantic Council; Clay Fuller, American Enterprise Institute; 
     Michael Rubin, American Enterprise Institute; Norm Eisen, 
     Brookings Institution; Aaron Klein, Brookings Institution; 
     Jeff Hauser, Center for Economic and Policy Research; Jarrett 
     Blanc, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Sarah 
     Chayes, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Jake 
     Sullivan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Jodi 
     Vittori, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Andrew 
     Weiss, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Molly 
     Elgin-Cossart, Center for American Progress; Diana Pilipenko, 
     Center for American Progress; Trevor Sutton, Center for 
     American Progress; Neil Bhatiya, Center for a New American 
     Security; Ashley Feng, Center for a New American Security; 
     Elizabeth Rosenberg, Center for a New American Security, 
     Daleep Singh, Center for a New American Security; Heather 
     Conley, Center for Strategic and International Studies.  
     Matthew M. Taylor, Council on Foreign Relations; David 
     Hamon, Economic Warfare Institute; David Asher, Foundation 
     for Defense of Democracies; Yaya J. Fanusie, Foundation 
     for Defense of Democracies; Eric Lorber, Foundation for 
     Defense of Democracies; Emanuele Ottolenghi, Foundation 
     for Defense of Democracies; Chip Poncy, Foundation for 
     Defense of Democracies; Jonathan Schanzer, Foundation for 
     Defense of Democracies; Juan C. Zarate, Foundation for 
     Defense of Democracies; Jamie Fly, German Marshall Fund of 
     the United States; Joshua Kirschenbaum, German Marshall 
     Fund of the United States; Laura Rosenberger, German 
     Marshall Fund of the United States; David Salvo, German 
     Marshall Fund of the United States; Larry Diamond, Hoover 
     Institution; Michael McFaul, Amb. (Ret.), Hoover 
     Institution; Ben Judah, Hudson Institute; Nate Sibley, 
     Hudson Institute; Richard Phillips, Institute on Taxation 
     and Economic Policy; Michael Camilleri, Inter-American 
     Dialogue; David J. Kramer, McCain Institute; Paul D. 
     Hughes, COL (Ret.), USA, U.S. Institute of Peace.
        Scholars (Universities):
        Smriti Rao, Assumption College (MA); Daniel Nielson, 
     Brigham Young University; Branko Milanovic, City University 
     of New York; Martin Guzman, Columbia University; Matthew 
     Murray, Columbia University; Jose Antonio Ocampo, Columbia 
     University; Jeffrey D. Sachs, Columbia University; Joseph 
     Stiglitz, Columbia University; Spencer J. Pack, Connecticut 
     College; Lourdes Beneria, Cornell University; John Hoddinott, 
     Cornell University; Ravi Kanbur, Cornell University; David 
     Blanchflower, Dartmouth College; Mark Paul, Duke University; 
     Michael J. Dziedzic, Col. (Ret.), USA, George Mason 
     University; David M. Luna, George Mason University; Louise 
     Shelley, George Mason University; Laurie Nisonoff, Hampshire 
     College.
        Matthew Stephenson, Harvard Law School; Dani Rodrik, 
     Harvard University; June Zaccone, Hofstra University; Matteo 
     M. Galizzi, London School of Economics (UK); John Hills, 
     London School of Economics (UK); Simona Iammarino, London 
     School of Economics (UK); Stephen Machin, London School of 
     Economics (UK); Vassilis Monastiriotis, London School of 
     Economics (UK); Cecilia Ann Winters, Manhattanville College 
     (NY); Richard D. Wolff, New School University; Bilge Erten, 
     Northeastern University; Mary C. King, Portland State 
     University (OR); Angus Deaton, Princeton University; Kimberly 
     A. Clausing, Reed College; Charles P. Rock, Rollins College 
     (FL); Radhika Balakrishnan, Rutgers University; Aaron 
     Pacitti, Siena College (NY); Smita Ramnarain, Siena College 
     (NY).
        Vanessa Bouche, Texas Christian University; Nora Lustig, 
     Tulane University; Karen J. Finkenbinder, U.S. Army War 
     College; Max G. Manwaring, COL (Ret.), USA, U.S. Army War 
     College; Gabriel Zucman, University of California, Berkeley; 
     Ha-Joon Chang, University of Cambridge (UK); Ilene Grabel, 
     University of Denver; Tracy Mott, University of Denver; 
     Arthur MacEwan, University of Massachusetts, Boston; Valpy 
     Fitzgerald, University of Oxford (UK); Frances Stewart, 
     University of Oxford (UK); Michael Carpenter, University of 
     Pennsylvania; Dorene Isenberg, University of Redlands (CA); 
     Mike Findley, University of Texas; Gunseli Berik, University 
     of Utah; Al Campbell, University of Utah; Elaine McCrate, 
     University of Vermont; Stephanie Seguino, University of 
     Vermont; Thomas Pogge, Yale University.
        State Attorneys General:
        California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of 
     Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, 
     Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New 
     Mexico, North Carolina, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, 
     Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, 
     Washington.
        U.S. Administration Officials:
        Department of Justice, Department of the Treasury, Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Financial Crimes Enforcement 
     Network (FinCEN), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 
     Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Special 
     Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR).

