[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 157 (Wednesday, September 28, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8170-H8179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1745
      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3843, MERGER FILING FEE 
 MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2022; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7780, 
MENTAL HEALTH MATTERS ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 3969, 
           PAVA PROGRAM INCLUSION ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 1396 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1396

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3843) to 
     promote antitrust enforcement and protect competition through 
     adjusting premerger filing fees, and increasing antitrust 
     enforcement resources. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 117-66 shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. 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: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  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. 
     7780) to support the behavioral needs of students and youth, 
     invest in the school-based behavioral health workforce, and 
     ensure access to mental health and substance use disorder 
     benefits. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Education and Labor or their respective designees. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and Labor now printed in the bill, an amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 117-67 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 the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. 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. 
     In the case of sundry further amendments reported from the 
     Committee, the question of their adoption shall be put to the 
     House en gros and without division of the question. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  During consideration of H.R. 7780, the Chair may 
     entertain a motion that the Committee rise only if offered by 
     the chair of the Committee on Education and Labor or his 
     designee. The Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out 
     the enacting words of the bill (as described in clause 9 of 
     rule XVIII).
       Sec. 4.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (S. 3969) to amend 
     the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to explicitly authorize 
     distribution of grant funds to the voting accessibility 
     protection and advocacy system of the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands and the system serving the American 
     Indian consortium, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     House Administration or their respective designees; and (2) 
     one motion to commit.
       Sec. 5.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     October 3, 2022, through November 11, 2022, the Journal of 
     the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as 
     approved.
       Sec. 6.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 5 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 7.  Each day during the period addressed by section 5 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for 
     purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1546).
       Sec. 8.  Each day during the period addressed by section 5 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for 
     purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
       Sec. 9.  Each day during the period addressed by section 5 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar or 
     legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of rule XXII.
       Sec. 10. (a) At any time through the legislative day of 
     Friday, September 30, 2022, the Speaker may entertain motions 
     offered by the Majority Leader or a designee that the House 
     suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV with 
     respect to multiple measures described in subsection (b), and 
     the Chair shall put the question on any such motion without 
     debate or intervening motion.
       (b) A measure referred to in subsection (a) includes any 
     measure that was the object of a motion to suspend the rules 
     on the legislative day of September 28, 2022, September 29, 
     2022, or September 30, 2022, in the form as so offered, on 
     which the yeas and nays were ordered and further proceedings 
     postponed pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX.
       (c) Upon the offering of a motion pursuant to subsection 
     (a) concerning multiple measures, the ordering of the yeas 
     and nays on postponed motions to suspend the rules with 
     respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such 
     motions are considered as withdrawn.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. 
Fischbach), 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. DeSAULNIER. Mr. 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 California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 1396, providing for consideration of 
three measures.
  First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7780 under a 
structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Education and Labor, and makes in order two 
amendments, and provides one motion to recommit.
  Second, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3843 under a 
closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided 
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary and a motion to recommit.
  Third, the rule provides for consideration of S. 3969 under a closed 
rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on House Administration and a motion to commit.
  The rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to 
en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered on 
September 28 to September 30. This authority lasts through September 
30, 2022.
  Lastly, the rule provides standard recess instructions from October 3 
to November 11.
  Mr. Speaker, an average of 18 young Americans took their own lives 
every

[[Page H8171]]

day in 2020. When children take their own lives, families and 
communities are left broken. This includes the community of Moorhead, 
Minnesota, which faced the devastating loss of 13-year old Horizon 
Middle School student Jacoby Blake to suicide just last year.
  These sad stories happen all over this country in all of our 
districts. Mental health disorders, as a whole, are a common cause of 
death. It is estimated by CDC that 8 million deaths worldwide, which 
represents about 14.3 of total annual deaths, are attributable to 
mental disorders.
  Even before the pandemic, the unmet mental and behavioral health 
needs of young people, students, and teachers, were a serious problem.
  In talking with teachers in the district I represent in the East Bay 
of the San Francisco Bay area, it is clear that this problem has become 
a crisis. Teachers, administrators, and parents, often tell me that 
dealing with their students and their children's and their own mental 
and behavioral health challenges is among the most difficult things 
they deal with every day.
  The data, unfortunately, backs up these stories. Teachers are saying, 
just last year, almost half of the students experienced persistent 
sadness or hopelessness, and nearly 20 percent seriously considered 
suicide.
  Think of that, Mr. Speaker. Almost one in four American children have 
considered suicide in the last 2 years.
  At the same time, 27 percent of teachers reported symptoms of 
depression, which is significantly higher than average adults, and 
those numbers have been growing.
  Despite these warning signs, over 60 percent of children experiencing 
major depression do not receive any form of mental health treatment, 
and only 22 percent of teachers reported receiving emotional support 
from their school, their school district, or professional staff.
  This is at a time when investments in the National Institute of 
Mental Health is discovering exponential information about how our 
brains work, how they cognitively develop, and the danger to trauma.
  We are not getting this information out to the people who need it the 
most. We know that when people get treatment, they succeed. They 
overcome their difficulties.
  As a Nation, we are underinvesting in the resources our students 
need, and our communities, our parents, our teachers, our 
administrators, to stay healthy, to succeed in school, and retain 
talented teachers and professionals and make sure that future Americans 
grow and are ready to carry on the legacy that we have inherited from 
former generations.
  While the School Social Work Association of America recommends a 
ratio of 250 students per social worker, not one single State meets 
this recommended ratio. The national average is 2,106 of students per 
social worker; 2,106, as opposed to the recommended average of 250.
  I am proud this week that the House is advancing my legislation, the 
Mental Health Matters Act, to confront this crisis head on, to give 
communities and parents and teachers the resources they need.
  This bill was drafted with the needs of students, parents, and 
teachers in mind and is the product of months of careful consideration 
about how Congress can best respond to our Nation's mental health 
crisis.
  This legislation before us would expand the school-based mental and 
behavioral health workforce, promote accessibility for students with 
disabilities, provide resources to address trauma in young children, 
and strengthen the ability of Americans with employer-sponsored 
insurance to access mental health and substance use disorder treatments 
they are statutorily entitled to.
  From my discussions with mental health professionals over the years 
and research that has informed this legislation, it is clear that 
failure to address these challenges at a young age can harm performance 
at school and work and lead to ever worsening mental and behavioral 
health outcomes later in life for individuals and for our country.

