Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Lynch, for his leadership on this important issue and the issues of financial technology. Frankly, one of the healthier conversations we get to have on the Financial Services Committee is on the nature and the deployment of the technology. It is neither the pure conversation of less or more regulation. It is a completely different scope of what we are doing in terms of laws that ensure that we have financial inclusion and allow offers for products to be cheaper, more affordable, and more widely distributed across the country. So I think this is a healthy thing for us to have this conversation on the Financial Services Committee. This bill today is an important working group between the CFTC and the Security and Exchange Commission. That conversation between these two agencies, I hope, will bring us a new permissive regulatory framework for digital assets here in the United States and allow for the wider deployment and development of cryptocurrencies and all the technologies that are underlying those cryptocurrencies, those huge opportunity sets for American consumers in the development of these new assets in this first generation, but also the wire deployment of these technologies, whether it is in driverless vehicles or in the nature of how we interact with each other in the financial markets. There are huge opportunities around digital assets, and this is the first step in Congress having a smart regulatory framework here in the United States for digital assets. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, the Eliminate Barriers to Innovation Act. This a bipartisan bill that addresses the much-needed collaboration between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission. What we have is a regulation of commodities through one entity of our Federal Government here in the United States and regulation of securities by another entity of our government. What we need is conversation between those two entities about the nature of digital assets and cryptocurrencies. We have neither a security nor a commodity in what is a new creation of digital assets. Now what we see with the CFTC is that everything is a commodity in their worldview, and the Securities Exchange Commission thinks: Well, you are close. Everything is actually a security. They each want to regulate something that is not in their nature to regulate or not in the substance of their capacity to regulate. We have neither fish nor fowl, neither security nor what the Commodity Futures Trading Commission wants to regulate in their world. So, you have neither fish nor fowl when it comes to this new creation of cryptocurrencies. The fact is that the ``Bitcoin Whitepaper,'' written by Satoshi Nakamoto, as they call themselves, is more than a decade old. What we have seen in that time period is the valuation of bitcoin, and then things that are like bitcoin that use an encrypted ledger system in the blockchain and tokenization to open up the value of that new creation of a blockchain, that new creation of cryptocurrencies is now valued over $2 trillion globally. Most of that innovation has happened outside of the United States because we don't have a legal and regulatory framework that is permissive of the raising of capital in order to develop those technologies. So, people in the United States, American citizens, are missing out on innovation and the potential economic upside of those innovations. I would say this is one of the few pieces of technology in the last 100 years that Americans have not been the drivers of. In fact, we are reacting a lot to what is happening globally. I thank my colleague, Mr. Lynch, for his thoughtful engagement on this bill and his important structural changes to make sure this can be a bipartisan bill. Those conversations really are that balance between economic opportunity and growth that a lot of us on the Republican side want to emphasize at all costs, frankly, and then the protection of our citizens that some on the left want to have at all costs. Mr. Speaker, striking that balance is really necessary for us as legislators. Let's just be pragmatic and honest about it. Mr. Lynch has brought some nice changes to this bill that actually will enable it to be a bipartisan vote, I hope. Mr. Speaker, what this bill does, with our colleagues from the House Committee on Agriculture, is it requires the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to establish a working group focused on digital assets. This is the first step to opening the dialogue between our regulators and market participants and will move to much-needed clarity. The fact is that this working group will produce a report within a year that includes an analysis of the domestic regulatory framework necessary for the development of cryptocurrencies and digital assets here in the United States. It is really important that we get our act together, that we be technology-permissive, that we ensure that it is legitimate money raised here, that our existing laws are adhered to, but that we adapt and change and don't allow the debate between the CFTC, which sees everything as fish, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which sees everything as fowl. When we look at this new entity, which is neither fish nor fowl, we have to have a small regulatory framework for that. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), a member of the House Agriculture Committee and a leader on agriculture issues.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I would say that if we are going to have legalization of cannabis, let's have legalization of cannabis and do it in regular order in the House of Representatives, not have it come through the Financial Services Committee. I wanted to be clear, and I wanted to make sure my colleague heard that. But I do commend my colleague, Mr. Perlmutter, for taking every bit of the jurisdiction that we currently have and using it smartly for the best outcome possible. