broadband. i knew what it did to the children. why? because children view schools and their daily activities as their work. adults go to work. children go to school. it builds their confidence. their esteem. their friendship. lifelong friendships. that was all undone because of the pandemic. you know what else we did? we saved lives. if we had continued in school learning, we would have lost thousands of children. and their families. we must repair what was broken not because we broke it, but because there was a pandemic. so this legislation provides grants to build a pipeline of school-based mental health service providers. more nurses in the school. it directs the department of education for grants to state agencies to develop more school-based mental health providers. requires institution of higher learning to let incoming students with existing documentation have access to disability resources. and creates a grant program i'm

most excited about, increasing student access to evidence-based trauma. they experienced trauma. and add to that trauma the families in uvalde that i visited on monday still crying with the pain of the loss of their children. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelathe chair: the gentlels time has expired. ms. jackson lee: it is clearly a little bill we should accept and a bill i sought -- support enthusiastically, mr. speaker. i yield back the mental health matters act of 7780. thank you. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. mac lain. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. mcclain: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment to h.r. 7780 would establish that parents have the right to be informed of any mental health related issues with their children. in other words, schools may not

hide critical information from parents. before my colleagues say this isn't necessary or this isn't needed, just open social media and you'll find examples of teachers and school personnel bragging about how they covertly discuss transgender issues with their students. regardless of their accordance with school or state laws. i think it's disappointing that it has come to this that on the house floor we have to make an affirmative case for parents' rights. yet here we are. school officials and personnel are not the parents. school officials and personnel have no right to ignore a parents' decision on what they think is best for their child. this amendment protects both

parents and students. it would ensure that parents are never excluded from their children's health conversations. and that teachers make these decisions unilaterally.

prior to the vote on the motion to recommit. the chair: that request will be covered under general leave. mrs. mcclain: thank you, mr. speaker. i urge my colleagues to pass the amendment so we can provide the assurance to parents that they have the right to protect their children w that i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. desaulnier: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to recognize the distinguished member from connecticut and member of the education and labor committee, mrs. hayes, for two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. hayes: mr. speaker, as a teacher i rise in strong support of the mental health matters act. this crucial legislation will help rebuild schools and address the mental health crisis in our

country by providing schools with resources to help students and educators heal and recover after this pandemic. i am excited this package includes my legislation, the supporting trauma informed education practices act. my legislation specifically will help develop and emprove prevention, screening, referral, treatment, and support services to students. it will implement schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and provide professional development to school personnel. this legislation will also engage with families and communities to increase awareness of child and youth trauma. the broader impact of the pandemic on students and their families is often overlooked. we talk about the number of children who were lost as a result being low. i remind everyone that those children lost parents and grandparents and neighbors and

community members to the covid-19 pandemic. that loss has taken a tremendous toll on the ability to learn and thrive into school. the impact of trauma is great than just one incident. no person, especially a child, should ever have to carry that weight alone. as students continue to heal from the most traumatizing interruption to their academic journeys, they need strong, reliable, and accessible support services. i urge my colleagues to support this bill to ensure students recover completely. with that i yield back. mr. desaulnier: reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, aid like to correct the record regarding a comment chairman scott made at the rules committee tuesday. that employers must offer mental health benefits. most mental -- most health plans governed by erisa are not

required to offer mental health benefits. let me repeat myself. most mental health benefits offered by employers with erisa plans are offered voluntarily. offering comprehensive health coverage is a valuable tool used to recruit and retain employees. when employers choose to offer mental health benefits, those benefits must be with other benefits. what parity means is a matter of debate which is the root of the problem here. the mental health parity act of 1996 required mental health parity for plans that choose to provide mental health benefits. when these employer-sponsored plans cover mental health benefits, they must abide by mental health parity laws. the consolidated appropriations act of 2021 directed the department of labor to provide

additional assistance to plans to comply with parity requirements. d.o.l. has ignored congress' mandate to provide additional assistance to plans and is, instead, expecting plans to read the minds of washington bureaucrats or face litigation and fines. the problem with this top-down approach is that employers do not have to subject themselves to d.o.l.'s whims. employers are choosing to cover mental health benefits. they can just as easily choose not to offer mental health benefits if washington is intent on making it too challenging or costly. d.o.l. should follow the law and issue additional guidance specifically standards to employers and plans. but helping employers would undermine the democrats'

long-term goal of weakening employer-sponsored insurance and implementing government-run health care. with that, mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. desaulnier: mr. chairman, i'm happy to recognize the distinguished member from the commonwealth of massachusetts, ms. clark, for two minutes. . the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. clark: thank you so much. thank you for yielding. recently, hospital staff and health care providers in my district shared with me that their emergency rooms are filled with children and teens struggling with their mental health. we know rates of youth anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation have skyrocketed across the country. and while this was a problem before covid, the pandemic has

made it so much worse. this is a national emergency. and specifically, in our schools. last year 75% of public schools reported increased concerns around students showing trauma symptoms. yet, only half of those schools felt they have the resources to be able to address students' mental health needs. our children need help and our parents need a place to turn. the mental health matters act includes legislation to address the critical and unmet needs for school-based mental health providers. my legislation establishes a five-year grant program to recruit and retain counselors in public schools, ensuring that whether you're in head start or high school, kids have the mental health care support they need to be healthy and thrive.

a yes vote today for this act is a vote for a healthy future for all. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. desaulnier: reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. sdaum sdaum can i ask -- mr. desaulnier: can i ask how much time i have left? the chair: the gentleman from california has 14 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. desaulnier: to the gentlelady from north carolina, we have no more speakers. we're prepared to close. the chair: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: i'll be happy to close. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chairman. passing h.r. 7780 would do a disservice to students, workers, and job creators. this legislation has been

weighed, it has been measured, and it has been found wanting. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. desaulnier: thank you, mr. chairman. i love my good friend's closing. that was artful and poetic. i respectfully disagree. i look forward to continuing the conversation. particularly around enforcement and the definition of parity. to me as a former employer, i thought parity was clear, but if we need more clarity for some employers, happy to have that discussion. mr. speaker, as lawmakers we have a duty to support americans' health and well-being. the mental health matters act will help us deliver on that goal by ensuring students, educators, and families receive the support they need to lead healthier and happier lives and

provide america with future generations of healthy and happy providers. i want to thank the gentleman from virginia, chairman scott, the gentlelady from california, ms. chu, the gentlelady from massachusetts, assistant speaker clark, the gentlelady from connecticut, mrs. hayes, the gentlelady from oregon, ms. bonamici, and the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. norcross for their leadership on this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shag be considered -- shall be considered for amendment under the five minute rule. in lieu of the amendment, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of rules committee print 117-67 shall be considered as adopted. 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. no further amendment to the bill as amended shall be in order except those printed in house report 117-507. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report and shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally di divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to the amendment and shall not be subject for demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 117-507. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> mr. chair, i rise as the snee of the gentlewoman from -- designee of the gentlewoman from california, ms. porter, and i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 117-507 offered by mr. trone of maryland.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1396, the gentleman from maryland, mr. trone, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. trone: mr. chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. trone: mr. speaker, today i rise in support of the mental health of our students and institutions of higher education. studies show that 73% of college students suffer a mental health crisis during their time in college. i came to congress to improve the future outlook of our country. well, mr. speaker, our children, they are that future. how will our children succeed if they do not have the proper support to flourish? the underlying bill will benefit the mental health of our youth and college-age students, and my amendment seeks to provide

additional guidance to colleges that are trying to help. my amendment requires the department of education to provide recommendations on how to improve the mental health and substance use disorder resorgss on college -- resources on college campuses and guidance on how to adhere to the current federal laws around access to mental health, disability services. we owe our children the best possible opportunity to succeed, and that means paying attention to their mental health the same way we pay attention to their grades, keeping them mentally fit. thanks to representative porter for her continued advocacy for students' mental health and representative bonamici to co-sponsor the amendment, i urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chairman.

i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chair. i rise today to oppose the amendment offered by representative porter and representative trone. much of this amendment is well-intentioned. the amendment authorizes the department of education to conduct a study to understand better the prevalence of mental health disabilities and substance abuse disorders on campus. the amendment also authorizes the department of education, in conjunction with the department of justice, to issue guidance to institutions on how they can continue to comply with the americans with disabilities act, section 504 of the rehabilitation, and other legal obligations when serving students with mental health disabilities and substance use disorders. however, this amendment has some issues. this amendment includes broader language that could allow the department of education to deviate from issuing guidance on

complying with these existing laws and open the door for the department of education to speculate on a variety of other institution policies. for example, language in this amendment could permit the department of education to prohibit colleges and universities from enforcing their codes of conduct when students engage in drug use that violates campus policies which would make campuses less safe and less able to support students with mental health disabilities or substance use disorders. unfortunately, this amendment did not go through the normal committee process where it would be my hope that much of this language could have been discussed and revised. i believe we all want to ensure students struggling with mental health disabilities are provided the appropriate legal accommodations by their institutions. however, this amendment fails to

do that, so i will oppose and encourage my colleagues to do the same. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. trone: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. trone: mr. speaker, i sit on three college boards and all the college presidents' commentary is the same -- we have a major issue on mental health in our colleges, and they'd love to have guidance from experts at the department of education. will this be perfect? no. is anything perfect? no. we all know perfection is the enemy of the good. so i suggest we move forward and pass this amendment. and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. chairman, we're hearing a lot lately about how bills are imperfect, but we should go ahead and pass them. mr. chairman, we have an opportunity to improve legislation before we pass it, but there seems to be no appetite on the part of the -- our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to act in a bipartisan fashion to improve legislation. why in the world do we want to vote for things that are imperfect but could be improved when there is a will to do that on other side of the aisle? it makes no sense. this bill -- this amendment needs work done to it before we could possibly support it, and i suggest that we set it aside, set the bill aside, and work on those things that need to be improved, demand that the