                              {time}  1800

  Anxiety and reading disorders co-occur in approximately 25 percent of 
students. For individuals whose reading challenges persist into 
adulthood, there is a greater likelihood of depression, low self-
esteem, and difficulty in social functioning.
  To break this cycle, a provision I authored would help Head Start 
agencies implement evidence-based interventions to improve the health 
of children and staff.
  While investment is needed for greater access to school-based mental 
health and behavioral health, individuals and families with employer-
sponsored health insurance must also have robust access to treatment 
outside of school.
  Some insurers, unfortunately, have placed arbitrary coverage limits 
on mental and behavioral health care, making it hard for patients to 
access treatment in the same way they would for physical ailments. This 
legislation makes great strides in the fight for mental health parity 
so that families can focus more on staying healthy and less on battling 
insurers for coverage.
  Mental health and suicide prevention are deeply personal issues for 
me, having lost my own father to suicide almost 34 years ago. In 
advancing this bill, it is my hope that we can prevent many families 
from having to experience what mine went through several decades ago.
  Also included in today's rule is the Merger Filing Fee Modernization 
Act. This bipartisan bill would increase the filing fee that large 
corporations must pay the Federal Trade Commission in order to conduct 
a merger.
  A recent surge in merger filings has placed a strain on the FTC's 
resources, and updating the fee schedule will help the agency cope with 
its many demands.
  Finally, we will also consider the PAVA Program Inclusion Act under 
the rule. This Senate-passed legislation would help ensure that all 
programs designed to help voters with disabilities can access Federal 
funds regardless of their location.
  Unfortunately, programs designed to help individuals with 
disabilities vote who are Native Americans or who live in the Northern 
Mariana Islands are not currently able to access the Protection and 
Advocacy for Voting Access funds in the same manner as other Federal 
programs. The PAVA Program Inclusion Act will fix this injustice, and 
passing this bill will send it to President Biden's desk to be signed 
into law.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a great opportunity this week to make 
transformative investments in our Nation's future and our mental health 
and pass other commonsense legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  We are here to debate the rule providing for consideration of three 
bills: H.R. 7780, Mental Health Matters Act; H.R. 3843, Merger Filing 
Fee Modernization Act; and S. 3969, Protection and Advocacy for Voting 
Access, or PAVA, Program Inclusion Act.
  H.R. 3843 would increase funding to the Federal Trade Commission 
without justification or restrictions on that funding. This is the same 
agency that, through its strategic plan for the next 4 years, removed a 
longstanding clause that states the agency will not unduly burden 
legitimate business activity.
  In the coming term, the Supreme Court will hear a case as to whether 
the FTC is mission creeping beyond the bounds of its constitutional 
authority. The FTC, through its initiatives in antitrust enforcement, 
has taken an increasing liberal view of its traditional focus on 
protecting consumers from fraud and ensuring businesses have clear 
rules to follow and is instead moving toward an interpretation of 
reshaping the American economy through enforcement action.
  In the Committee on the Judiciary, my colleagues offered amendments 
to put limitations on this funding.
  Mr. Roy offered an amendment to prohibit appropriated funds from 
being used to promote critical race theory and one to require funds to 
be used to enforce antitrust laws as defined in the Clayton Act.
  Mr. Fitzgerald offered one to prohibit funds from being used for non-
enforcement activities.
  Mr. Bishop offered one to limit the scope of the bill to only apply 
to mergers involving large technology companies.

[[Page H8172]]

  All of these failed on party lines, and I can't understand why, 
unless my colleagues on the left want to encourage the FTC to get 
involved in issues outside of its purview. The FTC is out of control 
under this administration and cannot be trusted with these additional 
resources.
  H.R. 7780 misses the mark. Republicans are committed to addressing 
the mental health crisis facing young people in the country. 
Unfortunately, this bill is another one-size-fits-all proposal that 
fails to provide local leaders with the flexibility they need to 
address the unique problems they face. Republicans support mental 
health parity, but this bill will actually do the opposite. It opens 
insurers and employers to lawsuits when they voluntarily offer to 
provide mental health care benefits.
  As with so many bills promoted by the majority this Congress, 
provisions of this bill ban arbitration clauses, class action waivers, 
and representation waivers, discouraging other means of settling 
disputes and pushing creating even more bottlenecks in our judicial 
system.
  During markup, Republicans offered an alternative bill that 
streamlined existing programs, helped the needs on the ground, helped 
all students in need regardless of where their school is, and included 
important accountability metrics. I wish we were discussing that bill 
here today. Unfortunately, this and every other Republican amendment is 
effectively blocked from discussion under this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, it is for that reason that I oppose the rule and ask 
Members to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the comments from my friend.
  Just on the mental health part, we did have hearings in the 
subcommittee I am proud to chair, the Subcommittee on Health, 
Employment, Labor, and Pensions. We have had ongoing discussions with 
both the ranking member of that subcommittee and the ranking member of 
the full committee, so I think this is to be continued.
  I would say on the mental health part of the rule, the urgency is 
right now, as I outlined in my opening comments. It is something we 
will have to continue to work with and hopefully will in good faith 
because all of these issues are on mental health, particularly for 
young people. I have agreed in my conversations with my friends, the 
ranking members, Ms. Foxx and Mr. Allen, and I look forward to 
continuing that. I think there is a real urgency on that.
  On the trust, I respectfully disagree. Given the level of inequality 
in this country right now, I think it is really important that we 
support competition in the marketplace, and the Federal Trade 
Commission needs the resources to make sure that that happens.
  The PAVA bill obviously has bipartisan support.
  On all of these bills, I am anxious to get them off the floor today 
as a rule and look forward to seeing the continued debate tomorrow on 
the specific bills and the outcome of those bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today, I reluctantly rise in opposition to 
this rule and will vote ``no.''
  I am a supporter of all three bills covered by this rule as they were 
originally introduced. I am even the cosponsor of Representative 
Neguse's bill to increase filing fees. However, very unfortunately, 
this rule advances a modified version of that bill. It tacks on 
provisions from Representative Buck's antitrust enforcement venue bill, 
and these antitrust venue provisions are unwise public policy.
  I vocally opposed them during the Committee on the Judiciary markup 
and have dutifully kept my leadership apprised of my opposition to them 
since that time.
  Despite proponents trying to sell these venue provisions as 
noncontroversial, I am far from the only Member with concerns.
  Furthermore, in a highly unusual move, the Administrative Office of 
the U.S. Courts wrote to Congress outlining their serious concerns with 
these venue policy provisions. Opposition also comes in letters from 
the Progressive Policy Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  Proponents argue that State attorneys general are in favor. Well, I 
understand it was sold to them as a noncontroversial provision. Of 
course, they would be in favor. It makes life easier for them. It 
doesn't address the very serious issues outlined by the Administrative 
Office of the Courts, and it doesn't make this good, wise policy.
  So, very reluctantly, I will vote ``no.'' I would gladly support 
today's rule if these venue provisions were not tacked onto the other 
good bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letters from the 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Progressive 
Policy Institute, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

                                          Administrative Office of


                                     The United States Courts,

                                    Washington, DC, July 19, 2021.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: I write regarding H.R. 3460, the ``State 
     Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act of 2021,'' which was ordered 
     reported as amended by the Committee on the Judiciary on June 
     24, 2021. Neither the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict 
     Litigation (``Panel'') nor any of the relevant committees of 
     the Judicial Conference of the United States (``Conference'') 
     have had the opportunity to analyze this bill thoroughly. 
     Considering its potential impact on the federal Judiciary and 
     the efficient administration of justice, I offer for your 
     consideration the following initial observations. These 
     comments are neither expressions of support for, nor 
     opposition to the bill. Nevertheless, I hope they are helpful 
     and note that pending a more in-depth analysis, by both the 
     Panel and the relevant Conference committees, additional 
     comments may be submitted.