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), my colleague and good friend.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to repeat this from my earlier remarks. This bill represents one of the biggest changes to U.S. drug policy. If we want banks to provide services risk-free, then we should do it thoughtfully and address the legality of cannabis instead of this workaround. This bill represents a yeoman's task of a legal framework so that funds from cannabis in those legalized States can be legally banked. But that is not a holistic approach to this issue, nor should it be the Financial Services Committee leading the debate, which we have had one hearing on in the last 3 years in this committee--actually, you could say probably one hearing in the last decade on the Financial Services Committee. Yet, we have this bill, which, frankly, on its face is a very well-balanced bill to fix a glaring problem that is happening across the country. This bill will legalize the banking of a federally illegal product. I am sure the irony of this is not at all lost on the American public. The drug cartels, frankly, are keen to this, and other bad actors are keen to this. They will attempt to take advantage of this if it is not well-implemented, if it is not thoughtfully implemented, especially if those things are not the case. No matter how we spin what is happening right now, we currently have a crisis at the southern border, and human trafficking is certainly a part of that; a desire to come to the United States is certainly a part of that; and the movement of illegal drugs into the United States is certainly a part of that. This doesn't help with that crisis at the southern border. Again, we are the House Financial Services Committee. We are not the Homeland Security Committee, and we are not the Appropriations Committee, so we can't fix all things within our jurisdiction. Let me close with this. I do not support this bill because it represents a workaround to a much bigger debate that we need to have in the United States, and that is whether or not cannabis should remain a schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. This fact is the bigger issue that I think this Congress should wrestle with, and I would welcome it. In fact, I think we can have a much more nuanced debate here. But I do want to close by thanking my colleagues for creating a very thoughtful product. This legislative text is much improved upon from where it was originally. I thank my colleague, Mr. Perlmutter, for leading that conversation and leading that set of negotiations. It has taken years to produce this product. It is strong legislative text. It is a strong legal framework. Even though I have pointed out a number of its deficiencies and challenges, I do see on its face how this would resolve a huge problem in a large number of States. I understand that, and I am inviting the larger discussion about cannabis, as well. I think we need to have that conversation. But I do thank my colleague, Mr. Perlmutter, for his leadership there, and I thank my colleagues, Mr. Stivers, Mr. Davidson, and Mr. Joyce, on our side of the aisle for engaging in that, as well as Mr. Luetkemeyer and Mr. Barr who dealt with particular issues in their States and their jurisdictions, as well. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' but I understand if they do vote ``yes.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Furthermore, we see cannabis-legal States like California, Washington, and Colorado, as the subject of recent news reports that cartels have found that it is easier to grow and process marijuana in legal States like Colorado and ship it throughout the United States than it is to bring it from Mexico or Cuba. I include that article in the Record, Mr. Speaker. [From Global Power, May 29, 2018] Foreign Cartels Embrace Home-Grown Marijuana in Pot-Legal States (By Dennis Romero, Gabe Gutierrez, Andrew Blankstein and Robert Powell) Los Angeles.--General Jeff Sessions called it ``one of the largest residential forfeiture actions in American history.'' In early April, local and federal authorities descended upon 74 marijuana grow houses in the Sacramento area they say were underwritten by Chinese organized crime. They filed court paperwork to seize the properties, worth millions of dollars. Federal officials allege that legal recreational marijuana states like California, Colorado and Washington, where enforcement of growing regulations is hit-or-miss, have been providing cover for transnational criminal organizations willing to invest big money to buy or rent property to achieve even bigger returns. Chinese, Cuban and Mexican drug rings have purchased or rented hundreds of homes and use human trafficking to bring inexperienced growers to the United States to tend them, federal and local officials say. The suspects are targeting states that have already legalized marijuana ``in an attempt to shroud their operations in our legal environment here and then take the marijuana outside of the state,'' said Mike Hartman, executive director of the Colorado Department of Revenue, which regulates and licenses the cannabis industry. Authorities say they've seen an increase in these ``home grows'' since the launch of recreational pot sales in Colorado. While California and Washington have mainly seen organized criminals from China buying homes and converting them into grow houses, Colorado has largely been grappling with Cuban and Mexican-led cartels, said Sheriff Bill Elder of the El Paso County Sheriffs Office in Colorado. ``They have found that it's easier to grow and process marijuana in Colorado, ship it throughout the United States, than it is to bring it from Mexico or Cuba,'' Elder said.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), the subcommittee chair on Housing, Community Development, and Insurance.