department of labor do its job, clean this up, and then we can pass good legislation. maybe not perfect but certainly better than what we are facing here today. let's -- i agree, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. but for heaven's sakes, let's pass good legislation, not legislation that isn't as good as it could be. and with that i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment, no on the underlying bill, and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: mr. trone: i yield -- the chair: the gentleman yields back his time -- ms. foxx: i yielded on the basis that mr. trone yielded. the chair: both members yielded back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 117-507. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. desaulnier: mr. chair, i rise as a designee of the gentleman from indiana, mr. mrvan, and i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 117-507 offered by mr. desaulnier of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1396, the gentleman from california, mr. desaulnier, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. desaulnier: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. desaulnier: thank you. for nearly three years, frontline -- excuse me -- and essential workers have speernlsed traumatic -- experienced traumatic stress

while navigating difficult barriers and new challenges in the workplace. studies have shown that nearly 2/3 of adults, 63% believe their lives have been irreversibly changed by the covid-19 pandemic. and many reported worsening mental health, traumatic stress, anxiety, depression, sleep disorders, and other negative health outcomes. for those who experience loss or workplace violence and harassment, traumatic stress can make a demanding workload, longer shifts, repeated staff shortages, and administrative challenges difficult to manage. that's why representative mrvan introduced h.r. 8887, the prioritizing workplace mental health and resilience act. throughout my career in public office, i have worked to ensure that resources are available for those impacted by ptsd, anxiety, depression, and other mental health conditions.

the pandemic was particularly challenging for many members of organized labor and the manufacturing, construction industry who continued to show up every day during that challenging time and this provision would aim to give them the support they deserve. . i'm offering the text of his prioritizing workplace mental health and resilience act as an amendment, h.r. 7780, today. this amendment will ensure affected workers who made it possible for our nation to recover from various challenges posed by covid-19 and the public health emergency, they are afforded the adquat support services -- adequate support services during their times of need. the amendment will establish a research program to identify and apply comprehensive approaches to support frontline and essential workers exposed to and affected by workplace stressors that contribute to adverse

mental health outcomes. if adopted, this amendment will require niosh, the national institute of occupational safety and health, to coordinate with other research programs within the institute to develop comprehensive, evidence-based approaches to support mental health and behavioral health. inform niosh on best practices, recommendations for organizational level workplace interventions, support the institute's mission to prevent worker injury or illness, and reduce the risk of such mental health outcomes among frontline essential and other affected workers. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chair. i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chair.

i yield myself such time as i may consume. republicans are committed to addressing the nation's mental health crisis, including in the workplace. unfortunately this amendment, while spending $30 million, puts the cart before the horse and dozen nothing -- does nothing to address the serious flaws in h.r. 7780. if democrats were serious about improving mental health resources and implementing best practices in the workplace, they would strike the provisions in the underlying bill that will make it more difficult for employers to offer mental health benefits. still, the amendment as written is not ready for primetime. first, i have concerns about the program's bloated $30 million price tag over three years. it's all too common for congress to throw money at a problem without any oversight or accountability, to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent in the most effective way possible. the amendment also establishes inappropriate criteria for the national institute for occupational safety and health to examine.

this includes changes in workplace protocols from covid-19 and the workplace krbilities to adverse -- contributes to adverse worker mental health. these criteria are overly prescriptive. congress should let niosh do its job in determining what kind of workplace factors contribute to poor mental health. further, the amendment directs niosh to report to congress within a year on whether the best practices have been developed and adopted by relevant stakeholders. however, the department of labor's vague and unclear guidance on mental health parity makes it challenging for employers to offer mental health benefits. and h.r. 7780 would only increase the risk for employers offering mental health benefits. i'm disappointed by the lack of effort to deliver a workable, bipartisan solution to study the mental health of our nation's workers before this flawed legislation was rushed to the floor by democrats. this is a partisan amendment to a partisan bill and a missed

opportunity to improve health care for workers. i urge a no vote on the amendment and the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. desaulnier: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. desaulnier: thank you, sir. in closing, i will just say, it's vital that we address the adverse mental health outcomes that stemmed from work environments and provide resources to workers living with ptsd, anxiety, depression and other mental health conditions. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chairman. as i stated on the last amendment, this bill needs a lot of work. republicans are more than willing to work with our colleagues across the aisle to make the bill better, to make this amendment better.

again, democrats' favorite employ to -- ploy to solve a problem is to throw money at it but not have clear standards, not hold agencies accountable and not have a clear plan. republicans have plans for how to get things done better in this country and we'd be so much better off if we could work in a bipartisan manner to bring bills to the floor, have them go through regular order and spend time debating them together. we want legislation that helps our situations in the country, not throw money at it, not just say, well let's try this imperfect approach and see what will happen. throw something against the wall, see if it will stick. that's a rotten way to run this country, mr. chairman. we can do better. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment

offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. there being no further amendments, the committee rises. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 7780, and pursuant to house resolution 1396, i report the bill as

amended by that resolution back to the house with sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 7780, and pursuant to house resolution 1396 reports the bill as amended, pursuant to that resolution, back to the house with sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. pursuant to house resolution 1396, the question on adoption of the further amendments will be put engross. the question is on adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to support the behavioral needs of students and youth invested in the school-based behavioral health work force and ensure access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mrs. mcclain of michigan moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 7780, to the committee on education and labor. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 19, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mrs. mcclain: -- the speaker pro tempore: i'm sorry, the noes have it. the motion is not adopted. mrs. mcclain: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman has requested the yeas and nays. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

>> i call up h.r. 3843, the merger filing fee modernization act of 2023, and ask for its -- 2022, and for its consideration in the house. the clerk: h.r. 3843, a bill to promote anti-trust enforcement and protect competition through adjusting premerger filing fees and increasing anti-trust enforcement resources. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1396, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 117-66 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read. the bill, as amended, shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee and the judiciary or their respective designees. the gentleman from new york, mrn from ohio, mr. jordan, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from new york, mr.ed mr. nadler. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, h.r. 3843 is bicameral, bipartisan legislation that consists of three distinct titles. each of which would make modest, important improvements to modernize our anti-trust system and help protect competition. title 1 of the bill updates the filing fees that merging parties pay to the federal anti-trust enforcers that review their transactions. these fees have not been updated in two decades. which has left these agencies in desperate need of more resources to complete their increasingly heavy work load. this bill raises the fees that party pace for large transactions and lowers the fee that parties pay for small and medium sized transactions, which

ensures that larger deals pay their fair share. critically, this legislation raises revenue to support necessary anti-trust enforcement while also saving taxpayers 1dz.4 -- $1.4 billion over the next five years. title 2 of the bill requires merging parties to notify the anti-trust agencies if they are subsidized by countries or entities that are strategic or economic threats to the united states. this notification requirement gives the agencies immediate access to the information they need to assess the full competitive consequences of subsidized transactions. and enables them to better protect u.s. economic interests when they review proposed mergers. title 3 of this legislation ensures that states do not have to waste precious time and taxpayer dollars when they litigate anti-trust suits in federal courts. it does this by exempting state enforcement to the federal anti-trust laws from the often

time consuming and costly multidistrict litigation process. federal anti-trust enforcement agencies are already exempt from this process and the bill simply puts state anti-trust enforcement on equal footing with the federal government. each element of this legislation enjoys bicameral, bipartisan support. titles 1 and 2 have already passed the house as part of the america competes act, and title 3 passed the senate by unanimous consent. together they would help ensure that our anti-trust agencies have the resources they need to protect competition, which provide important disclosures about foreign economic adversaries and would strengthen state enforcement of our anti-trust laws. i want to thank mr. neguse for sponsoring this package of bipartisan legislation. i also want to thank mr. cicilline and mr. buck, the chair and ranking member of the anti-trust subcommittee, for their leadership on these bills and on competition issues generally. i urge all members to support

this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. jordan: thank you, mr. speaker. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote no. while parts of this bill have some support, the package before us today does nothing but empower the department of justice and the federal trade commission. why would we support more funding for unaccountable officials in the biden administration, particularly these two agencies, department of justice in light what have we've seen from them over the past several months? time and time again they have weaponized that agency to go after the american people. now, some are asserting that, oh, no, this wouldn't give more money to the bureaucracy, but this is the kind of washington budget gimmick that the swamp uses to grow government all the time. in the majority's own committee report on the bill they acknowledge, quote, the updated fee structure would provide the u.s. department of justice and the federal trade commission with additional resources to

review mergers and enforce the anti-trust laws. more money for the d.o.j. to harass the american people. even proponents of the bill are talking about how this would get resources to the agencies while saying it doesn't include an appropriation. this logic is laughable. we know where this money's gone. in fact, the chairman of the committee said in his opening remarks, he said, d.o.j. and f.t.c. are in desperate need of more resources. we know where this money's gone. $280 million, $140 million to each agency every single year. the congress has already appropriated the congress appropriated money to higher 187 -- hire 187,000 new i.r.s. agents and now we'll give money to the d.o.j. and f.t.c. where is it to stop? if you want to do something about big tech, this bill is no the vehicle -- is not the vehicle. it is to come after