                               Background

       Section 1407 was enacted in 1968, in the wake of a large 
     multidistrict antitrust litigation involving alleged 
     conspiracies to divide businesses and fix prices in multiple 
     product lines of electrical equipment. That litigation 
     encompassed more than a thousand actions in numerous federal 
     judicial districts brought, in large part, by public 
     utilities against virtually every manufacturer of electrical 
     equipment. The sudden influx of civil antitrust actions led 
     to the creation of ad hoc procedures to coordinate the 
     litigation before a smaller number of judges to eliminate 
     duplicative discovery and pretrial proceedings.
       Section 1407 was intended to serve as a permanent solution 
     to the problem that large multidistrict litigations pose to 
     the federal Judiciary's ability to administer its civil 
     docket efficiently and justly. The statute created a panel of 
     seven circuit and district judges, no two of whom shall be 
     from the same circuit, which is authorized to transfer civil 
     actions involving one or more common questions of fact and 
     pending in different districts to a single district for 
     coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. See 28 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1407(a). To distinguish from other forms of 
     transfer and consolidation, transfer for coordinated or 
     consolidated pretrial proceedings under Section 1407 is 
     referred to as ``centralization.'' The Panel may transfer 
     actions for centralized pretrial proceedings only if it 
     determines that transfer will be for the convenience of the 
     parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient 
     conduct of such actions. Id. Civil actions transferred to 
     multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceedings are remanded by 
     the Panel at the conclusion of pretrial proceedings to their 
     transferor districts (i.e., trial is conducted in the 
     district of original filing), unless the actions were 
     terminated during the course of pretrial proceedings. Id.
       Over the past fifty years, MDLs have encompassed a wide 
     variety of civil litigation in the federal courts, but 
     antitrust litigations have always constituted a core category 
     of cases subject to centralization. Section 1407 contains one 
     exception with respect to antitrust MDLs--enforcement actions 
     by the United States arising under the federal antitrust laws 
     are not subject to transfer under Section 1407. See 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1407(g). Congress has amended Section 1407 only once. As 
     part of the Hart Scott Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 
     1976, Congress added subsection (h), which authorizes the 
     Panel to consolidate and transfer any action brought under 15 
     U.S.C. Sec. 15c (i.e., State parens patriae actions) for both 
     pretrial purposes and trial. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407(h).


                                Concerns

       H.R. 3460 would amend 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to limit the 
     Panel's ability to centralize civil actions brought by States 
     under the antitrust laws of the United States and delete the 
     subsection added by the Hart Scott Rodino Antitrust 
     Improvements Act of 1976. Congress to date has never amended 
     Section 1407 to restrict the Panel's ability to centralize 
     civil actions. Doing so in this instance raises several 
     concerns that merit Congress's consideration.
     H.R. 3460 May Negatively Impact the Efficiency and Conduct of 
         Antitrust MDLs
       Restricting the Panel's ability to centralize State 
     antitrust actions could negatively impact the efficiency and 
     conduct of

[[Page H8173]]

     antitrust MDLs. When the Panel centralizes actions under 
     Section 1407, it considers whether centralization will 
     enhance convenience and efficiency with respect to the 
     parties, witnesses, and the federal Judiciary as a whole--the 
     Panel does not limit its consideration to the impact on any 
     one party in isolation. In general, MDL litigation is most 
     efficient when all related actions are centralized before a 
     single judge. Doing so minimizes the potential for 
     duplicative discovery and motion practice, eliminates the 
     potential for inconsistent pretrial schedules or rulings, and 
     conserves the resources of the parties, counsel, and the 
     Judiciary. To the extent there are actions with different 
     legal issues or concerns, the MDL judge can formulate a 
     pretrial program that allows pretrial proceedings with 
     respect to any non-common issues to proceed concurrently with 
     pretrial proceedings on common issues (for example, by 
     creating a separate discovery or motion track for certain 
     actions). This ensures that pretrial proceedings will be 
     conducted in a streamlined manner leading to a just and 
     expeditious resolution of all actions to the overall benefit 
     of the parties.
       Excepting State antitrust actions from centralization can 
     only increase the number of actions (and, hence, the number 
     of independent parties and courts) outside the ambit of the 
     MDL. Related actions that cannot be centralized can introduce 
     case management difficulties into the MDL. Parties and courts 
     in actions pending outside the MDL may (either actively or 
     inadvertently) undermine attempts to coordinate and 
     streamline discovery and pretrial practice in the litigation. 
     For instance, such actions may be subject to different 
     pretrial schedules, parties and witnesses might by subject to 
     duplicative discovery, and the courts might issue 
     inconsistent pretrial rulings pertaining to the same parties. 
     It also is possible that substantively inconsistent rulings 
     could issue--such as with respect to market definition or 
     which standard of review (per se or rule of reason) applies 
     to a given case. Given the nationwide scope of these 
     antitrust litigations, such inconsistent rulings may 
     complicate proceedings and sow confusion not only among the 
     courts and parties, but also in the marketplace.
     H.R. 3460 May Result in Inefficient Judicial Administration 
         of Antitrust Litigation
       Apart from the general impact on efficiency caused by 
     increasing the number of actions that cannot be centralized, 
     there could be particular inefficiencies created by excepting 
     State antitrust actions from centralization. States are, in 
     many ways, similar to private antitrust plaintiffs. For 
     instance, States may sue because they have suffered a direct 
     antitrust injury (e.g., if the State directly purchased a 
     product subject to an alleged price fixing conspiracy). Along 
     with their claims under the federal antitrust laws, States 
     may also include claims brought under state antitrust law for 
     ``indirect'' antitrust damages not permitted under federal 
     antitrust law. Both types of claims are substantially similar 
     to those presented by private plaintiffs asserting antitrust 
     injury as direct or indirect purchasers. As such, these type 
     of State antitrust claims will present factual and legal 
     issues that are similar or identical to those presented by 
     the claims of the private plaintiffs. These common claims 
     generally will be most efficiently litigated in a centralized 
     proceeding. Notably, similar claims by the United States for 
     civil damages due to injury to the government itself are not 
     excluded from centralization under Section 1407. See 28 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1407(g) (stating that the exemption for claims 
     brought by the United States as a complainant under the 
     antitrust laws ``shall not include section 4A of the Act of 
     October 15, 1914, as added July 7, 1955 (69 Stat. 282; 15 
     U.S.C. 15a)'').
       In addition, States may bring federal antitrust claims on 
     behalf of their citizens who have suffered harm due to the 
     alleged anticompetitive conduct (parens patriae actions). 
     Those citizens may be class members in private antitrust 
     actions. Indeed, Section 4C of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 15c, imposes on State parens patriae actions notice and 
     opt out requirements akin to those for private class actions 
     under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Courts also are 
     statutorily obligated to exclude from any award in a parens 
     patriae action any amounts that duplicate awards in private 
     actions. See 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15c(a)(1). A single MDL judge 
     usually will be best positioned to coordinate state and 
     private litigations.
     H.R. 3460 Could Adversely Affect the Interest of States
       Excluding State antitrust actions from MDL proceedings 
     could adversely affect the interests of the States. While 
     States might gain greater autonomy with respect to their 
     individual actions, they would lose much of their ability to 
     participate in and influence the centralized proceedings. 
     Collaboration between private plaintiffs and State Attorneys 
     General also may be reduced, particularly if the States 
     retain outside counsel to prosecute their antitrust claims. 
     Such counsel may have attorneys' fees or other incentives 
     inconsistent with close coordination with the MDL. This could 
     result (absent coordination between the different courts) in 
     competing pretrial schedules and inconsistent orders that 
     complicate the management and adjudication of both the State 
     antitrust action and the MDL.
     H.R. 3460 Could Undermine the Panel's Efforts to Enhance 
         Coordination with Federal Antitrust Litigation
       Excluding State antitrust actions from centralization could 
     undermine the Panel's efforts to facilitate coordination and 
     cooperation between private antitrust litigation and 
     antitrust actions brought by the United States. Where there 
     is a federal enforcement action or investigation that cannot 
     be included in a given antitrust MDL, the Panel often will 
     centralize the MDL in the court where the federal antitrust 
     action or grand jury proceedings are pending to facilitate 
     any appropriate and necessary coordination with the private 
     actions. By multiplying the number of actions excluded from 
     centralization under Section 1407, the proposed legislation 
     might eliminate this alternative means of facilitating 
     coordination with respect to litigations involving both 
     federal and state antitrust actions.