  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, this is a win-win 
for protecting our citizens, and like every national security issue, it 
should have strong bipartisan support. If you care about protecting 
American citizens, you should be supporting this bill.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I am willing to stipulate that almost everything my 
two friends have just said is absolutely true. Law enforcement 
absolutely supports this provision. Law enforcement absolutely believes 
pursuing criminals will be easier under this provision.
  Now, it would also be easier if we allowed folks to kick in 
everybody's door, but we don't. Protecting civil liberties is about 
protecting American citizens.
  I am not even here today arguing that we have to include the 
amendment for the bill to go to the President's desk. I am here arguing 
that civil liberties deserve a conversation.
  Madam Speaker, we did not come in until noon today. We are not going 
to burn the midnight oil tonight. We did two small bills last week, in 
its entirety, coming out of the Rules Committee.
  We have the bandwidth to talk about civil liberties. It does not 
advantage us to pretend that folks who care about civil liberties are 
somehow a threat to democracy. People who care about civil liberties 
are the ones who have always protected democracy.
  Whenever bad things happen in this country, the pendulum 
automatically swings in favor of protection of the group against the 
protection of the civil liberties of the individual.
  It happened after 9/11. It happened after Pearl Harbor. It happens 
time and time again in this country.
  What was asked in the Rules Committee is that we take 5 minutes. That 
is not a figure of speech, Madam Speaker. It is actually 5 minutes that 
was requested to make the case on the floor that civil liberties were 
not being appropriately protected in this bill and that we could do 
better. The answer from the majority was, no, it is not worth 5 
minutes.
  I stipulate that what my friends have said about the value of this 
legislation is absolutely true. So, when I offered the amendment that 
said let's do a cost-benefit analysis to document the truth of that, I 
expected the answer to be yes. The answer wasn't just no. The answer 
was, no, we don't even have the ability to do a cost-benefit analysis 
of this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, that is just nonsense. It is nonsense.
  I was asking for 5 minutes--literally, 300 seconds--to talk about 
whether or not American citizens were going to get the value out of 
this bill that was being suggested. The answer was, no, we don't have 
300 seconds to spend talking about it.
  I would argue 300 seconds isn't enough. Three hundred seconds isn't 
enough to talk about civil liberties. Three hundred seconds isn't 
enough to talk about taxpayer responsibilities. But that was the ask, 
and that ask was declined.
  I can't come to the House floor with many of the rules that I am 
assigned to carry, Madam Speaker, and make this request because I don't 
have partners like the two partners that I have today.
  You may not have noticed it, Madam Speaker, and you are kind if you 
tell me that you didn't, but I am the least educated person on this 
House floor when it comes to this bill. I am the only one who doesn't 
sit on the committee.
  I am, today, down here discussing this with two Members who have 
dedicated their careers to the improvement of the financial services 
system in America, and I respect the time and effort they have 
committed to it. I respect their counsel.
  I don't believe these two individuals are threatened by 300 more 
seconds of debate on any issue. They know what they believe. They know 
why they believe it. They know why they believe what they believe is 
good for America, as do Members with opposing opinions.
  I can't ask, if we are down here talking about a tax bill, to have an 
open rule on a Ways and Means bill because that gets more complicated. 
I can't