conservatives is not the way to go. i hope we can vote this down, mr. speaker. i urge, as i said before, i urge a no vote and reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill. and i do so reluctantly because title 1, raising the fees for enforcement, i'm for that. as a matter of fact, i'm a co-sponsor of that bill. and title 2, the foreign measure, i'm for that. but title 3 is going to create a problem. this has been advanced as if it's noncontroversial. that is not the case. it's complicated. let me try and be very simple. in 1968, congress enacted a provision where if there was a multiplicity of antitrust

lawsuits filed by state a.g.'s who have concurrent jurisdiction, a senior panel could consolidate the cases so you wouldn't have inconsistent discovery, inconsistent decisions outside of the various regions. now, you don't need that with the department of justice because they do the consolidation when they bring the case, but that's why it worked for the a.g. and it's worked very well for a long time. contrary to what some said, this is not a tech change. this is a venue change for all businesses, which is why i think the chamber of commerce said they would score the vote. but i think we need to listen to the main proponent, mr. buck. because last night, during the rule debate, he said big tech is crushing competition and crushing conservative speech and that's what his venue bill is

about, to prevent moderation of speech. now, content moderation is important. we have seen in the january 6 committee a lot of material that has spread lies, that has incited violence. and that content should be moderated. it should not be subject to a bogus effort by state a.g.'s to prevent content moderation through the antitrust provision. and to claim that would not happen, i mean, a.g.'s can bring cases right now without this provision. in fact, california just did against amazon. fine, go at it if you got a case. but if you don't think the attorney general of texas, who's currently hiding from a process server and facing other legal complications, wouldn't try to use this to undermine content moderation, i think you're sadly

mistaken. and that would be, i'm sure from my democratic colleagues not their intent but that would be a very sad result that would not be good for our country. now, if we turn this bill down, i'm sure what will happen is that the rules committee will put the first two provisions that have broad support in our party back up and i will happily vote for them to give the resources for enforcement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. lofgren: but i urge a no vote on this measure with great sadness that we've been put in this spot and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd just respond to the gentlelady from california, i appreciate the fact that she's a no on this bill. i think her logic is all wrong. this bill would actually give $140 million to the d.o.j. so

they can work and continue what they're already doing, work with big tech to censor certain information from getting to we the people. why do i say that? it happened. just a month ago mark zuckerberg said don't allow the story about hunter biden's laptop on his platform. wink, wink. now we'll give that agency $140 million to collude big tech from keeping viable information -- that's why this thing is so scary, why we should be against it. i yield four minutes to my friend and colleague to my great friend from louisiana. mr. gravities: what they've done is taken three pieces of legislation, three titles and merged them into one. i don't have problem with two of the three.

in response to ms. lofgren. i think the antitrust provision is ok. currently it's not explained, the panel on multidistrict litigation can transfer our state a.g.'s antitrust cases that arise under federal laws to other jurisdictions. that title would prevent that from happening. i'm ok with that. i voted it in committee. and foreign adversaries, we didn't get to mark it up in committee. the substance of that one is ok. mr. johnson: it would require parties to notify when they receive subsidies from countries that are threats to the u.s. when filing an merger. you know, we all agree on that. but the problem is, the thing we're so concerned about, is what ranking member just said, the merger filing fee modernization act. for folks trying to follow this back home, this would change filing fees paid by companies seeking regulatory approval for mergers. it would reduce the fees for deals valued under $1 billion and it would raise them for the

larger mergers over $1 billion. now, here's the problem. all of this sounds fine so far. here's the problem. there are no restrictions on the use of the additional funding that's generated by these fees and the f.t.c. and the d.o.j. will have even more power to institute their bad policies. this is not a de minimis amount. we're talking about $1.5 billion over five years. that's a lot of money, right? and just so you know, since president biden took office, the f.t.c. has pursued radical goals beyond the jurisdiction. one commissioner said she supports prioritizing systemic racism, rulemaking for racist practices, these are very emorphous terms. they have been used for nefarious purposes. wilson said it is in a unified world view that is part of marxism. and lina khan, just outrageous

what she's done. and the d.o.j. has been weaponized. we've been talking about that in committee. laying out the evidence. and will be presenting that to the american people in the new congress that begins in january. if what the chairman of the judiciary said, mr. nadler, is true he said, quote, they're in desperate need of more resources, you know, maybe they could have not spent money and resources by sikhing the f.b.i. and all the u.s. attorneys' offices on parents going to school board meetings to object to curriculum that their kids are being exposed to and mandates and school closures and all the rest. this is outrageous. these institutions have been weaponized and people are losing their faith in them. we cannot in good conscience to send them $1.5 billion to engage in this madness. we have no choice to oppose that legislation but for that reason. it's a good one. i think most of our colleagues are going to agree. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i must confess i'm a little puzzled of

some of the remarks of mr. johnson. he says the f.t.c. will sic the f.b.i. on parents or whatever. the f.t.c. has no jurisdiction over the f.b.i. and has nothing to do with them. mr. johnson: d.o.j. mr. nadler: the f.t.c. is part of the -- never mind. mr. speaker, i now yield five minutes to the distinguished gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for yielding. h.r. 3843 is a modest yet critical first step to modernizing the antitrust laws. it generates revenue. it makes foreign adversary transactions more apparent and allows more streamlined antitrust enforcement by state attorneys general. on the first issue, the -- i think there is general agreement that the fees that are involved in mergers haven't been raised in decades. this simply allows smaller mergers to pay less, larger

mergers to pay more, and so there's no question about it. and this issue came up in the rules committee. this bill does not fund a single additional dollar to any agency. it's a revenue generator. there is no appropriation. the appropriations process will require this be treated like any other revenue the federal government generates and that the appropriations committee in regular order will decide how to spend the money. and people should also not be concerned, under the appropriations act of 2022, the d.o.j. antitrust division use of appropriated funds is limited to, and i quote, expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and kind red laws, end quote. there is already limitation. it does not provide any additional funding. it simply generates revenues and shifts burdens to the largest transactions so the taxpayers don't have to be responsible for the review. it has given rise to monopolies that exercised outside influence over our democracy and our political institutions. at the same time the budgets for

antitrust enforcement agencies have not kept pace with the demands placed on them. as brian dietz, explained, is unacceptable for these agencies, resources to lag so far behind the growth of the economy they're charged with protecting and that's why the biden-harris administration issued a statement of administrative policy in support of this bill. we can have the fight of whether additional resources are necessary during the approp appropriations process. this bill simply raises the fees, gives smaller businesses a break and doesn't appropriate a single dollar. title 3 of the bill strengthens antitrust enforcement by preventing state antitrust actions from being dragged into private litigation in another venue. this legislation enjoys wide support among the states. last year the national association of attorneys general and every single attorney general in the united states, every state attorney general wrote a letter urging congress to pass the bill's amendment to the multidistrict litigation statute, quote, as soon as possible, so citizens benefit

from more efficient, effective, and timely adjudication of antitrust actions, end quote. so i, too, urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation and applaud them for their sponsorship. i want to thank mr. buck, who's been a tremendous leader on this package of bills. you know, there should be no question. senator lee, senator cotton, senator grassley have said that this package represents, and i quote, a strong bipartisan consensus. these bills improve antitrust enforcement without appropriating any more funds. you don't have to believe me. those are the republican colleagues who make the same point. in addition to that, this multi- multijurisdiction litigation robs state attorneys general who bring a federal antitrust action in federal court from the ability to litigate in that court which often by dragging them to another state is a great benefit to the big corporations, but it's harmful to their own

constituents, their businesses, which is why they support this legislation. and i would ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, to add a number of items into the record to reflect the broad support enjoyed by h.r. 3843. first, a strong statement of administrative policy which makes clear this legislation is necessary to support the president's mission to enforce the antitrust laws to combat the excessive concentration of industry, the abuses of market power, and harmful effects of monopolies. second, a letter of support from the state antitrust enforcement venue act of 2021, signed by every attorney general in the united states, including california's rob bonta, who makes clear that, quote, states should be on equal footing with federal enforcers and de -- in deciding where and when and how to prosecute cases, end quote. and not not subject to -- may be subject to transfer to a multidistrict litigation at the behest of defendants where the cases are typically postponed and may be joined with numerous other lawsuits brought by

private plaintiffs, end quote. third, a letter from a broad coalition of 36 labor, consumer, and public interest groups including public citizen, public knowledge, the open markets institute, the teamsters, states this bipartisan, bicameral legislation represents a critical first step for congress to reverse the course of l.a.x. antitrust enforcement. and fourth, a statement of chris jones from the national grossers association who says that and i quote, this bipartisan proposal does not change the antitrust laws. it takes a simple step of helping enforcers have a better shot of deterring abusive marketplace conduct that american consumers cannot afford right now. and finally, a statement from diana moss, president of the american antitrust institute, who states that, quote, additional resources are needed to enable the u.s. department of justice antitrust division and the federal trade commission to review and investigate

billion-dollar deals, end quote. for all those reasons, mr. speaker, i urge all my colleagues to support this commonsense package that will help to enhance competition, get us the ability to improve our economy and benefit consumers and workers and innovators and small businesses. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman -- the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. . mr. jordan: thank you. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: thank you. mr. speaker, this bill imposes $1.4 billion of new fees on large companies seeking mergers and it makes it easier to block those mergers. now, mergers only occur when they promote efficiency and productivity. the only -- they only occur when they enhance a company's ability to provide better goods and services at lower prices. interfering in this process harms the prosperity of every american. let's start with the simple fact

that taxes and fees on businesses aren't paid by businesses. they're paid by consumers through higher prices, employees through lower wages, and investors through lower earnings. how does increasing consumer prices protect consumers? and where will these fees go? well, they're going to go to increasingly corrupt bureaucracies like the f.t.c. that agency's now led by a radical leftist who has declared her intention to use the powers of government to replace consumer decisions with her own. all to advance her brand of ideological zealotry. the worst damage this does is to make the marketplace less efficient, which makes

he built a gigantic company by saving their consumers. americans have voted with their dollars every day that the services that amazon provides are better than the many other alternatives they have to choose from. the i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, it's interesting to see that mr. mcclintock's argument is against all antitrust laws. companies buy other companies not to enhance their --.