                               Conclusion

       Thank you for considering these comments. We request that 
     the Committees of the Judicial Conference and the Panel have 
     the opportunity to conduct more in-depth analysis of the 
     legislation before any further consideration by Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                              Roslynn R. Mauskopf,
     Director.
                                  ____


                            Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)

                                               September 26, 2022.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Leader McCarthy, and Leader Hoyer: 
     State enforcement of antitrust law plays a key role in 
     protecting consumer welfare in the face of corporate 
     monopolies. However, the national nature of our economy means 
     that, in many cases, consumers across state lines are buying 
     the same products and services. H.R. 3460, the State 
     Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act, retreats from the national 
     nature of many markets by attempting to refocus antitrust law 
     on a state-by-state basis. It makes this shift by preventing 
     venue transfers for antitrust cases brought by state 
     attorneys general in favor of a system where states can bring 
     antitrust claims against companies with more control over the 
     venue in which these cases are carried out. A major change 
     such as this will have unforeseen consequences in a variety 
     of antitrust situations. It is for this and the following 
     reasons we urge you to oppose H.R. 3460, which is 
     incorporated in the House Rules Committee notice hearing for 
     the modified version of H.R. 3843, the Merger Filing Fee 
     Modernization Act.
       A July 2021 letter from the Director of the Administrative 
     Office of the U.S. Courts explains the ways in which the bill 
     would reduce efficiency in the American judicial system. It 
     highlights that currently under 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1407 
     similar civil cases in different districts are consolidated 
     by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, which 
     then transfers the case to a single district. This can be 
     requested by the defendant and the intent is to minimize 
     duplicative processes and prevent inconsistent rulings.
       By discarding this means for centralization through the 
     passage of H.R. 3460, the processes through which states 
     approach antitrust cases is fundamentally changed. As is 
     pointed out by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 
     efficiency is compromised, as courts will need to separately 
     engage in similar discovery and pretrial proceedings in 
     different venues, even in cases where it would conserve the 
     time of the court and taxpayer money to carry out in a single 
     district.
       Additional concerns lie in the potential for politically 
     motivated judicial consequences associated with the bill. The 
     bill's elimination of the consolidation process for antitrust 
     cases brought under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15c will give rise to a 
     reality where different states could simultaneously pursue 
     their own separate antitrust actions against the same 
     companies across various federal courts. As such, state 
     attorneys generals may harass companies that are politically 
     unpopular in a particular state or region.
       Creating a fragmented and inefficient antitrust system is 
     not the optimal remedy for potential corporate antitrust 
     violations. We urge you to oppose H.R. 3460, the State 
     Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act, and avoid the unintended 
     consequences that may come with it.
           Sincerely,
       Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), Center for New 
     Liberalism (CNL), Computer & Communications Industry 
     Association (CCIA), Blackstone Valley Chamber of Commerce, 
     South Shore Chamber of Commerce, Council Bluffs Chamber of 
     Commerce, Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York, Florida State 
     Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
                                  ____

                                         U.S. Chamber of Commerce,


                                           Government Affairs,

                               Washington, DC, September 27, 2022.
       To the Members of the House of Representatives: The U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes in its current form H.R. 
     3843, the ``Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2022,'' 
     because it would stymie legitimate business transactions 
     across sectors and industries, create needless new 
     bureaucracy, and spur unwarranted litigation. The

[[Page H8174]]

     Chamber will consider including votes related to this 
     legislation in our ``How They Voted'' scorecard.
       The egregious provisions of the bill include:
       Venue. While no longer retroactive as it was in previous 
     drafts of the bill, the Multi District Litigation (MDL) 
     provisions could force firms into simultaneously defending 
     against private litigants, the federal government, and 
     various states in dozens of different courtrooms around the 
     country. The Administrative Office of the United States 
     Courts indicates that such legislation could harm MDL 
     participants more generally by harming judicial efficiency 
     and administration and hamper coordination of state and 
     federal enforcement actions with MDLs. Moreover, these 
     problems would be compounded when states employ private, 
     outside contingency fee attorneys to maximize profits through 
     litigation, rather than to protect consumers or competition.
       Transparency and Fees. Only a handful of the thousands of 
     mergers filed each year present potential competition 
     concerns. Yet, the agencies have refused to meet the 
     statutory deadlines for process and accountability under the 
     Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act. Rather, regulators issue notice 
     letters to firms that essentially dare companies to close 
     mergers at the risk of future action. It is unacceptable to 
     engage in abusive procedural gimmicks. Congress should not 
     raise merger fees while the agencies are currently engaging 
     in process violations.
       Foreign Subsidy Notification Provision. Despite efforts to 
     improve the subsidy notification provisions, they remain un-
     administrable. The legislation provides no clear definition 
     as to what constitutes a subsidy, there is no definition as 
     to what qualifies as a ``country of concern,'' and the 
     disclosure of subsidies has zero bearing on merger review and 
     the merger standard under the law. Subsidies involved in how 
     a deal is financed are not a concern under the antitrust 
     laws, and concerns tied to subsidies the merging parties have 
     received will not result in the government successfully 
     blocking the merger as a remedy to predatory pricing 
     concerns.
       The Chamber urges you to oppose this legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Evan Jenkins,