Mr. McHENRY. Furthermore, because of this patchwork at the State level, I think you are seeing additional concerns at the southern border right now, and I will include for the Record a letter that the former Border Patrol chief submitted that in February alone there was nearly $14 million a day of marijuana caught at the southern border. Despite these many issues I still have with the SAFE Banking Act, I do appreciate the work that my colleagues have put into this legislative effort, but considering that the larger issue of cannabis legalization has not yet been debated here on the House floor, I think it is premature for the Financial Services Committee to do the full work of this Congress on the question of cannabis legalization at the Federal level. I think that would be better left to the Judiciary Committee, with a wider debate here on the House floor, and I would encourage that wider debate. Notwithstanding that, I would like to thank my colleagues for the hard work that they have put into this legislation. Even if I have concerns, I know that there is more than sufficient support to pass this under the suspension calendar, and that would not happen were it not for the good legislative work of my colleague and friend from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter). I do believe that my colleague was quite intentional about the date that he wanted to actually have the vote here on the House floor. With that, for those of you who don't know, tomorrow is 4/20/21, 4/20 being the operative date. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, this letter raises a number of concerns, including: What changes to our banking laws are necessary to implement the SAFE Banking Act, a number of questions that I have; What agencies are going to be necessary for this working group to actually ensure that the letter of this law is adhered to by the executive branch, that they actually follow it as the writer of the legislation intends; How the executive branch will interpret the ``know your customer'' rules enacted in the SAFE Banking Act, compared to what we enacted just 2 months ago, 3 months ago; How we would deal with suspicious activity reporting requirements under the new guidelines of the SAFE Banking Act, compared to what we enacted at the end of last year; How we deal with currency transaction reports under this law, compared to what we just passed; and What are the implications on nonbank financial firms as well, such as insurers and investment companies. Mr. Speaker, I think the author of the bill intends for insurers and investment companies and banks to have the same qualifications when they are handling money that has touched the cannabis industry. I think that is the intent. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to understand whether or not the administration would follow that intent that the author has stated clearly in debates here on the House floor last Congress and this Congress and, furthermore, whether or not Federal, State, and local law enforcement will have a similar interpretation that the writer of this bill says is his intent, that Federal law enforcement should hear the voice of Congress and hear this step to legalization which is part of this bill. I do not think it is the author of the bill's idea to get into sort of the broader conversation about legalization at the State level and what we should do at the Federal level in this bill. However, that is a part of it. In March of 2019, the National Sheriffs' Association voiced concern with this bill, saying that it could easily be exploited. They echoed my concerns that ``allowing banking access for a Schedule 1 drug gives money laundering access to international drug cartels, which are already using the cover of legalization.'' Mr. Speaker, I include that letter in the Record. National Sheriffs' Association, March 19, 2019. Hon. Maxine Waters, Chairwoman, House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC. Hon. Patrick McHenry, Ranking Member, House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC. Dear Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member McHenry: On behalf of the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) and more than 3,080 sheriffs nationwide, I write to express our deep concern and opposition to H.R. 1595, The SAFE Banking Act. This bill creates protections for depository institutions that provide financial services to cannabis-related businesses and service providers for such businesses. H.R. 1595 will increase the legalization of marijuana across the Nation, which we understand is an intended consequence of this bill. Furthermore, allowing banking access for a Schedule 1 drug gives money laundering access to international drug cartels, which are already using the cover of legalization. This will inevitably open the door to other criminal activity! NSA is concerned with the welfare and safety of citizens and works to preserve their rights to live and work in communities where drug abuse is not accepted and they are not subjected to the adverse effects of drug abuse. The dangers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the threat to public safety caused by their use in terms of highway safety, criminal activity, and domestic violence are well-documented. NSA believes that any legislation regarding national legalization must engage the nation's law enforcement agencies in order to have a comprehensive discussion regarding the potential implications this bill could have on our communities. We urge The House of Representatives to defeat this dangerous bill. Sincerely, Jonathan F. Thompson, Executive Director and CEO.