. 2022. does anybody know the word consumers? do i need to spell it on the floor of the house? ultimately, mergers have a -- in many instances detrimental impact on consumers, either by way of cost, loss of services. read the history books. did anybody know in years past there were opportunities for many, many flights across america. the aviation industry has been changed by mergers. that's a prime example. and so this particular legislation updates the filing fees that mernging companies may p pay. it requires them to disclose any -- that are economic threats to the united states. the united states are consumers. mr. and mrs. jones working every day to make ends meet and as democrats have done in the se

national association of attorney generals and every single state attorney general wrote a letter urging congress to pass amendments to the multidistrict litigation statute as soon as possible so our citizens benefit from more efficient, effective and timely adjudication of anti-trust actions, merging fees are there. to provide the extra resources that are needed and the administration feels that to vigorously enforce the anti-trust laws, the d.o.j. and the federal trade commission need the resources to do their job. and again, who do we represent but the people of the united states? who are they, consumers. who happens when mergers come? lack of services, lack of opportunity, lack commercial

scheme, if you will, so that they can get resources without having enormous expense. mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from ohio. i would just ask my colleague, how many more times do we need to see it? the abusive power by the department of justice. i'm sure, just like i do, you travel your district, you talk to people who agree with you. some don't agree with you. you know, what not one person has said to me, you know what we need, perry, we need more money for the department of justice. not one. i don't know why that is. but maybe it's because of the abuse of power. i appreciate my colleagues that want to do something with big tech. i sure want to do something too. and you know what, in about three months, the folks that are

destroying this country are not going to be in charge around here, then we can do something meaningful. we don't have to take the bad to get a couple of good things. we can just do the good things and leave the bad things out. three more months. we do a lot of things in good faith around here, mr. speaker. we do a lot of good things in -- a lot of things in good faith. tired of having those things abused. what are you talking about? i'll give you an example. president biden used the heroes act, the heroes made after 9/11 to support people who were called to duty to get their education, but they were called to duty. he used that to forgive the loans of all these people that incurred this student debt. that's an abuse. it's -- first of all, it's not forgiveness. it's marxism. because you're not forgivingen. you're paying for it -- forgiven. you're paying for it. it's not forgiveness. how many more times do we need to see it? in good faith, good faith. in three month, mr. speaker, under new management here, we get a great bill instead of some mediocre thing where we have to

accept something terrible, $280 million a year, $1.5 billion, more for the abuse of power. two dozen agents raided a guy's home, a pastor, 7:00 in the morning in bucks county. oh, yeah, d.o.j. needs more money for that. right? you know what they could have done? they could have saved a lot of money. pick up the phone, call the magistrate. the magistrate could have called the pastor and said, the federal government's going to charge you, show up down here at the office. we need to charge you. and i bet he would have showed up. the guy's not a criminal. more money for that, no way, mr. i urge a no vote. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from new york, a member of the committee, the judiciary committee, mr. jones. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. jones: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership. this bill really should be

uncontroversial. but unfortunately our nation's largest tech companies don't want any changes to the status quo. they are content with little to no anti-trust enforcement. they are content with their own gilded age. i regret, deeply regret, that some of my colleagues have agreed to do their bidding. and it is consumers and small business owners who are paying the price in an economy that increasingly only works for large corporations and for the yultrawealthy. our anti-trust enforcement system is beyond outdated. the last time congress updated the merger filing fees was in 2001. long before companies like amazon, facebook and apple began their anti-competitive and no monopolies tick frenzy of acquisitions. this bill updates those filing fees and ensures our anti-trust agencies have the resources they need to effectively combat the growing concentration of mo noppization of our economy in

the hands of the largest corporations. so i urge my colleagues to stand up to big tech and our largest corporations and to vote for this bill. thank you and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. buck. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. buck: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i want to use my time to quote other conservative restrain big tech companies' abuse of power. these bills represent an important step toward restoring self-governance, shoring up our national security and enforcing current antry trust laws to pro -- anti-trust laws to promote competitiveness without unduliy empowering the federal

enforcement. you can't provide league amnesty to big tech companies that flout anti-trust laws. defunding the anti-trust police will have the same result as defunding the municipal police, enabling bad actors to harm the public. and finally, the american conservatives issued this story. while buck is pushing restraining politically viable legislation that would strengthen the average american's position in the cultural battle against silicon valley, some of his colleagues

seem to be sticking to an overcooked theory derived from a notion of corporate personhood. mr. speaker, i offer for unanimous consent the following articles, heritage tech policy experts applaud house anti-trust package, republican senators urge house republicans to support anti-trust reform package, the american conservative tech hawks meet resistance to a modest proposal, don't defund the anti-trust police from the american mind, news max article from today. and a big tech hawks spear heads anti-trust package in congress from fox news. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. buck: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from ohio reserve? mr. jordan: we do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. schakowsky: thank you, mr.

chairman. americans are tired of monopolies that saddle them with less choices and higher prices. the federal trade commission and the department of justice must have the resources that they need to aggressively combat anti-competitive mergers. this commonsense, bipartisan legislation that we are considering today is absolutely needed right now in order to protect consumers. it makes giant improvements -- it makes giant companies pay their fair share, improve transparency and to streamline

litigation. this should not be, and it isn't, a partisan piece of legislation. and in the hearing that i was chairing as the chair of the subcommittee on consumer protection, we had testimony last year from a bush-appointed member of the federal trade commission who called for a tripling in the f.t.c. budget. he -- excuse me. he recognized that this agency should play a leading role in enforcing our laws that protect consumers without -- and working and innovating. so i urge the -- i urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation, but i also want to put into the record a

very compelling statement made by both chairman klobuchar and -- in the senate and my senator. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i yield the gentlelady an extra 30 second. ms. schakowsky: i would also like to put into the record to submit the gentleman's testimony for the record. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: before yielding to my friend from california, i wanted to comment or respond to comments made by my friend from colorado. he used the term overcooked theory. let me tell you what's not theory. the department of justice's raid on a former president's home not theory. the department of justice taking the phone of a city member of this body, not theory. 14 whistleblowers coming to our

office talking about the political nature of the justice department, not theory. those are facts. that is scary stuff. now this bill, if passed, will give that agency $140 million each year for the next five years. that's what we want to do? that is not -- that is scary -- that is why we should -- for that reason alone we should be against this legislation. i yield to my good friend from california, mr. issa, member of the judiciary committee, five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: i thank the gentleman. mr. jordan, five minutes is not enough to go through each and every item that's wrong with this bill. i'm going to try to summarize and some of it may be redundant. the authors of this bill are the authors of at least three bills. they are the authors of very different bills and ultimately

we should be having a vote on three or more bills as we did in committee. you might ask, why aren't we? usually i don't want to talk about procedure, but there is a reason. they are trying to cram this thing and get a few more votes by putting a bill that's not objectionable with bills that are very objectionable. one that empowers two agencies under review that -- for good cause. one of them has been trying to seize this very power. as we speak, the federal trade commission has done virtually nothing to protect consumers in the areas it has jurisdiction on. they constantly say we don't have enough money for the job we already have. but they want to be able to control both before, during, and after mergers and acquisitions. they actually want to be able to and trying to undo mergers that

already have occurred. yes, there is an agency that's power hungry. my friends, 3r50e dominantly on the -- predominantly on the other side of the aisle, want to give them money. maybe not money in this bill because we are not appropriators, but still $140 million. and it will keep coming. and it will grow that agency. i'm going to ask the american people something here today, mr. speaker. have you received a call about your extended warranty? have you received a robocall from somebody you don't know and it gets through on your personal phone or cell phone? of course you have, mr. speaker. so has every american. the federal trade commission has an absolute obligation to seek that out and to prosecute that. they are funded to do it. and they haven't done it. but, no, they want to get into mergers. and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and some on my

side of the aisle hate a couple of big-tech companies for what -- for their leftist leanings or whatever, on my side, and the other side i guess because they are profitable, they hate them so much they look past two truths. one of them is big tech, medium tech, small tech. they have made us the envy of the world and we have delivered to the rest of the world a better set of economies when they adopt those very technologies. and you ask, why do those technologies get adopted? one of the reasons is, a start up can be funded because they know they may have an exit that isn't a normal one. it will be an exit by having one of these big companies buy them. many companies' actual plan is to build something that will be bought by some large tech. yet we are considering changing the basis for mergers and acquisitions so that might no longer be possible. innovation could dry up.