                                            Senior Vice President,
                                         U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I always say that I respect and admire 
my friend from the San Francisco Bay Area. Sometimes, we disagree.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Buck).
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, Big Tech is crushing competition and crushing 
conservative speech. H.R. 3843 contains three important measures that 
will help America with Big Tech.
  The first gives State attorneys general the ability to file their 
lawsuits and keep those lawsuits in their States. The 48 State 
attorneys general have asked Congress to move this bill forward. It 
received broad bipartisan support in the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The second is a bill that Senator Hawley and our colleague, 
Congressman Fitzgerald, have supported. It basically prohibits China 
from buying small high-tech companies so that they can steal our 
innovation.
  The third bill that is combined with H.R. 3843 raises filing fees. 
Make no mistake, there are controls on these filing fees. They have to 
be appropriated for the FTC by the Appropriations Committee. That is a 
control. The Appropriations Committee, I hope, will be under Republican 
control in the next Congress, and it will be controlled so that nobody 
in the FTC is using these funds in an inappropriate way, other than 
reviewing the mergers at issue.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend Senator Cruz has said it absolutely correctly: 
The greatest threat to democracy in this country is Big Tech.
  Senator Lee, Senator Cotton, and Senator Grassley support the House 
version of this bill because it is a conservative bill, a bipartisan 
bill, and a bill that will help America deal with Big Tech. I hope my 
colleagues will support H.R. 3843.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the names and 
correspondence of several organizations I will mention just briefly. 
These are 40 different organizations that have written to Congress in 
support of H.R. 3843, the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act.
  Amongst them are Accountable Tech, American Trust Institute, American 
Family Voices, Artist Rights Alliance, Center for Democracy and 
Technology, Center for Digital Democracy, Common Sense Media, Consumer 
Action, Consumer Reports, Free Press Action, Open Markets Institute, 
Our Revolution, the Service Employees International Union, the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the Writers Guild of 
America West, amongst others. We have covered a broad group here.

       These organizations include:
       Accountable Tech, American Antitrust Institute, American 
     Economic Liberties Project, American Family Voices, Artist 
     Rights Alliance, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-
     CIO, Athena, Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment, 
     Center for Democracy & Technology, Center for Digital 
     Democracy, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Common 
     Sense Media, Consumer Action.
       Consumer Reports, Demand Progress, Demos, Economic Security 
     Project Action, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), 
     Farm Action Fund, Fight for the Future, Free Press Action, 
     Future of Music Coalition, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 
     International Brotherhood of Teamsters, National Grocers 
     Association, New York Communities for Change.
       Open Markets Institute, Our Revolution, P Street/
     Progressive Change Campaign Committee, People's Parity 
     Project, Public Citizen, Public Knowledge, Revolving Door 
     Project, Service Employees International Union, The 
     Democratic Coalition, The Tech Oversight Project, UltraViolet 
     Action, Writers Guild of America West (WGAW).
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, 
Republicans will offer an amendment to the rule allowing for the 
immediate consideration of H.R. 6184, the HALT Fentanyl Act.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the 
Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote 
on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, over 100,000 people died from fentanyl 
overdoses in a 1-year span, according to the CDC. That is a 30 percent 
increase from the year before.
  Fentanyl is now the number one cause of death for Americans ages 18 
to 45. I think we can all agree that something must be done to put a 
stop to this heartbreaking epidemic.

                              {time}  1815

  Fentanyl has been temporarily classified as a schedule I substance. 
This classification strengthens law enforcement's ability to prosecute 
fentanyl traffickers, and DEA reports that it has acted as an effective 
deterrent.
  The HALT Fentanyl Act would make the schedule I classification 
permanent and would also promote research by removing regulations and 
streamlining the research process. We should do everything we possibly 
can to put an end to the devastation caused by fentanyl in this 
country, and the HALT Fentanyl Act is one piece of the puzzle that 
could make a real difference.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Griffith) to speak further on the amendment.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so 
that we can immediately consider my bill, H.R. 6184, the Halt All 
Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act.
  Every Member of this body knows someone who has been affected by the 
drug overdose epidemic plaguing our country.
  Recent provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention indicates that during 2021 there were more than 107,000 
overdose deaths that occurred in the United States, an increase of 
nearly 15 percent from the previous year.
  These record numbers are due in large part to the increasing presence 
of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues, which are approximately 100 times 
more potent than morphine and 50 times more potent than heroin.
  Because fentanyl has a proven medical use, it is considered a 
schedule II narcotic. But illicit derivatives of fentanyl, also called 
fentanyl analogues or fentanyl-related substances, do not often 
demonstrate a medical value. Right now they are considered schedule I 
substances, but only because of a temporary scheduling order which 
expires on December 31.
  My bill aims to curb overdose deaths by permanently scheduling 
fentanyl analogues as schedule I substances. This will strengthen law 
enforcement's ability to prosecute fentanyl traffickers and act as a 
deterrent.

[[Page H8175]]