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hollingsworth), the coauthor of this bill.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1491, the Fair Debt Collection Practices for Servicemembers Act. I thank Representative Dean for offering this legislation. Madam Speaker, our servicemembers put their lives on the line for us every day. To that end, we must ensure they are adequately protected from abuse or harassment related to outstanding debt. I am pleased that we were able to work in a bipartisan fashion to meet this goal. H.R. 1491 prohibits debt collectors from using threats against a servicemember's rank or security clearance, or threats of prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Not only are such practices unfair, they also create the risk of harm to military readiness. Last Congress, during the committee markup of H.R. 1491, Republicans expressed concerns that there were too many unanswered questions about how this bill could impact military readiness. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), who has had a distinguished career in our military, offered an amendment, which directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on the impact this bill has on readiness with servicemembers regarding debts in collection, as well as military readiness and national security. This commonsense approach ensures that Congress understands and is able to account for the connection between national security and the protection of servicemembers from unfair practices. Madam Speaker, I thank the Democrat majority for accepting this amendment, and I am glad that it continues to be included in this bill we are considering today. This makes this a far more lasting bill, I believe, and more impactful on the people that the author and this Congress want to ensure are taken care of, and those are the folks who serve and protect us each and every day. As a reminder, this bill passed the House unanimously in March of last year. All Americans deserve to be treated with dignity and respect when faced with repaying a debt. This is especially true for our servicemembers, who fight for our freedoms every day. Madam Speaker, this bill contains important safeguards. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Rodgers, my classmate and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee for yielding. It is an amazing thing to be with you here today, and it is an amazing thing to be here today to talk about this important bill. As the lead Republican cosponsor of the House companion to S. 578, I rise in support of the FASTER Act. Millions of Americans suffer from life-threatening food allergies. More than 1.5 million Americans are allergic to sesame, in particular, yet there is no current requirement to include the ingredient on product labels. This legislation would declare it the ninth major allergen to be recognized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and update laws to require the labeling of sesame. This bill would also require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to regularly review promising food allergy treatments and research. This is a major bipartisan priority. These efforts will help slow this rapidly growing disease and ultimately find and fund a cure. Finally, the FASTER Act establishes a scientific process and framework for establishing additional allergens covered by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. I am proud to serve as cofounder and co-chair of the newly formed Congressional Food Allergy Research Caucus, along with Congresswoman Doris Matsui. We recognize there is more we can do to help those 32 million Americans, including many who are children who suffer from food allergies. We can and we should do more to increase funding into research, therapies, and treatments for food allergies. Sending this legislation to the President's desk would be a major first step to achieving our goal of improving treatment opportunities. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Missouri, the good ranking member of the Budget Committee. Mr. Speaker, we, as politicians, are talking down our economy specifically to pass this spending package. To be clear, we know many Americans are still suffering. Republicans want to provide targeted relief to those in need--temporary, targeted relief related to COVID. In fact, for a year now, we have been working to support families impacted by COVID, and we have done so in an overwhelmingly bipartisan way. Mr. Speaker, now the Democrats have power and they are not interested in bipartisanship--no matter what the campaign pledges were--or even basic facts. The fact is that CBO projects that the unemployment rate, which is lower right now than it was in the first 5\1/2\ years of President Obama's Presidency, will continue to fall even without congressional action and reach its pre-pandemic size by next year. Additionally, personal income increased at the end of last year, and the report out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics today says personal savings rates are now over 20 percent, a level not seen in four decades. But these are facts that don't back up the Democrats' preferred narrative, that the economy is horrible, and this big, spending package is their solution. Democrats are distorting the truth to push through a package that dedicates only 9 percent of the $1.9 trillion price tag of this bill to actually combating the virus. Mr. Speaker, let's reject this package. Let's get American people back to work. Let's get schools open. Let's get parents back at work. Let's get women back in the workforce. And we can do that with bipartisan solutions, not a big spending package. Let's reject this. Let's start over and get to good terms so we can actually fix the problems for the American people, get them working again, get schools open, and beat the virus.