[[Page H8312]]

ask, if we are down here on a Judiciary bill, to have an open rule on a 
Judiciary bill because that gets more complicated.
  What I have today, Madam Speaker, are two Members who have worked in 
a collaborative, bipartisan way to produce the very best bill they 
could out of their committee. I am asking for an opportunity for the 
other several hundred Members of this institution to have a voice in 
the debate.
  Just so that we are clear on what my ask is, Madam Speaker, to make 
all the amendments in order--all the amendments--to allow for the free 
and open debate that I am asking for, it would have taken 1,200 more 
seconds, 20 minutes.
  If the majority could have found, in its wisdom, 20 more minutes, 
every Member of this body could have been heard on an issue that you 
have heard the subject matter experts testify to how important it is.
  We have gotten out of the habit of listening to one another. We have 
gotten out of the habit of trusting one another. I don't argue that 
either one of those things has happened without cause and effect. There 
is a reason we are in the box that we are in. We have to find narrowly 
tailored pieces of legislation to begin to reverse that cycle. This is 
one of those narrowly tailored provisions.
  It modifies one part--one part--of what the Bank Secrecy Act tried to 
achieve. The Bank Secrecy Act was brought to the floor under a 
completely open rule with all voices to be heard. Now, we can't find 20 
minutes to have a full-throated debate on this. If we defeat the 
previous question, I am going to amend the rule.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my 
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. It says: Upon adoption of this resolution, the 
Committees on the Judiciary, Ways and Means, Financial Services, 
Oversight and Reform, Foreign Affairs, and the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence shall suspend pursuing matters referred to by 
the Speaker in her announcement of September 24, 2019, until such a 
time as a bill implementing the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement 
becomes law.

  That is a lot of text, Madam Speaker, and I am going to yield to one 
of my colleagues on the Rules Committee and a learned member of the 
Judiciary Committee to talk about it. But what it says, in effect, is 
that we have real legislative priorities that are not being met.
  We didn't find the 20 minutes for a full-throated debate here. We are 
not finding the bandwidth to work on a trade deal, the single best 
trade deal done in my lifetime, a trade deal supported by the 
leadership in this House, the leadership in the Senate, and by the 
White House, a trade deal that is going to make real differences to men 
and women across this country, in your district and in mine.
  It says let's stop the nonsense, let's stop the partisanship, and 
let's focus on some things that every single citizen in this country 
cares about. Let's prioritize that, and perhaps, in doing so, we will 
build some trust.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona 
(Mrs. Lesko), my friend from the Rules Committee, to discuss this 
amendment in detail.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Georgia for 
yielding me the time to speak on this critical issue for my district, 
for the State of Arizona, and for the country.
  First, before I get into the previous question amendment, I would 
like to note that, on the underlying bill, the ACLU, the Due Process 
Institute, and FreedomWorks all oppose the underlying bill because of 
civil rights protections they are worried about being lost.
  I represent Arizona's Eighth Congressional District, and I regularly 
speak to my constituents. My district overwhelmingly opposes 
impeachment. They believe it is a waste of time. They believe that 
Congress should be tackling real issues, and I believe many Americans 
across the country feel the same way. They are like, what is Congress 
doing? Why don't you get anything done?