  The HALT Fentanyl Act also promotes research by removing barriers to 
that research. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we heard there are 
as many as 4,800 analogues. Our experts at the NIH, the FDA, and other 
agencies have studied roughly 30 of these 4,800 analogues.
  By encouraging research of schedule I substances like fentanyl 
analogues, we can better understand how these substances work and how 
we can prevent potentially harmful impacts in the future.
  The problem is that if this law expires and doesn't become permanent, 
those 4,800 analogues are arguably legal--I would submit they are 
legal--and we have to pass a law on each one of them. The HALT Fentanyl 
Act makes it so we don't have to do that.
  Should we discover that one of those 4,800 or maybe two have a 
legitimate medical purpose, then we can come back in and consider that, 
but it is a whole lot easier to figure out what we have already done 
research on when we have done research on 30 of 4,800 analogues than it 
is to say, wait a minute, we are going to make all of these legal, and 
then figure out which ones of them are the most dangerous to the 
American public. I would submit they are all dangerous and that 
Congress must pass the HALT Fentanyl Act now.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on and urge defeat of the 
previous question so that we can immediately take up H.R. 6184, the 
HALT Fentanyl Act.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis on our southern border greater than we 
have ever seen due to the policies put in place by the Biden 
administration. Almost 2\1/2\ million migrants have crossed our 
southern border in fiscal year 2022. In 2021 alone, border officials 
encountered nearly 2 million illegal immigrants and seized over 11,000 
pounds of fentanyl. This is a public health crisis that demands 
immediate attention.
  H.R. 6184, the HALT Fentanyl Act, places fentanyl-related analogues 
into schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act and establishes a new 
registration process for schedule I research funding by the Department 
of Health and Human Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  The move to permanently schedule fentanyl as schedule I is a 
necessary tool for the Drug Enforcement Administration to work with 
other agencies and law enforcement officials to address the threat of 
illicit fentanyl.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, fentanyl 
is now the number one cause of death for Americans 18 to 45, surpassing 
suicide, COVID-19, and car accidents.
  Mr. Speaker, we have all heard stories about how drug dealers are 
using social media and apps, like Snapchat, to infiltrate chats with 
teens or young kids and sell them these illicit drugs. We have no idea 
what they are selling and whether or not the drug is laced with 
fentanyl.
  Two Congresses ago, the Energy and Commerce Committee worked hard on 
the SUPPORT Act to deal with what at the time was called an opiate 
crisis, but we have moved on from that, and now we have a fentanyl 
crisis.
  This is a different disease. It demands attention at the southern 
border, it demands attention to the analogues being shipped to Mexico 
from China, and it demands that our Drug Enforcement Administration 
have the tools it needs to interrupt this deadly epidemic of drug 
overdose deaths. One death is too many, and we need to equip our 
communities to address this issue from the source.
  If it has changed so much in 4 years, imagine what it will look like 
in 10 years if nothing is done now. I urge Members to defeat the 
previous question so we can immediately take up this important bill.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the 
previous question so that we can immediately consider H.R. 6184, the 
HALT Fentanyl Act, and stop the deadly flow of fentanyl into our 
communities.
  The failure of the Biden administration to control the southern 
border has resulted in record levels of deadly synthetic drugs, like 
fentanyl, pouring directly into American communities. So far this 
fiscal year, over 10,000 pounds of fentanyl have been seized at the 
southern border, with even more slipping through into our country. That 
is enough fentanyl to kill every American eight times over.
  There is little doubt that the surge of drug seizures at our border 
is closely connected to the surge of drug overdose deaths in the United 
States. In fact, every 7\1/2\ minutes, someone in the United States 
dies from fentanyl poisoning. Every 7\1/2\ minutes. There is an 
opportunity here for us to work together to help stem the flow of 
deadly fentanyl and its analogues into our country.
  In my home State of Georgia, fentanyl overdose deaths in teens are up 
800 percent. 800 percent. Tragic overdoses like this are happening 
every day all over the country.
  Even the CDC reports that fentanyl is now the leading cause of death 
in the U.S. for adults ages 18 to 45. How can anyone seriously argue 
that a drug 50 times more potent than heroin that almost always proves 
to be fatal when ingested should ever be legal?
  Despite this crisis, the President did not request a single 
additional penny for the border crisis or the fentanyl crisis in the 
funding request for the CR. That is despicable.
  Again, these products are manufactured illegally and are largely 
brought to the United States through the southern border. To save 
lives, we must secure the border and halt the flow of fentanyl.
  I have visited the border several times to see this crisis firsthand. 
Unfortunately, our President has never visited our southern border. 
Never been there. Not even once.
  With a record-high number of illegal immigrants, smugglers and 
cartels are using this as an opportunity to traffic more fentanyl 
substances.
  Unfortunately, President Biden and his administration have elected to 
leave our border wide open, inviting drug traffickers to bring fentanyl 
substances into the country and distribute it in our streets.
  This should not be a partisan issue. Fentanyl does not discriminate. 
It doesn't care if you are a Republican or a Democrat.
  The individuals manufacturing and distributing fentanyl and its 
analogues are criminal, and they are killing us. This is not an issue 
that is going away. It is only getting worse every day.
  If the President would visit the border, he would be able to talk to 
the agents firsthand and see for himself just how serious the issue is. 
Our communities are at risk, and our loved ones are dying. President 
Biden has ignored this public health crisis for far too long.
  It is past time to make this scheduling classification permanent, and 
I am proud to support the HALT Fentanyl Act to do just that.
  Mr. Speaker, let's pass this bill, secure the border, stem the tide 
of the growing fentanyl crisis, and save lives.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record The Washington 
Post article titled: ``U.S. arrests along Mexico border top 2 million a 
year for first time.''

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 19, 2022]

  U.S. Arrests Along Mexico Border Top 2 Million a Year for First Time

                            (By Nick Miroff)

       U.S. authorities made more than 2 million immigration 
     arrests along the southern border during the past 11 months, 
     marking the first time annual enforcement statistics have 
     exceeded that threshold, according to figures provided by 
     senior Biden administration officials Monday.
       In August, U.S. Customs and Border Protection detained 
     203,598 migrants crossing from Mexico, the latest figures 
     show, putting authorities on pace to tally more than 2.3 
     million arrests during the government's 2022 fiscal year, 
     which ends Sept. 30. The total, which includes some people 
     apprehended more than once, far exceeds last year's record of 
     more than 1.7 million arrests.
       The historic migration wave this year has been driven by 
     soaring numbers of border-crossers from outside Mexico and 
     Central America, the two largest traditional sources of 
     illegal entries. Migrants from Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba 
     accounted for more than one-third of those taken into custody 
     along the southern border last month, according to Customs 
     and Border Protection, a 175 percent increase over August 
     2021.

[[Page H8176]]

       Biden administration officials blamed the governments of 
     those countries, whose strained relations with Washington 
     severely limit the ability of authorities to send them 
     deportees. Many of the migrants apply for humanitarian 
     protection in the United States and tend to have strong 
     asylum claims.
       ``Failing communist regimes in Venezuela, Nicaragua, and 
     Cuba are driving a new wave of migration across the Western 
     Hemisphere, including the recent increase in encounters at 
     the southwest U.S. border,'' Customs and Border Protection 
     Commissioner Chris Magnus, said in a statement. ``Those 
     fleeing repressive regimes pose significant challenges for 
     processing and removal,'' he said, using the official term 
     for deportations.
       Biden administration officials continue to insist they are 
     building a ``safe, orderly and humane'' immigration system 
     while blaming the Trump administration for ``dismantling'' 
     channels for legal migration.
       Critics say Biden administration officials have fallen far 
     short of meeting their refugee admission goals, and the 
     number of migrants who have died this year attempting to 
     cross into the United States is at an all-time high. Scores 
     have drowned in the Rio Grande in recent months, and 53 were 
     killed in June when smugglers in Texas packed migrants into a 
     sweltering tractor trailer with a failing cooling system.
       Republican lawmakers blame the record number of crossings 
     on President Biden's reversal of Trump administration border 
     policies. Over the past several months, the Republican 
     governors of Texas and Arizona have sent more than 10,000 
     migrants on buses to Washington, New York and other northern 
     destinations to put pressure on Democrats by straining relief 
     services in their jurisdictions.
       Last week, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) shipped a 
     planeload of Venezuelans to Martha's Vineyard in 
     Massachusetts, transporting them to a wealthy island enclave 
     with limited services for migrants.
       Biden administration officials also say the high border 
     numbers are distorted by repeat crossing attempts by migrants 
     who have been previously arrested. Last month, 22 percent of 
     those taken into custody had a prior arrest in the previous 
     12 months, the latest figures show.
       One factor Biden administration officials blame for the 
     repeat crossings is the Title 42 emergency public health 
     policy, implemented at the start of the pandemic, that allows 
     U.S. agents to rapidly ''expel'' some migrants back to 
     Mexico. The Biden administration's attempt to phase out Title 
     42 was blocked in federal court last spring.
       The latest figures show the percentage of border-crossers 
     expelled under Title 42 has been falling and remains far 
     lower under Biden than President Donald Trump. About 36 
     percent of the 203,598 migrant ``encounters'' resulted in an 
     expulsion last month, down from 83 percent when Biden took 
     office.
       Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), said Monday that the strain on 
     Democratic-run cities will force the administration to see 
     the border surge as a crisis. ``Maybe, just maybe, they'll 
     see that what's happening along our border every day is 
     dangerous, unsustainable, and a problem that we need to work 
     on together to address,'' he said.
       Biden officials defending the administration's border 
     record pointed to a decline in the number of Mexican and 
     Central American migrants arrested over the past three months 
     as a sign their enforcement policies are having some success, 
     including efforts to target smuggling organizations in Latin 
     America.