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021. Combating illicit finance and targeting bad actors is a nonpartisan issue. However, Congress' actions must be thoughtful and data-driven. An example of this is H.R. 2514, the COUNTER Act, which is included in this conference report. Division G is a compilation of bipartisan policies that will modernize and reform the Bank Secrecy Act and anti- money laundering regimes. These policies will strengthen the Department of Treasury's financial intelligence, anti-money laundering, and counter terrorism programs. I would like to thank Chairman Cleaver and Ranking Member Stivers for their work on this bill and the language included in Division G. In addition to Division G, the conference report contains an amendment replacing the text of H.R. 2513, the Corporate Transparency Act, with new legislation. H.R. 2513, which passed the House on October 22, 2019, and again as an amendment to H.R. 6395 on July 21, 2020, attempted to establish a new beneficial ownership information reporting regime to assist law enforcement in tracking down terrorists and other bad actors who finance terrorism and illicit activities. But, it did so to the detriment of America's small businesses. Beneficial ownership information is the personally identifiable information (PII) on a company's beneficial owners. This information is currently collected and held by financial institutions prior to a company gaining access to our financial system. However, bad actors and nation states, such as China and Russia, are becoming more proficient in using our financial system to support illicit activity. As bad actors become more sophisticated, so to must our tools to deter and catch them. One such tool is identifying the beneficial owners of shell companies, which are used as fronts to launder money and finance terrorism or other illicit activity. Beneficial ownership information assists law enforcement to better target these bad actors. Although well-intentioned, H.R. 2513 had numerous deficiencies in its reporting regime. First, H.R. 2513 placed numerous reporting and costly reporting requirements on small businesses. It lacked protections to properly protect small businesses' personal information stored with a little-known government office within the Department of Treasury--known as FinCEN. The bill authorized access to this sensitive information without any limitation on who could access the information and when it could be accessed. Finally, it failed to hold FinCEN accountable for its actions. The text of H.R. 2513 is replaced with new language that I negotiated, along with Senate Banking Committee Chairman Crapo. This substitute, which is reflected in Division F of the conference report, is a significant improvement over the House-passed bill in three key areas. First, Division F limits the burdens on small businesses. Unlike H.R. 2513, the language included in the conference report protects our nation's small businesses. It prevents duplicative, burdensome, and costly reporting requirements for beneficial ownership data from being imposed in two ways. It rescinds the current beneficial ownership reporting regime set out in 31 CFR 1010.230 (b)-(j), which is costly and burdensome to small businesses. Rescinding these provisions ensures that it cannot be used in a future rule to impose another duplicative, reporting regime on America's small businesses. In addition, Division F requires the Department of Treasury to minimize the burdens the new reporting regime will have on small businesses, including eliminating any duplicative requirements. House Republicans ensured the directive to minimize burdens on small businesses is fulfilled. Division F directs the Secretary of the Treasury to report to the House Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Committee on Banking annually for the first three years after the new rule is promulgated. The report must assess: the effectiveness of the new rule; the steps the Department of Treasury took to minimize the reporting burdens on reporting entities, including eliminating duplicative reporting requirements, and the accuracy of the new rule in targeting bad actors. The Department of Treasury is also required to identify the alternate procedures and standards that were considered and rejected in developing its new reporting regime. This report will help the Committees understand the effectiveness of the new rule in identifying and prosecuting bad actors. Moreover, it will give the Committees the data needed to understand whether the reporting threshold is sufficient or should be revised. Second, Division F includes the strongest privacy and disclosure protections for America's small businesses as it relates to the collection, maintenance, and disclosure of beneficial ownership information. The new protections set out in Division F ensure that small business beneficial ownership information will be protected just like an individual's tax return information. The protections in Division F mirror or exceed the protections set out in 26 U.S.C. 6103, including: 1. Agency Head Certification. Division F requires an agency head or designee to certify that an investigation or law enforcement, national security or intelligence activity is authorized and necessitates access to the database. Designees may only be identified through a process that mirrors the process followed by the Department of Treasury for those designations set out in 26 U.S.C. 6103. 