i was an innovator, i know what it's like as a small start-up company to try to get those funds. and you know what? those funds come if they believe not that you might make a living and be around, but that your company might become valuable. that your idea might explode into the marketplace. you know what, the american people see through this. big tech, medium tech, and small tech -- by the way, most the big tech companies, none were aren't 50 years ago, and most aren't 25 years ago -- weren't 25 years ago. this is new tech they are atagging. new technologies. they are playing into the very hands of the people they claim to defend. if you want to stifle innovation, vote for this. and by the way, going back to that first one, mr. speaker, why are we voting on three bills? the reason is they are trying to trick members of congress into voting. please, vote no.

vote no because this is a bad set of multiple bills. i intend on making sure it never gets through the senate. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i agree with mr. -- is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i agree with mr. issa. we should never pass the stafford act to deal with the railroads. i deal with to the gentleman from colorado, mr. buck. mr. buck: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker i heard the arguements against this big tech bill by my republican colleagues. my republican friends ask, why would we give president biden a within 41 days before an election? let me be clear, this is not a democrat bill, and this is not a republican bill. mr. speaker, holding big tech accountable is an american bill. it's american legislation.

we are united states congressmen, we are serving in the united states congress, and we serve united states citizens. it is never the wrong time to do the right thing. my friends say this big-tech bill doesn't prevent discrimination and censorship. competition is the solution for viewpoint censorship. msnbc may not support my new, but newsmax and fox will listen to me. "the new york times" anti-"washington post" may disagree with me, but the "wall street journal" and the "washington times" will hear me out. google controls 94% of online searches. when it changes its algorithm to discriminate against one side, there is no alternative. the same goes for facebook, amazon, and apple.

the real threat is that when a monopoly controls information in a democracy, it controls the results of elections. that's the threat that big tech poses to america. and i'm afraid that america may not be able to withstand that threat. finally, my friends ask, why give money to the biden f.t.c. and d.o.j.? america is about to give republicans control of the oversight and appropriations process. americans expect us to use those levers of power responsibly and effectively. it's not too much to ask for congress to walk and chew gum at the same time. we can create competition for big tech and level the playing field, and at the same time make sure our government treats everyone in this country fairly.

with that, mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nad the gentleman from ohios recognized. mr. jordan: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon, distinguished member of the judiciary committee, mr. bentz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bentz: thank you, mr. speaker. let me begin by asking unanimous consent to enter into the congressional record an article labeled legal cons unfair to antitrust. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bentz: i support tight 28 of this bill and would vote for it if it was set up as a separate bill. i would support -- i would not support title 3, the real issue is title 1 and the money, the $1.4 billion that it would provide -- actually to the department of justice and the

f.t.c. the assertions it would not are not supported by the record. what's not happened and should have to make this $1.5 billion supportable. what hasn't happened is we have not had chairmanwoman up here before us in our judiciary committee. it seems odd that we wouldn't find out how this money will be spent before we allocate it to the purposes reflected in the record. let me read from a recent speech at fordham university where chair kahn. under her leadership she explained the f.t.c. will interpret unfair methods of competition broadly, block mergers that could prevent a trend toward mop any pli, and contends that gone gloom rats harm consumers irrespective of economic evidence. in her view her agenda is fundamentally conservative because it shows respect for the rule of law reflected in congressional intent. to quote the u.s. chamber of

congress, it harkens back to orwell's truth. she rejects the rule of law in favor of an aggressive policy agenda that grants the government total discretion to challenge any merger for any reason whatsoever. ignoring basic economics history and decades of precedent from the supreme court. more troubling is the fact that her agenda would allow the agency to challenge any private conduct that conflicts with her progressive notions of fairness. section 5 of the f.t.c. act directs the agency to combat unfair methods of competition, historically the agency has tied this authority to what's in the consumer's economic interest. which use closely to other statutes. mainly the sherman and clayton act. as a result the f.t.c. provided sks 5 with context, guardrails, and predictabilities, all integral to the rule of law. why didn't we have chairwoman kahn appear before us and explain why she wants to vary dramatically from what's been the law for the past 30 years. under the f.t.c.'s new

leadership, however anything goes, the new strategic plan for the f.t.c. condemns unfavorably health and privacy risks. she's issues while important lie farout side the f.t.c.'s statutory authority or competition under the chair's reading of section 5 of the f.t.c. can do whatever it pleases without guardrails. the f.t.c. should condone as fair could condone as fair a merger that result in job losses even when it would lower costs and lead to lower prices for consumers. mr. speaker, this is a bill whose time is not right. we don't know how the money will be spent. i urge a no vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, we do know how it will will be spent. on antitrust enforcement. i yield one to the distinguished gentleman from arizona, member of the judiciary committee, mr. stanton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stanton: thank you very much, mr. speaker.

thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding me the time. today i rise in support of h.r. 3843, the merger filing fee modernization act of 2022. this bipartisan legislation will strengthen antitrust enforcement and bert protect u.s. consumers, workers, and businesses. i support the full slate of bills in this package and i am pleased it includes legislation that i introduced with the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. fitzgerald. our bill, the foreign merger subsidy disclosure act, will create a more transparent picture for our antitrust enforcers by requiring merging companies to disclose foreign government subsidies. we know that china continues to use state-oantd entities to acquire our emerging technologies and intellectual property in an attempt to surpass and suppress united states companies. our bill provides an important guardrail so that china and other government-backed competitors can't discreetly buy upisis companies, undoing influence our free market

economy, steal intellectual property, and stifle competition. our bill will ensure these investments are not undermined. this is good, commonsense policy. a step in the right direction. mr. speaker, i intend to vote yes on this package. urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: thank you, mr. speaker. i just point out that i find it interesting, first we had mr. cicilline, the chair of the subcommittee, say that d.o.j. and f.t.c. don't get the money. it has to be appropriated next year. then the chairman of the full committee, mr. nadler, said we know how the money will be spent. it will be spent on antitrust enforcement t can't be both. we know what's going to happen. this money it is going to wind up in d.o.j. and f.t.c. and we know their track record and how they have been treating the american citizen. find it interesting that the democrats can't even get their argument state. which re-enforces why this bill should not pass. in the end it is more money for the department of justice, the

same department of justice that's done their egregious actions over the last several months. with that i yield to the former judge, great member of the judiciary committee, friend of mine from the great state of texas, mr. gohmert, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gohmert: we are hearing that we have got to give d.o.j. and f.t.c. all this authority to superadvise and make sure that -- supervise and make sure that the big tech is properly investigated. . but justice and we have not done oversight as a committee to stop what's been going on. and i understand the heritage foundation and these others, they haven't seen the whistleblower complaints that jim jordan and i have been seeing. i've gotten double digits now myself that were not counted in the 14 that the committee got.

it sounds like sodom and gamora up there. we've got complaipts this week about the -- complaints this week about the sexual harassment, about sexual impro pryities on the top floor, the seventh floor, where the headquarters is, of the f.b.i. and all the favors and all the intimidation that goes along with sexual impro pryities. then you want the d.o.j., the people who told the big tech that story about hunter's laptop, that's russian disinformation, which they're good at saying because they passed that on about russian collusion. and any time that president trump or people in his administration said anything, here came the d.o.j. whispering in people's ears, that's russian

disinformation. look, these are the last people that we need to trust with reining in the big tech, because we've seen the techniques. and got to give them credit. although there is apparently a tremendous amount of corruption at the f.b.i. and the d.o.j. that has not been reined in, i have to give them credit. when it comes to intimidation and manipulation, they are right there and i don't say this lightly, they're right there with the gastapo. i have f.b.i. agents talk to me about remember when we used to call the attorney of people we knew were not violent? even though they committed very serious felonies, we'd tell them when to report, they reported. we didn't use the tack takes of going in the dark, beating down doors, dragging them out in their underwear to parade in front of cameras that they

leaked inappropriately information to -- this is a different d.o.j. they don't need more money. they need less until they are made to -- their help to eliminate their corruption and they start cleaning up their own act which christopher wray and unfortunately merrick garland have not done. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, when i listen to mr. gohmert and mr. jordan, i am really amazed that every single republican senator voted for this legislation. mr. speaker, how much time does each side have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york has 10 minutes. the gentleman from ohio has 6 1/2. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: i thank the chairman for yielding. i just want to make clear once

again that this bill does not appropriate money to the f.t.c. and i think the chairman of the judiciary committee and i will continue to advocate for more funding. but this is not an appropriations bill. the ultimate decision about whether money will be appropriated to the f.t.c. or the d.o.j. d.o.j. will be made -- department of justice will be made like every other appropriation by members of the congress of the united states. after a robust debate, congress will decide. this generates revenue, it makes certain that big mergers are paid for by gigantic near monopolies or big corporations, not by our constituents. and it lowers the price for merger reviews on smaller transacademies. so that's all it does -- transactions. so that's all it does. secondly, it's important to remember, as mexico foxx said this is -- ms. foxx said, this isn't a republican or a democratic bill. this act is a product of years of bipartisan work in both the house and the senate to improving the enforcement of our anti-trust laws and protect competition and consumers this.

package of bills will krup date merger filing fees and help ensure that the federal agencies can be federally funded, that information on foreign subsidies is made available to federal enforcers and that state anti-trust enforcement can proceed more efficiently and without needless delays. i also have a statement from senator lee, cotton and grassley. republicans in the senate. who say, i quote, this package represents a strong bipartisan consensus approach to strengthening enforcement of the federal anti-trust laws against both big tech and other bad actors. so this is widely supported by republicans and democrats in both chambers and i think it's an example where we can work together collectively to respond to a serious problem, the consolidation of economic power. you know, anti-trust is important because we know competition is the single greatest driver of innovation. without innovation you don't -- without competition, you don't have innovation. and the innovation produces more

choices, better quality, lower prices, it benefits consumers and small businesses and workers. and so this is an important way -- mr. nadler: madam speaker, i yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman. mr. cicilline: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. cicilline: i would say again, this is about supporting competition with some very commonsense proposals that have strong bipartisan support in both chambers. we can finally let big techno that the time in which they can do whatever they want and continue to behave as monopolists is coming to an end. overwhelmingly the american people support reining in big tech. over 70% in poll after poll after poll. one other thing i want to mention is with concentrated economic power, often comes concentrated political power. that's one of the dangers of monopolies they. too much political power. let's prove them wrong, pass this bill.