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, the numbers don't lie. If the annual 
number of apprehensions at the border is set to break records, that 
means fewer migrants are making it into the country. The notion that 
Biden is doing nothing is just absolutely not true.
  Just secondarily, my good friend and co-chair of the Cancer Survivors 
Caucus from Georgia, we have a wonderful relationship. On this I agree, 
but I disagree on the process. As somebody who has spent a lot of time 
on opioid abuse, and we know that in our experience with people like 
myself who survived cancer, particularly more painful ones, that is a 
product when used properly that can bring relief to people, but we know 
about the abuse. As you said, a lot of that led to fentanyl.
  We are against illegal drugs hurting Americans. We want to support 
effective remedies to that. I would say that one of the most effective 
things we can do--having had a long experience personally and 
professionally in behavioral health--is to invest in the kind of bill 
we have in front of us--with all due respect, with my name on it--to 
get upstream, so we make sure that people have the resources, evidence-
based resources. So it is not as subjective to get the services they 
need to protect themselves in an, unfortunately, far-too-free market 
when it comes to the abuse of both legal and illegal drugs.
  With all due respect, again, I am happy to work with the gentleman, 
but I really think, from my perspective, it is an argument to engage in 
the investment in behavioral health and mental health services. I will 
still work with the gentleman to make sure people aren't bringing these 
awful products across our border.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).
  Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the previous 
question so that we can immediately consider H.R. 6184, the HALT 
Fentanyl Act.
  Before I begin, I have to address something that was said just now. I 
am the wife of a first responder. My husband sees these overdoses every 
single day.
  In my community, in just this year, we have apprehended bricks of 
fentanyl stamped with border cartels' stamps on them. We know it is 
coming from the border. We know it is being trafficked across, both in 
trucks at ports of entry but also illegally. We know this to be a fact, 
and if we do not secure the border this will continue to happen.
  I will say, as the wife of a first responder, someone whose husband 
has continually responded to these calls and is reviving people who 
have been poisoned by fentanyl, it is not a matter of if he, himself, 
overdoses, it is when. And that is going to be a very bad day because I 
think that Members of this Chamber need to be held responsible for the 
open border policies that this administration continues to allow. But I 
digress.
  Mr. Speaker, 108,000. That is the number of Americans who died from 
drug overdoses last year. Of those, more than 80,000 were connected to 
opioids. The lion's share of those opioid deaths were linked to 
fentanyl.
  Now, it is important that we remember that these numbers are actually 
people. They are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, 
aunts, uncles. They are people. Not statistics. They are humans. They 
represent millions of families who will never see their son, daughter, 
husband, wife, brother, sister, father ever again. Millions of people 
whose families have been shattered and feel helpless, broken, and angry 
as these horrific substances destroyed their communities and their 
family.
  These thousands of victims represent communities crushed by this 
epidemic, swept away by the flood of lethal substances that are ripping 
apart the fabric of our society. These thousands of people lost lay 
bare the denial, the weakness, and the lack of compassion that this 
administration and my colleagues across the aisle have shown through 
their ambivalence toward border security, our Nation's security, as 
literally tons of fentanyl is trucked and walked across the southern 
border and into our communities.
  A few months ago, a mother from my district cried in my office as she 
talked about her beautiful daughter, Mackenzie, who died from fentanyl 
poisoning, not overdosing, poisoning, after taking what she thought was 
a Xanax. She was 28 years old.
  Now, unfortunately, Mackenzie's story is not unique. It is not rare. 
Her mother, Rebecca, is now dedicating her life to saving mothers 
across the country from the pain that she has endured from a 
preventable loss and their daughters from Mackenzie's fate.

                              {time}  1830

  To my colleagues on the left, you control this Chamber, so it is up 
to you to decide. How many more Mackenzies have to die before you will 
take action?
  You can pretend that there is no crisis at the border. We see that. 
That is evidenced in your remarks. But we know that is a lie. You visit 
any community in this country, and you will see that it has been 
ravaged by the death and destruction wrought by fentanyl. You cannot 
deny it. Your constituents know it. The American people know it.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for our colleagues across the aisle to wake 
up. So I stand here once again, as I did back in March, fighting 
against the horrors of the opioid epidemic that have a stranglehold on 
our communities. We once again have an opportunity to take a stand 
today, not as Republicans or Democrats but as Americans and concerned 
citizens, for those that have lost their lives, but also for those 
potentially in the future. The families of those who lost deserve this.
  Today is an opportunity to act. Today is an opportunity to put people 
above politics. I commend my friend,