2. Semi-annual Certification of Protocols. Division F requires an Agency head to make a semi-annual certification to the Secretary of the Treasury that the protocols for accessing small business ownership data ensure maximum protection of this critically important information. This requirement is non-delegable. 3. Court authorization of State, Local and Tribal law enforcement requests. Division F requires state, local and tribal law enforcement officials to obtain a court authorization from the court system in the local jurisdiction. Obtaining a court authorization is the first of two steps state, local and tribal governments must take prior to accessing the database. Separately, state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies must comply with the protocols and safeguards established by the Department of Treasury. 4. Limited Disclosure of Beneficial Ownership Information. Division F prohibits the Secretary of Treasury from disclosing the requested beneficial ownership information to anyone other than a law enforcement or national security official who is directly engaged in the investigation. 5. System of Records. Division F requires any requesting agency to establish and maintain a system of records to store beneficial ownership information provided directly by the Secretary of the Treasury. 6. Penalties for Unauthorized Disclosure. Division F prohibits unauthorized disclosures. Specifically, the agreement reiterates that a violation of appropriate protocols, including unauthorized disclosure or use, is subject to criminal and civil penalties (up to five years in prison and $250,000 fine). Third, Division F contains the necessary transparency, accountability and oversight provisions to ensure that the Department of Treasury promulgates and implements the new beneficial ownership reporting regime as intended by Congress. Specifically, Division F requires each requesting agency to establish and maintain a permanent, auditable system of records describing: each request, how the information is used, and how the beneficial ownership information is secured. It requires requesting agencies to furnish a report to the Department of Treasury describing the procedures in place to ensure the confidentiality of the beneficial ownership information provided directly by the Secretary of the Treasury. Separately, Division F requires two additional audits. First, it directs the Secretary of Treasury to conduct an annual audit to determine whether beneficial ownership information is being collected, stored and used as intended by Congress. Separately, Division F directs the Government Accountability Office to conduct an audit for five years to ensure that the Department of Treasury and requesting agencies are using the beneficial ownership information as set out in Division F. This is the same audit that GAO conducts as it relates to the Department of Treasury's collection, maintenance and protection of tax return information. This information will ensure that Congress has independent data on the efficacy of the reporting regime and whether confidentiality is being maintained. Division F also requires the Department of Treasury to issue an annual report on the total number of court authorized requests received by the Secretary to access the database. The report must detail the total number of court authorized requests approved and rejected and a summary justifying the action. This report to Congress will ensure the Department of Treasury does not misuse its authority to either approve or reject court authorized requests. Finally, Division F requires the Director of FinCEN, who is responsible for implementing this reporting regime, to testify annually for five years. This testimony is critical. For far too long FinCEN has evaded any type of congressional check on its activities. Yet, it has amassed a great deal of authority. Now, Congress will shine a light on its operations. It is my expectation that FinCEN will provide Congress with hard data on its effectiveness in targeting bad actors, including the effectiveness of this new authority to collect, maintain, and use beneficial ownership information. One final comment about the importance of FinCEN's annual testimony. In the months leading up to the House's consideration of H.R. 2513 last October, I sought data from FinCEN and from the Treasury Department, along with the Department of Justice, to better understand the need for this legislation. No such data was forthcoming. Rather, FinCEN gave anecdotes of very scary stories to justify the need for a new reporting regime. It is my expectation that FinCEN will provide Congress with the necessary data to justify this new reporting regime and the burdens it is placing on legitimate companies. I will conclude by thanking Chairwoman Maloney for her work over the last twelve years on this issue and her willingness to work with me to strengthen this bill. I believe we have a better product. I urge my colleagues to support the conference agreement.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. McHENRY. In its current form, yes.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, this amendment will not kill the bill. It will make this a serious piece of legislation rather than just a political talking point, which is what it currently is. The legislation will then target real human rights abuses. Mr. Speaker, Republicans in this House have been standing against the Chinese Communist Party and the rising threat it presents, not only to the American businesses in our community, in our economy, but also to national security. And Republicans have also worked to address the atrocities committed against the Uyghur people, including in the House Committee on Financial Services. Republicans stand with the Trump administration against communism and the global threat the Chinese Government poses, while Democrats have excused the Chinese Communist Party's actions for years. Just last year, we offered House Democrats an opportunity in the Committee on Financial Services, to stand up against the Chinese Communist Party, and they didn't. And we offered them the opportunity to stand against human rights abuses against religious minorities in China, and they didn't work with us. We had those votes when we considered the reauthorization of U.S. Export-Import Bank. Instead of joining us, Democrats voted to allow companies owned by the Chinese Communist Party to receive U.S.