  But Democrats have chosen to ignore the people they came to Congress 
to represent. They chose, instead, to prioritize impeachment. Instead 
of advancing legislation to make our Nation safer or to better the 
lives of our families, my Democratic colleagues have perpetuated a 
witch hunt to undo the 2016 election and to influence the 2020 
election.
  One of the key legislative items that my Democratic colleagues have 
sacrificed is the USMCA, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
  I have met with numerous Arizona businesses that have told me, over 
and over and over again, the importance of the USMCA. I have told them 
that I support it. I have told them I want this to pass in Congress. 
But as we all know, it hasn't moved. It hasn't been heard.
  My State of Arizona depends on trade with Canada and Mexico. Over 
228,000 Arizona jobs are supported by U.S. trade with Canada and 
Mexico, and Arizona exports over $9 billion in goods and services to 
Canada and Mexico. We supply them with agricultural products, engines 
and turbines, and over $1 billion a year in metal ores.
  The USMCA would support this trade through numerous key provisions. 
For example, new customs and trade rules will cut red tape and make it 
easier for small businesses to participate in trade.
  It also protects American innovation by modernizing rules related to 
intellectual property. It also encourages greater market access for 
America's farmers.
  America and Arizona stand to benefit from passage of the USMCA, but 
we are not doing the USMCA because our Speaker will not put it on the 
floor for a vote.
  I ask the Democrats to put their constituents ahead of partisan 
politics and consider the USMCA immediately. I join my friend and Rules 
Committee colleague in urging Members to vote ``no'' on the rule and 
``no'' on the previous question so that we can prioritize what is 
really important to America.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  To my friends Mrs. Lesko and Mr. Woodall from the Rules Committee, 
first, I remind my friend from Arizona that we are actually working on 
legislation that is bipartisan in nature and something that is 
tremendously serious that has to be addressed.
  Again, I would quote from the CNBC article of October 17, where it 
talked about these two cronies of Rudy Giuliani: ``Parnas and Fruman 
face other charges in the indictment, which alleges they created a 
shell company and then used it to donate to political committees, 
including a pro-Trump super-PAC, while concealing that they were the 
ones making the donations.''
  So here we have, on the political side, the reason for this 
particular bill.
  There is a 36-story skyscraper in Midtown Manhattan at 650 Fifth 
Avenue, and I am reciting from an op-ed in The Washington Post, dated 
September 20, 2019: ``It is home to a Nike flagship store and 
previously housed the corporate offices of Starwood Hotels & Resorts. 
It was also secretly owned by the Iranian Government for almost 20 
years. By running its ownership stake in the building through an 
anonymous front company, the Iranian regime took advantage of the fact 
that firms in the United States are not legally required to disclose 
who ultimately profits from and controls them.''
  It goes on to say: ``The story of 650 Fifth Avenue is not anomalous. 
The United States has become one of the world's leading destinations 
for hiding and legitimizing stolen wealth.''
  The purpose of this legislation, bipartisan in nature, is something 
that is very serious, and I appreciate the gentlewoman for having been 
so persevering to get this done, working with law enforcement, working 
with Republicans throughout.
  In fact, one of the major cosponsors, or somebody with whom Mrs. 
Maloney worked, was Mr. Luetkemeyer, a senior member of the Republican 
Party on the Financial Services Committee, to come up with language 
that was acceptable not only to him but 11 or 10 other Republicans on 
the committee.
  I would remind my friend Mr. Woodall that, in connection with civil