with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: thank you, madam speaker. concentrated political power? that's what the d.o.j.'s doing right now. they're weaponizing the department of justice against the american people. the most concentrated political power, awesome power you can have, is the federal government. and i would argue the agency within the federal government that's the most dangerous is the department of justice and we're going to give them $140 million more over the next five years. it's amazing -- again, mr. cicilline can say what he want, madam chair, but that's not consistent with what the chairman said. the chairman said this is going to give more resources to anti-trust enforcement. here's what the democrats' own committee report said. quote, the updated fee structure would provide the u.s. department of justice and the federal trade commission with additional resources. so, either mr. cicilline's completely wrong or the majority of report's wrong or the chairman's wrong. somebody's wrong.

we know what's going to happen. oh, it's not really appropriated but we're charging more money, it's going to result in more money coming to the concentrated political power of the justice department but it's really not going to go there. give me a break. we know where it's going. they even said it in their own darn committee report. we reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: madam speaker, i find it amazing that the gentleman from ohio would argue that we shouldn't give appropriations to the department of justice. congress votes appropriations for every department. and if you think the department of justice is not being run properly, there's a presidential election coming up. that's the purpose of elections. and at the present time, the american people two years ago

elected joe biden president and kamala harris vice president. and the president appointed the secretary of justice and the chairman of the f.t.c. both of whom, i think, are doing an excellent job. it's a matter of debate which can be decided in the next presidential election. and to argue that we should starve agencies of the united states government so that they cannot do the job for which congress passed statutes mandating them to do the job is absurd. and all that the increase in fees does is update. because the last increase of fees was i don't know how many years ago. there's been inflation. and we need the enforcement against the large big tech companies because, as mr. jordan already acknowledged, they

represent a threat. i think he thinks they represent a different threat from the one i think they represent, but everybody agrees they represent a threat. and their power must be properly supervitzed by -- supervised by proper enforcement of the anti-trust laws. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: madam speaker, i would just point out, i didn't say the congress shouldn't appropriate dollars to federal agencies. what i said is we shouldn't give more money to the d.o.j. in light of what we've seen them do, in the light what have 14 whistleblowers have told us over the last several months what they're up to. that's a completely different point. i'm all for looking of ways to cut certain agencies and reduce government and the power that they have. but i didn't say that. i just said we shouldn't be giving them more money in light of what they've been doing. i think that's a pretty reasonable position. a position i think the vast majority of the country would have when they look at the actions they've seen from their department of justice and the tax money that supports that agency. again, we reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: madam speaker, i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from colorado, a member of the committee, mr. neguse. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. neguse: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the chairman. chairman nadler for his leadership and for yielding the time. and also thank my good friend and colleague, mr. cicilline from rhode island, who chairs the anti-trust subcommittee in the house. i've had the privilege of serving with him the last couple of years, including as vice chair of his subcommittee, during the course of the anti-trust, bipartisan anti-trust investigation that we understood took in the 117th congress. i'm here, madam speaker, to rise in support of my bill, the merger filing fee modernization act. the current filing fee structure established in 2001 does not match ongoing merger activity by american businesses. that's why this bill is not a particularly complicated or complex bill. we know these mergers require

thorough review by our anti-trust informant agencies and this has allowed for larger businesses to avoid paying their fair share and only hurting small and medium sized businesses. this bipartisan legislation adjusts that antiquated merger filing fee structure and fixes the filing fees to the consumer price index. and the bill includes a number of other provisions that i know have been discussed at great length today. let me just say, it's a commonsense policy that ensures federal anti-trust enforcers have the income to support ultimately this important work they are doing. but i have to say, i have been a bit shocked by the tenor of the debate on the house floor today. just to reiterate something that i think the chairman articulated previously, this is a bipartisan bill. every senator voted for it. i imagine that the ranking member's objections come as some

shock to senator cruz or senator lee or senator hawley. these are not democratic senators. they're republican senators. and they support this bill. i'm befuddled as to understanding why the ranking member doesn't. in any event, it's a good bill. it merits the support of members on both sides of the aisle. and i'm hoping that the ranking member may see the light when the vote comes up. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: thank you, madam speaker. i would just say, i'm talking a lot about my concerns with the d.o.j. in light of what we've seen from that agency and i think that is the main reason why this bill is so wrong and should not be supported. but the f.t.c. is also engaged in all kind of things -- kinds of things i think is interesting. one commissioner said she supports prioritizing f.t.c.

investigations related to, quote, systemic racism and rulemaking for racist practices, a senior f.t.c. advisor who called kay james, the former head of the heritage foundation, she called her a bigot and criticized viewpoint diversity. she's the one that developed f.t.c. policy on a.i. and discrimination. and democratic goals as, quote, rooted in unified world view that draws heavily on marxism. this is an agency controlled by people who have a radical belief system. radical opinions, radical political views. and, again, not only are -- not only is the department of justice getting $140 million more a year, so is this f.t.c. run by the people with those kind of positions. so, again, i think -- we don't want to be giving more money to agencies with this kind of track record, particularly, i think, now, when the american people are about to speak on who they want to control their congress.

that's why i think we should vote no on this legislation, hopefully it goes down and do the oversight that needs to be done of these two agencies so we can point out the facts and the truth and get that to the american people with that, -- truth. and with that, madam speaker, we yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. gnat letter: madam speaker, this bicameral, bipartisan legislation supported by a large coalition. as the biden-harris administration noted in its statement of administration policy on this bill, h.r. 3843 would advance its critical mission to combat the extensive concentration of industry, the abuses of market power, and harmful effects of monopoly. every single united states senator, every democrat, every

republican agree was that. it's only in this house some people who for unknown reasons disagree. madam speaker, this bill is squarely in the tradition of the sherman act, the clayton act, and should be passed. i urge all members to support this important legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 1396, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to permit antitrust enforcement and add using premerger filing fees and increasing antitrust enforcement resources. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on pafntle bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have t the bill is

passed -- have it. the bill is passed -- the gentleman from ohio is recognized mr. jordan: ask for a roll call. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 8972 the bulk infant formula to retail shelves act. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the built. the clerk: h.r. 8982 a bill to amend the harmonize tariff schedule of the united states to suspend temporarily rates of duty on imports of certain infant formula base powder used in the manufacturing of infant

formula in the united states, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from washington, ms. delbene, and the gentleman from nebraska , mr. smith, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from washington. ms. delbene: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. delbene: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to address the ongoing baby formula crisis and urge my colleagues to support the bulk infant formula to retail shelves act. i raised two kids and i know the first months of parenthood are tiring and stressful, even in the best of circumstances. but families across the country remain in a challenging position as they try to find formula they need to feed their babies. nationally, 61% of formula shelves are still empty. in my home state of washington, it's been hit harder with 67% of

formula shelves empty. while that's an improvement from the may nationwide high of 86%, we in congress have an obligation to do more. part of the improvement we have seen over the last few months can be attributed to legislation that i led with chairman blumenauer, ranking member smith, and my ways and means colleagues back in july that lifted tariffs on imported baby formula. this chamber and the senate passed the legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support. there are still more actions that congress can take to support families and that's what this legislation that we'll vote on today will do. consider what this legislation would n mean to parents. jesse is a mom in my district and struggling to find formula for her 7 month old daughter. she is not one to ask for help often, when she was running low on her last can, she joined a local social media group where other parents would post where they saw formula on the shelves. she downloaded an app that would

notify her when more cans were available and made backup plans for donated breast milk if it came to that. she was able to find formula in the end, but realizes that she is one of the lucky parents that had the means and the network to support her daughter. not all parents have these resources. the bulk infant formula to retail shelves act would boost domestic baby formula production and get more product on our shelves. it would do so by lifting tariffs through the end of the year on safe imported base powder. this is a key component filled with essential proteins, fats, and casho hydrates mixed with other nutrients and ingredients to make the formula parents buy on store shelves or online. lifting these tariffs and getting more formula on shelves would be especially helpful for families participating in the w.i.c. program. the w.i.c. program parents must

use those resources in brick and mortar retail stores. that can't be used for online purchases currently. about half of the baby formula purchased in the united states is purchased through w.i.c. this legislation has strong bipartisan support from the leadership of the ways and means committee chair blumenauer, ranking member smith, and my subcommittee colleagues representatives john larsen, dan kildee, andrew ferguson. in the senate we are supported by senators mike lee, bob menendez, todd young, and mike braun. families immediate our help and they need it now. i urge my colleagues to support this bill with the same speed and bipartisan force as they did two months ago. we have worked hand in hand with our senate partners to ensure that this measure will pass immediately. we can't delay while parents are struggling to feed their children. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington reserves. the gentleman from nebraska is