-taxpayer subsidies, subsidies that support the very people committing these human rights atrocities in which they are now, all of a sudden, a few days before the election, against. Mr. Speaker, if you look at that vote tally, you will see today's bill's sponsor's name. She voted against these Republican measures to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable, including holding them accountable for abuses against the Uyghur people. So what has changed? Mr. Speaker, I would submit that it is an election that has made these things more of a reality for these Democrats that were very weak on communist China. Democrats in the House failed to stand up for the American people and stand against the human rights abuses of the Uyghur people. And now 33 days before the election, they are scrambling to look tough on China. Let me be clear: This bill is not tough on China. It actually won't do the things that the bill's sponsor is saying and committee Democrats are saying. If we really want to be tough on China, we would target and sanction those responsible to the greatest extent possible. That is what we did in a bipartisan way last week with a good bill that is very workable. We would support a whole-of-government approach to combat the rising threat and ensure the freedom of the Uyghur people. This bill doesn't do that. This bill uses the same mechanisms that have previously failed in their intended purpose. In fact, the last time the Democrats paid lip service to similar human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of Congo, they failed to support the Congolese miners, while at the same time costing American companies an estimated $7 billion. That is just one example. If you need more evidence that the Democrats are not serious about combating the Chinese Communist Party, just look at their new COVID relief bill, which would send more than $170 billion to the Chinese Government. What does that do for small businesses and their employees who are still hurting and need our support because of COVID? Now, there are many good news items here. Because Democrats are feeling vulnerable on China leading up to this election, we were able to get together on some pieces of legislation that would do some positive things in terms of our relationship with China and holding them accountable. The bill last week is a good example of that. The bill before us today is nothing more than a press release for an election. I think we will see that. I think we will probably see Democrats using this in campaign ads, maybe. My amendment recognizes that sanctioning is the most effective way to punish bad actors and to address the human rights violations in Xinjiang, in the Uyghur Autonomous Region, as recommended by the bipartisan, bicameral Congressional-Executive Committee on China in their 2019 report, the very same report, I might add, that the author of this bill cites in her bill to describe the atrocities against the Uyghur people. It also ensures the bill accomplishes its intended purpose: cracking down on the Chinese Communist Party and ending the human rights atrocities in the ongoing struggle that the Uyghur people are facing. A vote for this amendment says that you are serious about addressing the threats of China and what it poses to our national security. A vote for this amendment says that we are serious about ending the human rights atrocities and serious as legislators. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit, urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his friendship and his encouragement. Maybe not encouragement on this specific bill, but I am proud to support this bill because it does help with the maintenance backlog in the National Parks, as well as assist with the long-term reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Trust, which is something I strongly support. Since its inception over 50 years ago, the Land and Water Conservation Trust has done very important things for my State and our Nation in preserving access to public lands and to the great outdoors. Also, for the maintenance backlog, I am proud to represent a piece of the Blue Ridge Parkway, which runs through my district and was the second most visited National Park last year. I think this year would be the same. In North Carolina alone, we have over 260,000 jobs that are directly attributable to the great outdoors; and those millions of visitors that come to the State through the Blue Ridge Parkway, they are vital for our economy in western North Carolina. Passage of this bill will help, both the backlog and with ensuring that we have long-term reauthorization on the Land and Water Conservation Trust. I encourage a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman from New York's amendment. The amendment being considered today is a new small business mandate on the smallest businesses in America. It will require some of the smallest businesses in this country, those with fewer than 20 employees and those with less than $5 million in receipts, to file annually a list of all of their owners with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN. But who or what is FinCEN? I bet most of America has never heard of FinCEN, let