[[Page H8313]]

liberties that he was just talking about, Mr. Davidson raised his 
concern. He has on a number of occasions, and I have been there working 
with him on that subject. But he was defeated.
  This bill contains many civil rights and privacy components. It 
protects the privacy of any beneficial ownership. It ensures that law 
enforcement agencies requesting beneficial ownership information from 
the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network have an existing investigatory 
basis for its requests so that there is already something going on.

                              {time}  1300

  There is an audit trail to make sure that that information is not 
being disclosed improperly, and there are penalties against the 
agencies if, in fact, there are improper disclosures.
  Now, I would also say--and I would remind my friend, and we talked 
about this last night at Rules--that when people get together and they 
operate under a corporation or a limited liability company, they are 
drawing on law to say: We want to operate this group, and we want to 
have protection from liability. We are going to operate as a 
corporation. We want the State to protect us--State of Colorado, State 
of Arizona--to protect us against us being personally liable, 
individually liable.
  All we are asking is stuff that you would put down on a normal bank 
account, which is the names of the individuals, their date of birth, 
their address, and identifying numbers; and, if they are from another 
country, we demand their passport numbers.
  This is not terribly intrusive. This is just basic information to 
make sure that we don't have bad actors and scoundrels and people who 
would like to undermine our Nation having phony bank accounts or shell 
companies owning skyscrapers in New York. So this is serious stuff.
  I have shared with the chairwoman concerns over time, and she has 
actually worked--not actually. She has worked with me to address 
concerns that I particularly have in saying that, before anybody is 
penalized for not disclosing information, they had to do it willfully 
or knowingly, and that negligence is not a basis for any kind of an 
action and that there are waivers if somebody had just made a mistake.
  So I just want to, again, thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Carolyn B. Maloney) for working with Democrats and Republicans and all 
sorts of groups across the country to come up with something that 
balances the need for real national security and law enforcement 
measures with privacy.
  We have allowed five amendments. Mr. Davidson, who, I am sure, will 
address some of his concerns when he brings up one of his amendments, 
is going to be entitled to speak. And if people don't like the bill, 
they can vote against it.
  My guess is it is going to get a strong bipartisan vote. I hope it 
does so that we can send it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, you and I don't get to be down here on the rule 
together very often, and so I feel like I have got a fresh ear in you.
  My friend from Colorado, he and I discuss these matters all the time, 
so I understand his tone. It is as if I am saying this bill has no 
merit because, very often, we are down here and I am saying exactly 
that.
  This is a very different day that we are down here, and I want to say 
it again if I haven't said it loud enough. The chairwoman has worked 
incredibly hard to build a partnership on this issue. This bill came 
out of committee with broad bipartisan support.
  Madam Speaker, I don't believe I have handled a rule this year that 
has had the partisan divide erased and had folks collaborate to make a 
bill better. All I am asking for is, because we have such a wonderful 
work product, that we go ahead and let every voice be heard.
  In the same way that the gentleman from Colorado is used to me saying 
a bill has no merit whatsoever, he is used to defending silencing 
voices. It rolled off his tongue very easily: Oh, Mr. Davidson, he gets 
to offer another amendment. We don't need his other ideas.
  Well, for Pete's sake, he is a gentleman who serves on the Financial 
Services Committee. He has expertise that you and I do not have. He has 
a voice that needs to be heard on this floor. It was going to take 300 
seconds for him to share it, and the answer was: No, no time for you.
  We are better than that. We don't always have the bills to 
demonstrate it; and what I am saying today is that we have a good, 
solid work product that addresses a concern that we all agree on. Why 
can't we make the time to make it better?
  They took that time in the Financial Services Committee, both in the 
two amendments they considered during the markup and in all the off-
the-record discussions that have gone on behind closed doors, which are 
what really make bills better.
  I am just asking for the opportunity to get out of the habit of 
making excuses for why we don't want to hear from our friends and 
colleagues in this Chamber and getting back into the habit of 
recognizing not just the merit of their voice, but the responsibility 
we have to hear their voice.
  My friend from Colorado says, if you don't like this bill, just vote 
``no.'' Well, there is some good stuff in this bill.
  My response would be: If you don't like the amendments I am going to 
offer, just vote ``no.'' But he used the power of the Rules Committee 
to silence those voices. We won't even have votes on those amendments.
  We have developed bad habits here as legislators. We don't always 
have the right leaders to lead us out of the corner in which we have 
strapped ourselves. We have the right leaders today on that side of the 
aisle, Madam Speaker, and that is why I am asking my colleagues--they 
wouldn't do it ordinarily, but I am asking my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question so that we can amend the rule.
  And, even better, defeat the rule so we can go back up, have every 
voice heard, come back to this Chamber, take a few extra minutes, 
perfect this bill, and then do exactly what the chairwoman wants done 
and exactly what my friend from Colorado wants done, and that is to 
send this bill out of this Chamber not with a perfunctory party-line 
bipartisan vote, but with a full-throated, hearty bipartisan 
endorsement that says we are speaking with one voice on an issue that 
is important from corner to corner of this institution.
  Madam Speaker, I had hoped that other learned voices would join me 
today. I find myself alone, and I would say to my friend from Colorado, 
I am prepared to close if he is.

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I was going to say to my friend: That 
sounded like that was your closing. Should we just take it as that?
  Mr. WOODALL. Given that I did not hear either an ``amen'' or 
``attaboy,'' I am thinking of saying it one more time in hopes that the 
response is different.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I don't have any other speakers.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to say this as sincerely as I can. I know my colleagues 
believe me to be sincere.
  We bring a lot of bills to this floor where no effort was made 
whatsoever to include disparate voices, where the party line, and the 
party line alone, was the primary consideration. Madam Speaker, that 
has been a flawed habit when both Republican leaders have sat in that 
chair and when Democratic leaders have sat in that chair.
  That is not the bill we have before us today. The bill we have before 
us today, I have got a Republican from Georgia serving on the Financial 
Services Committee; I have got a Democrat from Georgia serving on the 
Financial Services Committee; and, truth be told, as often as not, they 
vote the same way on the Financial Services Committee.
  I can always tell when good legislation is coming out, because they 
are not voting with a Republican or Democratic agenda in mind; they are 
voting with the service of their constituents in Georgia in the 
forefront of their mind, and they vote side by side and move arm in 
arm.
  We don't always get that opportunity. And so, when we have it today, 
what a shame it is to waste it and not try to get back in the habit of 
doing a better job of hearing voices, defeating