[[Page H8177]]

the gentleman from Virginia, for his great work and for sticking with 
this bill and seeing it across the finish line.
  I urge my colleagues, please, think with your hearts, perhaps in vain 
but with hope, to defeat the previous question so that we can 
immediately consider this bill, the HALT Fentanyl Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. McCollum). Members are reminded to 
direct their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I would say in brief response that I have great respect, 
obviously, for our emergency responders. I appreciate what the 
gentlewoman's husband does for a living and what they have to go 
through. We all agree that we have to support thoughtful oversight to 
stop these drugs from getting into the hands of people who it can do 
great damage.
  I have been to the border multiple times, both as a Member of 
Congress and as a member of the California State Legislature. We have a 
problem, and it has been a problem through Republican administrations 
and Democratic administrations, both in State houses in the border 
States and here in Washington, D.C.
  We are not for open borders. We want to stop people being harmed by 
illicit drugs. So the idea that we are not, I would respectfully say 
that is not accurate.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield 
myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, while I want to be in favor of these bills, 
Republicans are in agreement that the underlying problems these bills 
seek to solve are valid and warrant our attention. There are serious 
flaws with these bills as written that must be considered first. H.R. 
7780 is a one-size-fits-all strategy that will not help the people on 
the ground. What a school in Minneapolis needs is not likely what a 
school in my rural district needs. Furthermore, it pushes people in the 
courts to settle disputes and discourages other methods of resolution.
  H.R. 3843 trusts the FTC with no-strings-attached funding, even 
though the FTC is becoming increasingly partisan and cannot be trusted 
with more resources.
  Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule, and I encourage other Members to do 
the same.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I will read a few numbers, particularly on the part of the rule that 
is the Mental Health Matters Act, which I am proud to be the author of 
with Chairman Scott.
  Suicide is the second leading cause of death for ages of Americans 10 
to 24; second for 12 to 18.
  For adolescents, depression, substance abuse, and suicide are 
extremely important concerns--an epidemic, I would say--among 
adolescents age 12 to 17.
  In 2018 to 2019, 15.1 percent of young Americans had major depressive 
episodes; 36.7 had persistent feelings of sadness and hopelessness; 4.1 
had a substance abuse disorder; 18 percent seriously considered 
attempting suicide; 16 percent made a suicide plan; and 10 percent 
attempted suicide.
  Madam Speaker, 10 percent of America's young people have attempted 
suicide; 2.5 percent made suicide attempts requiring medical treatment.
  For all those reasons, the part of the rule that is the Mental Health 
Matters Act is extremely important to this country. Is it perfect? Of 
course not, from every perspective of 535 Members of Congress and 435 
Members of the House. But the need is too urgent, in my view, to wait. 
That is why it is so important that not just this rule passes but the 
bill is passed.
  We need to put resources in the FTC with the most income inequality 
and consolidation of wealth through mergers. Not always in our best 
interest. It is important that the FTC has the resources it needs to 
actually enforce the statutes as they currently have.
  Madam Speaker, we need to help Americans, and specifically teachers 
and students, get back to doing what they do best, teaching and 
learning.
  The legislation before us on the rule will help provide the resources 
to improve mental health outcomes and educational attainment.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Fischbach is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 1396

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 11. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 6184) to amend the Controlled Substances Act with 
     respect to the scheduling of fentanyl-related substances, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 13. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 6184.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. 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 on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. 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, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:
  Adoption of the resolution, if ordered; and
  The motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3482.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 208, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 455]

                               YEAS--220

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peltola
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (NY)
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--208

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin

[[Page H8178]]


     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Conway
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sempolinski
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Donalds
     Kinzinger
     Mace
     Zeldin

                              {time}  1911

  Mr. McHENRY, Ms. CHENEY, and Mr. KATKO changed their votes from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. DONALDS. Madam Speaker, Metal Detectors stopped me. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``NAY'' on rollcall No. 455.


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Bacon (Stauber)
     Bilirakis (Fleischmann)
     Bowman (Tlaib)
     Brown (MD) (Trone)
     Buchanan (Bucshon)
     Carter (TX) (Weber (TX))
     Cawthorn (Nehls)
     Chu (Beyer)
     Conway (LaMalfa)
     Curtis (Moore (UT))
     DeFazio (Pallone)
     Demings (Dean)
     Deutch
     (Wasserman Schultz)
     Diaz-Balart
     (Reschenthaler)
     Dunn (Cammack)
     Fletcher (Pallone)
     Gimenez (Malliotakis)
     Gonzalez, Vicente (Garcia (TX))
     Gosar (Weber (TX))
     Herrera Beutler (Valadao)
     Jacobs (CA) (Garamendi)
     Jacobs (NY) (Sempolinski)
     Jayapal (Cicilline)
     Johnson (TX) (Stevens)
     Khanna (Garcia (TX))
     Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
     LaHood (Wenstrup)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Maloney, Sean (Jeffries)
     Mast (Waltz)
     Mfume (Evans)
     Murphy (FL) (Peters)
     Newman (Beyer)
     Ocasio-Cortez (Neguse)
     Palazzo (Fleischmann)
     Pfluger (Ellzey)
     Porter (Neguse)
     Rice (NY) (Morelle)
     Rice (SC) (Meijer)
     Ryan (OH) (Dean)
     Salazar (Waltz)
     Sherman (Garamendi)
     Soto
     (Wasserman Schultz)
     Speier (Garcia (TX))
     Steel (Obernolte)
     Steube
     (Reschenthaler)
     Swalwell (Gomez)
     Titus (Pallone)
     Torres (NY) (Correa)
     Upton (Meijer)
     Vargas (Garamendi)
     Wagner (Barr)
     Wilson (FL) (Cicilline)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 212, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 456]

                               YEAS--217

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peltola
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (NY)
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--212

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Conway
     Correa
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Lofgren
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sempolinski
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Kinzinger
     Swalwell
     Zeldin

                              {time}  1925

  Ms. BARRAGAN changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''

[[Page H8179]]

  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.


    members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress

     Bacon (Stauber)
     Bilirakis (Fleischmann)
     Bowman (Tlaib)
     Brown (MD) (Trone)
     Buchanan (Bucshon)
     Carter (TX) (Weber (TX))
     Cawthorn (Nehls)
     Chu (Beyer)
     Conway (LaMalfa)
     Curtis (Moore (UT))
     DeFazio (Pallone)
     Demings (Dean)
     Deutch
     (Wasserman Schultz)
     Diaz-Balart
     (Reschenthaler)
     Dunn (Cammack)
     Fletcher (Pallone)
     Gimenez (Malliotakis)
     Gonzalez, Vicente (Garcia (TX))
     Gosar (Weber (TX))
     Herrera Beutler (Valadao)
     Jacobs (CA) (Garamendi)
     Jacobs (NY) (Sempolinski)
     Jayapal (Cicilline)
     Johnson (TX) (Stevens)
     Khanna (Garcia (TX))
     Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
     LaHood (Wenstrup)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Mace (Wilson (SC))
     Maloney, Sean (Jeffries)
     Mast (Waltz)
     Mfume (Evans)
     Murphy (FL) (Peters)
     Newman (Beyer)
     Ocasio-Cortez (Neguse)
     Palazzo (Fleischmann)
     Pfluger (Ellzey)
     Porter (Neguse)
     Rice (NY) (Morelle)
     Rice (SC) (Meijer)
     Ryan (OH) (Dean)
     Salazar (Waltz)
     Sherman (Garamendi)
     Soto
     (Wasserman Schultz)
     Speier (Garcia (TX))
     Steel (Obernolte)
     Steube
     (Reschenthaler)
     Titus (Pallone)
     Torres (NY) (Correa)
     Upton (Meijer)
     Vargas (Garamendi)
     Wagner (Barr)
     Wilson (FL) (Cicilline)

                          ____________________