alone those in the House office buildings. It is a little-known agency here in Washington that deals with financial crimes, in the Treasury Department. Now, imagine you are a small business owner. You are getting a notice from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network mandating that you disclose the owners of your entity. This would be the first consumer- facing intelligence bureau that we would have in the Federal Government. This amendment would require small business owners and small business investors to submit their personal information to a new Federal database without adequate privacy protections. This new Federal database will be accessible to law enforcement without a warrant and without a subpoena, a disturbing violation of due process, in my view. This new Federal database has the fewest civil liberties protections of any Federal intelligence bureau database. It is a lower standard of accountability than what Congress provides in the PATRIOT Act, which largely targets foreign actors. In addition, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, this amendment would also add more than $5.7 billion in new regulatory costs for America's small businesses. At a time when small businesses are struggling to stay afloat, this amendment would only add to America's small business burdens. Supporters of the amendment are calling for these changes without any direct evidence to justify the mandate. There is plenty of anecdote, but no data. In the months leading up to the House's consideration of this bill last October, I sought data from the intelligence bureau called FinCEN and from the Treasury Department, along with the Department of Justice, to better understand the need for this legislation. They provided none. They gave anecdotes of very scary stories to try to compel me as a legislator to vote for what is a very specific threshold in law and a very specific new small business mandate. I refused then to legislate based off of anecdotes. I refuse now to legislate off of anecdotes. I would like to have hard data. My questions have not been answered by FinCEN, the Treasury Department, or the Department of Justice. We have no information on how beneficial ownership information will be protected. We do not have information on how the privacy of small businesses will be preserved. We don't have information on how many law enforcement agencies will have access to the database, how many financial institutions will have access to the database, or what threshold for amount of sales and the number of employees will yield the most effective outcome. Like H.R. 2513, this amendment has a threshold of $5 million of revenue and under, and 20 employees and under. We have no data to understand whether this is the right threshold for either the dollar amount or the number of employees. We will have stories, and we will have Members come to the House floor telling us stories of bad actors, but that is anecdote. That is not data to provide for this threshold. If we are going to have such an encroachment on America's personally identifiable information of small businesses across this country, shouldn't we have solid data? I believe so. I believe we have a number of issues that need to be dealt with to make this amendment sustainable and provide protections for civil liberties. I believe that combating illicit finance is a nonpartisan issue that all Members want to address. Yet, our actions must be thoughtful and data-driven. A strong example of this is H.R. 2514, the COUNTER Act, which is included in this amendment. In committee, we came together in support of H.R. 2514, which was introduced by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers). H.R. 2514 is a compilation of bipartisan policies that modernize and reform the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering regimes. It balances security and privacy. It was a strong bipartisan bill. It provides the Treasury Department and other Federal agencies with the resources they need to help catch bad actors. It's disappointing though that Democrats chose to combine these two bills for the sole purpose of driving up votes for their new mandate impacting millions of small businesses and jeopardizing civil liberties. I would be remiss if I did not thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for listening to some of our concerns on the Republican side of the aisle. We will have some Republican Members who vote for this amendment. I, however, will not. The encroachment on the question of civil liberties, the lack of separation of powers, the lack of the use of a subpoena, and the lack of regulatory relief for those who are collecting this data, both in terms of small businesses and financial institutions, has not been fixed nor dealt with in this amendment. In particular, prior to floor consideration of H.R. 2513 last October, I filed an amendment with the Rules Committee that would provide greater certainty for small businesses and for community banks by repealing the customer due diligence rule. The CDD rule requires financial institutions to collect similar data that is being required in this bill. Moreover, the Republican motion to recommit offered to H.R. 2513 would have required law enforcement to obtain a subpoena. Both attempts to strengthen the bill at the time were rejected. The amendment that we are considering today to H.R. 6395 contains the same flaws as H.R. 2513. To that end, I believe these issues still merit a more thoughtful solution that doesn't treat legitimate small businesses as collateral damage, like the bill and this amendment does. I will continue trying to work with the amendment's sponsor to fix these issues. Until then, I am opposed to this amendment.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.