[[Page H8314]]

those that need to be defeated, supporting those that need to be 
supported, and letting the Chamber work its will.
  The National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, as we all know 
it, represents mom-and-pop shops across this country. They don't 
represent mom-and-pop businesses because they think that big businesses 
are bad. They represent mom-and-pop businesses because they think mom-
and-pop businesses are good.
  This bill creates a new burden on those small businesses. That is 
undisputed. The question is: Is the burden worth it or not?
  We won't get to hear amendments on civil liberties to decide if it is 
worth it or not; we won't get to hear amendments on cost-benefit 
analysis to decide if it is worth it or not. And that is a shame. That 
is a shame.
  But when we have respected Members in this institution, respected 
policy shops outside of this institution saying, ``Hey, I just want to 
have my concerns heard by the full House,'' I think it is incumbent 
upon us to try to find some time to get that done.
  I am not encouraging folks to defeat the underlying bill. I am 
encouraging folks to work with me to perfect the underlying bill so 
that we can move it forward collaboratively.
  Defeat the previous question. Defeat the rule. Take this opportunity 
to do what all good institutions do.
  Madam Speaker, we need good leaders, and we need good followers. We 
have got the good leaders on the other side of the aisle today to get 
back in the habit of making every voice heard. What we need are some 
good followers to defeat this rule and give them a chance to do exactly 
that.
  Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado for yielding. I thank 
the chairwoman for her leadership on the issue.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to close.
  I always enjoy debating with my friend from Georgia on these rules 
matters, and, quite frankly, he has heaped a lot of praise on this 
particular piece of legislation, which it deserves. It has gone through 
the crucible of a lot of meetings and compromise and work with a lot of 
different groups.
  So I want to thank my colleagues for joining me here today to speak 
on the rule and the Corporate Transparency Act of 2019.
  Law enforcement needs to have the tools necessary to shed light on 
the true beneficial owners of shell companies in order to do their jobs 
and root out illicit financial activity. They need to be able to find 
out if Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, ISIS, al-Qaida, or criminal 
cartels may be engaging in questionable activity, and this legislation 
will help law enforcement do exactly that. It will also make the first 
major reforms to the Bank Secrecy Act and our anti-money laundering 
laws since 2001.
  These issues enjoy broad support from the law enforcement community, 
like the Fraternal Order of Police and the National District Attorneys 
Association, as well as human rights groups, anti-human trafficking 
organizations, banks and credit unions of all sizes, and many more.
  These are bipartisan issues we have been working on in the Financial 
Services Committee, and I urge all my colleagues to vote for the bill. 
I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 646

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2 Upon adoption of this resolution, the Committees on 
     the Judiciary, Way and Means, Financial Services, Oversight 
     and Reform, and Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence shall suspend pursuing matters 
     referred to by the Speaker in her announcement of September 
     24, 2019, until such time as a bill implementing the United 
     States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement becomes law.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 194, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 571]

                               YEAS--228

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--194

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)

[[Page H8315]]


     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Allred
     Bishop (NC)
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Gabbard
     McEachin
     Peters
     Takano
     Timmons

                              {time}  1342

  Messrs. BABIN and RICE of South Carolina changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. VAN DREW and Mrs. HAYES changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Underwood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 195, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 572]

                               YEAS--227

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--195

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Allred
     Bishop (NC)
     Collins (GA)
     Gabbard
     McEachin
     Peters
     Serrano
     Takano
     Timmons

                              {time}  1350

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. ALLRED. Madam Speaker, as I was back home in Dallas, Texas in 
light of the tornado and storm, I submit the following vote 
explanation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 
No. 571, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 572.

                          ____________________