PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 229 - 177 (Roll no. 403).
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 28, 2016
Anti-terrorism Information Sharing Is Strength Act
This bill amends the USA PATRIOT Act to allow two or more financial institutions and any association of financial institutions, upon notice provided to the Department of the Treasury, to share information with one another regarding individuals, entities, organizations, and countries suspected of the unlawful activity the proceeds of which form the basis of a money laundering offense.
A financial institution or association that transmits, receives, or shares such information to identify and report this activity shall not be liable to any person for such disclosure or for any failure to provide notice of it to the subject, or any other person identified in the disclosure, except where the transmission, receipt, or sharing violates the Act or regulations promulgated under it.
The bill expresses the sense of Congress concerning the need for federal law enforcement agencies and regulators, as well as financial institutions, to share information about terrorist activities, money laundering activities, and unlawful activities to the fullest extent possible and in a timely fashion.
People & committees
Rep. Pittenger, Robert [R-NC-9] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 229 - 177 (Roll no. 403).
House roll call 403 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 229 - 177 (Roll no. 403).
House roll call 403 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4624)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5606.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4586-4587; text of measure as introduced: CRH4786)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5606 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5606 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5606 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5606 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.