recognized. mr. smith: thank you, madam chair. i rise today in support of the bulk infant formula to retail shelves act. i appreciate my colleague, suzan delbeney, for working toge together -- dell ben -- delbene for working together. it's a very disappointing that the administration knew of this looming shortage for months before they developed a strategy. here we are nine months into the crisis and as of august, 30% of our nation's baby formula was out of stock nationally for six weeks in a row. this is simply unacceptable. i'm glad we can work together to correct this. we must use every tool available to increase domestic manufacturing, including responsibly importing f.d.a.-approved base powder used to manufacture formula when needed. the bulk infant formula to retail shelves act build bildz on the bipartisan work done on the formula act and supports

domestic manufacturing by allowing formula-based powder to be imported duty free through the end of the year. will i continue to work with my colleagues on the ways and means committee to use trade tools to strengthen critical supply chains like infant formula. thank you. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. ms. delbene: thank you, madam speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from connecticut who has been a leader on this issue, is original co-sponsor of this legislation, congressman john larson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. mr. larson: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i want to thank my colleagues earl blumenauer, adrian smith, dan kildee, drew ferguson for their work on this bill. i especially want to thank congresswoman delbene for her tireless leadership-in advocating for this issue and bringing members together in a bipartisan manner. for our listeners out there,

that isn't as rare a thing as you might think. but when you have exceptional leadership, and when you have the mother -- grandmother to be of an infant on the way, you have a sense of urgency that this congress and this nation desperately needs. i can't thank her enough for her leadership on this as well as my colleagues across the aisle because we all know that the increasing access and lowering costs for importing base powder is especially important, as susan described, for w.i.c. families because we know that means lower costs for working families. this is a prime example of what can happen when we all work together for the common good. nothing could be more important than making sure that suzan

delbene future grandchild has appropriate baby formula. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington reserves. the gentleman from nebraska is recognized. mr. smith: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. ms. delbene: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the chairman of the trade subcommittee, the gentleman from oregon, who has been a leader on this issue, on the formula act that we passed in july, and has been incredible leader on this issue, congressman blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: thank you. are you declaring a conflict of interest on this legislation? tongue in cheek. we are all excited awaiting the good news in terms of your family, and i think it's appropriate that we have this legislation on the floor today

to help families all across the country. the complexity that we found out in terms of the infant formula supply leaves us scratching our heads in terms of all these elements. i appreciate congresswoman delbene early zeroing in on this, mobilizing support, helping refine legislation, and enabling us to act very quickly. this is an area that i hope that we'll be able to have further conversation because i think there are issues in terms of health care supply chain, industrial policy. it isn't, i think, quite so easy to snap our fingers and make sure that we are protecting this because it's a complicated matter. i know that at times there are differences in terms of how much we should be interfering with the private sector and what they do. i think this might be an area that we can work together to figure out ways that we can hit the appropriate balance.

meet the need, not be too intrusive, but make sure we are not behind the curve. this administration and congress has made significant progress in this crisis invoking the defense production act, increasing the flexibility of w.i.c. as was referenced. easy restrictions on import to fill supply chain chort shortages, and enacting our formula act to temporarily suspend formulas on tariffs on infant formula. we are expanding that work today to include formula-based powder imports. like finish formula, infant formula base powder imports face a substadges tariff when im-- su sanction -- substantial tear live when imported when families need all the help they will need. i want to commend our team working together, sending the appropriate signal, and hope it provides a foundation for other

areas where we might be able to look for ways to thread that needle to be able to have partnerships with the private sector and with government to be able to make sure that we deal with these fragile supply chains. one of the things the pandemic has demonstrated is how fragile our supply chains are. and the notion with so many industries dealing with just in time puts them in a situation where the supply chain is so brittle that it produces results that horrify us all, like dumping milk on the ground because we couldn't get it to producers. i hope it leads to a broader conversation about things we can do to ease the pressures on supply chain and that this is an area we can continue to work together and make a difference. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington reserves. the gentleman from nebraska is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, madam

chair. i would reiterate what has already been discussed here. i appreciate this opportunity we can work together to remove barriers to getting nutrition to especially young children. as father of pretty young kids, i can appreciate the fact it was scary for families not being able to find formula when they previously could. i think that when we talk about supply chains as was discussed as well, we have got a lot of work to do ahead of us, and that we can hopefully bring about more affordable results for the american people. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the ranking member for all of his support on this legislation. something that will impact families across the country right away, not only help to make baby formula more

available, but also to reduce the cost of that formula, and particularly helping the families who are using. with i.c. across the country --. with i.c. across the country. i -- . with i.c. across the country -- . withi.c. across the country. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 982. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. the motion to recommit on h.r. 7780. passage of h.r. 7780, if ordered. passage of h.r. 3843. motions to suspend the rules and pass senate 4900, senate 1198, h.r. 8466, senate 3470, senate 2551, senate 958, h.r. 6965, h.r. 7321, senate 3662, h.r. 8888, senate 2974,

h.r. 8446, and h.r. 8463. and an en bloc motion to suspend the rules. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. and the chair would clarify senate 2794. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the motion to recommit on h.r. 7780 offered by the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. mcclain, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will redesignate the motion. the clerk: motion to recommit h.r. 7780 offered by mrs. mcclain of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the motion to recommit. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the

national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. buchanan of florida, i inform the house that mr. buchanan will vote yes on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore:p the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. sherman, mr. vargas, ms. speier, ms. jacobs, and mr. horse forward i inform the house -- horsford house faust that these members will vote no on the motion to recommit.

ing. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. -- i inform the house that they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by million gimenez of florida, i inform the house that mr. gimenez will vote aye on the motion to recommit.

thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recog recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. conway of california, i inform the house that ms. conway will vote yea on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. brooks of alabama, mr. palazzo of mississippi and mr. bilirakis of florida, i inform the house that these members will all vote yea on the motion to recommit. thank you.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. jacobs of new york, i inform the house that mr. jacobs will vote yea on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition?

>> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. porter, ms. ocasio-cortez, and miss cherfilus-mccormick i inform the house the house and distinguished speaker from the great state of california that these three members will vote no on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. joe wilson from south carolina, i inform the house that mr. wilson will vote yea on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. al green of texas, i inform the house that mr. green will vote no on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. pfluger of texas, i inform the house that mr. pfluger will vote yes on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from dwril seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. wasserman schultz of florida, i inform the house that ms. wasserman schultz will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by chairwoman eddie

bernice johnson and mr. lawson, i inform the house that these members will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. mceachin, mr. rush, mr. evans, ms. chu and ms. newman, i inform the house that these five members will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. meng, ms. garcia, mr. soto, i inform the house that these members will vote nay on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. sewell of alabama, ms. jayapal of washington, mrs. beatty of ohio, ms. kelly of illinois, ms. jackson lee of texas, i inform the house that these members will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by congresswoman kathleen rice, i inform the house that miss rice will vote no on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? as the member designated by mr. lynch -- >> as the member designated by mr. lynch, i inform the house that mr. lynch will vote no on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. murphy of florida, i inform the house that mrs. murphy will vote no on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina and ms. herrera beutler, i inform the house that they will vote yea on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. wilson of florida, i inform the house that ms. wilson will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. bacon of nebraska, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. bacon will vote yes on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by michele steele of california, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. steele will vote yes on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. mace from south carolina, i inform the house that ms. mace will vote yes on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member

designated by madison cawthorn of north carolina, i inform the house that that mr. cawthorn will vote yea on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mrs. demings of florida, i inform the house that this member will vote nay on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. as the member designated by mr. mike simpson of idaho's second district, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. simpson will vote yes on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: as the member designated by mr. donald payne, mrs. ann kirkpatrick, and mr. peter defazio, i inform the house that these members will vote no on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. mast of florida, i inform the house that mr. mast will vote yea on the motion to recommit. madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. salazar of florida, i inform the house that

ms. salazar will vote yea on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. as the member designated by mr. diaz-balart of florida, i inform the house that mr. diaz-balart will vote yea on the motion to recommit. additionally as the member designated by mr. steube of florida, i inform the house that mr. steube will also vote yea on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recog

recognition? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. as the member designated by mr. dunn of florida, i inform the house that mr. dunn will vote yea on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recog

recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by chairwoman waters, i inform the house that chairwoman waters will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by congress members tim ryan, vicente gonzalez, and ritchie torres, i inform the house that these members will vote no on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 208 and the nays are 220. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

>> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? >> on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. murphy of florida, i inform the house that mrs. murphy will vote yes on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. mast of florida, i inform the house that mr. mast will vote nay on h.r. 7780 and madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. salazar of florida, i inform the house that ms. salazar will vote nay on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by speier, vargas, sherman, jacobs, hosmer, i inform the house that these members will vote aye on passage. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. mace of south carolina, i inform the house that ms. mace will vote no on

h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by chairwoman johnson and mr. lawson, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by michele steele of california, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. steele will vote no on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. wasserman schultz of florida, i inform the house that she will vote yea on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. carter of the great state of texas, i inform the house that they vote no on 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. newman, ms. chu, mr. rush, mr. mceachin,

and mr. evans, i inform the house that these members fief vote yes on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. jacobs of new york, i inform the house that mr. jacobs will vote nay on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. meng, ms. garcia, and mr. soto, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. as the member designated by mr. mike simpson of idaho's second district, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. simpson will vote no on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mrs. demings of florida, i inform the house that mrs. demings will vote aye on the passage of h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from tennessee seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. as the member designated by mr. palazzo of mississippi, mr. bilirakis of florida, and mr. brooks of alabama, i inform the house that these members will vote nay on h.r. 7780. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. lynch of massachusetts, i inform the house that mr. lynch will vote aye on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. as the member designated by mr. mario diaz-balart and mr. greg steube, both of florida, i inform the house that both will vote no on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. peter defazio, mr. donald payne, and ms. ann kirkpatrick, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from south carolina seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. joe wilson of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. wilson will vote nay on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? >> thank you, madam chair. as the member designated by mr. cleaver of most, i inform the house that mr. cleaver will vote yes on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. bacon of nebraska, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. lay bacon will vote no on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by congresswoman kathleen rice, i inform the house that ms. race will vote yes on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition?

>> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina, ms. herrera beutler of washington and mr. kinzinger of illinois, i inform the house that ms. herrera beutler, mr. rice and mr. kinzinger will vote nay on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. sewell of alabama, ms. kelly of illinois, ms. jayapal of washington state, ms. sheila jackson lee of texas, mrs. beatty of ohio, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. gimenez of florida, i inform the house that mr. gimenez will vote nay on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. al green from the state of

texas, i inform the house that mr. green will vote yes on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. pfluger of texas, i inform the house that mr. pfluger will vote nay on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. porter, mouses cause io cortez and ms. cher fils mccor mick, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. buchanan of florida, i inform the house that mr. buchanan will vote nay on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by congress members tim ryan, vicente gonzalez and ritchie torres, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on

h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, thank you so kindly for recognizing me. as the member designated by mr. madison cawthorn of north carolina, i inform the house that mr. cawthorn would vote nay on h.r. 7780. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by chairwoman maxine waters, i inform the house that chairwoman waters will vote yes on h.r.

the clerk: h.r. 4833, a bill to promote antitrust ordinance and increases antitrust resources. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

>> as the member designated by ms. meng, ms. garcia, ms. soto, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 4833. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek regular in addition? >> as the member designated by ms. by -- mr. buchanan of florida, i inform the house that mr. buchanan will vote nay on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam >> they will vote aye on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. mace of south carolina, i inform the house that ms. mace will vote no on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. vargas of california, he will vote no on h.r. 3843.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. kinzinger of illinois, mr. rice of south carolina, ms. herrera beutler of washington, i inform the house that mr. rice, mr. kinzinger, ms. herrera beutler will vote nay on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mrs. murphy of florida, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mrs. murphy will vote nay on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> speaker person, as the member designated by mr. john carter of the state of texas, mr. paul gosar of arizonas, i inform the house that -- arizona, i inform the house that they will vote no on h.r. 3843. >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. lynch of massachusetts, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. lynch will vote yes on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by michele stelle of california, i inform the house that she will vote no on h.r. 3843.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. al green of texas, i inform the house that this member will vote yea on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. conway of california, i inform the house that ms. conway will vote nay on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? ms. stevens: as the member designated by chair johnson and mr. lawson, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. bacon of nebraska, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. bacon will vote no on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by congresswoman

kathleen rice, i inform the house that miss rice will vote yes on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. jacobs of new york, i inform the house that mr. jacobs will vote yes on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by the gentleman from missouri, mr. cleaver, i inform the house that this member will vote yes on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. pfluger of texas, i inform the house that mr. pfluger will vote nay on h.r. 3843.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. correa: mr. speaker, as the member designated by congress members tim ryan, vicente gonzalez, and ritchie torres, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. fleischmann: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. palazzo of mississippi, mr. bilirakis of florida, and mr. brooks of alabama, i inform the house that these members will all vote nay on h.r. 3843. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia -- from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. donald payne, mrs. ann kirkpatrick, and mr. peter defazio, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. joe wilson from south carolina, i inform

the house that mr. wilson will vote nay on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. chu, ms. newman, mr. mceachin, mr. rush, and mr. evans, i inform the house that these five members will vote yes on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. salazar of florida, i inform the house that ms. salazar will vote yea on h.r. 3843. mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. mast of florida, i inform the house that mr. mast will vote nay on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. takano: mr. speaker, as the member designated by chairwoman waters, i inform the house that chairwoman maxine waters will vote yes on h.r. 3843.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mr. diaz-balart, and mr. stuby, i inform the house that -- mr. steube, i inform the house that they will vote no on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: as the member designated by mrs. beatty of ohio, ms. jayapal, ms. sewell of alabama, ms. kelly of illinois, ms. jackson lee of texas, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 3843. and i will join them in that vote. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mr. mike simpson of idaho's second district, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. simpson will vote yes on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. neguse: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. cherfilus-mccormick, ms. porter, ms. ocasio-cortez, i

inform the house that these three members will vote yes on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? mrs. cammack: thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mr. dunn of florida, i inform the house that mr. dunn will vote nay on h.r. 3843. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. demings of florida, i inform the house that mrs. demings will vote aye on h.r. 3843.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. weber: as the member designated by mr. paul gosar of arizona, i inform the house that he will vote yea on h.r. 3843.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 242. and the nays are 184. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from new york, ms. velazquez, to suspend the rules and pass s. 4900 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: senate 4900, an act to re-authorize the sbir and

sttr programs and pilot programs, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. garamendi: as the member designated by mr. sherman, vargas, hosford and ms. speier, they will vote aye on s. 4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. mast and ms. salazar of florida, i inform the house that mr. mast and ms. salazar will vote yea on h.r. s. 4900 -- on s. 4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. escobar: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. meng,

ms. garcia, mr. socito, i infor the house that they will vote yes on s. 4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. mr. reschenthaler: thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mr. mario diaz-balart of florida and mr. greg steube of florida, i inform the house that they will both vote yea on s. 4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. peter defazio, mr. donald payne, mrs. ann kirkpatrick, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on s. 4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. buchanan of florida, i inform the house that mr. buchanan will vote yea on s. 4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. wasserman schultz of florida, i inform the house that she will vote yes on s. 4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?

mr. weber: speaker person, as the member designated by mr. john carter of texas and mr. paul gosar of arizona, i inform the house that they will both vote yea on s. 4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from rhode island seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. lynch of massachusetts, i inform the house that mr. lynch will vote aye on s. 4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. jacobs of new york, i inform the house that mr. jacobs will vote yes on s. 4900 the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? ms. stevens: as the member designated by chairwoman johnson and mr. lawson, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on s. 4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek

recognition? >> as the member designated by michelle steel of california, i inform the house that she will vote yes on s. 4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: as the member designated by ms. chu, mr. mceachin, mr. evans, mr. rush, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on s. 4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. mace, south carolina, i inform the house that ms. mace will vote yes on s. 4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. murphy of florida, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mrs. murphy will vote yes on s. 4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. fleischmann: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. palazzo of mississippi, mr. bilirakis of florida, i inform the house that mr. palazzo and mr. bilirakis will vote yea on s. 4900.

mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. brooks of alabama, i inform the house that mr. brooks will vote nay on s. 4900. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. takano: mr. speaker, as the member designated by chairwoman maxine waters, i inform the house that chairwoman waters will vote yes on s. 4900. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. gimenez of florida, i inform the house that mr. gimenez will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. cleaver of missouri, i inform the house that mr. cleaver will vote yes on 4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recog recognition -- michigan seek

recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. rice and ms. herrera beutler, they will vote yes. >> as the member designated by congress member kathleen rice, i inform the house that miss rice will vote yes on s.4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. conway of california, i inform the house that ms. conway will vote yes on s.4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. demmings of florida, i inform the house that ms. demmings will vote aye on s.4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. bacon of nebraska, i inform the house that mr. bacon will vote yes on s.4900.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by by congress members ryan, gonzalez and torres, these members will vote yes on s.4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tech as seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. pfluger of texas, i inform the house that mr. pfluger will vote aye. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. port arer, and ms. oi cast yeoh cortez, they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. simpson, i inform the house that mr. simpson will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. al green of texas, i inform

the house that this member will vote yes on s.4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by by mr. cawthorn of north carolina, i inform the house that mr. cawthorn will vote yes on s.4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: as the member designated by mrs. beatty of ohio and ms. jayapal and ms. sewell and ms. jackson lee, these members will vote yes on s.4900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. joe wilson of south, i inform the house that mr.~wilson will vote yes on s.4900.

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 411, the nays are 9, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. dunn of florida, i inform the house that mr. dunn will vote yes on s.4900.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 415, nays are 9, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 8466 as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 8466 a bill to require the head of each agency to establish a plan relating to

the safety of federal employees and contractors physically present at during a nationwide work emergency. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house amend the bill and pass the bill. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] house of representatives. >> as the member designated by mr. bacon of nebraska, i inform the house that mr. bacon will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. soto, garcia, these members will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. diaz-balart of florida and mr. steube of florida, both

mr. diaz-balart and mr. steube will vote yes on h.r. 8466. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: as the member designated by mrs. beatty, ms. kelly, ms. jackson lee, ms. sewell of alabama, these members will vote yes on h.r. 8466. >> as the member designated by mr. pfluger of texas, i inform the house that mr. pfluger will vote yes on h.r. 8466. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. murphy of florida, pursuant to h. res. 8, i inform the house that mrs. murphy will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina and ms. herrera beutler, they will

vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by by vargas and spir and huffman, they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by michelle steel of california, i inform the house she will vote yes on h.r. 8486. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. lynch of massachusetts, i inform the house that mr. lynch will vote aye on h.r. 8466. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr.~wilson of south carolina, i inform the house that mr.~wilson will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. wasserman schultz, i inform the house she will vote yes on 8466. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek

recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. conway of california, i inform the house that ms. conway will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> as the member designated by designated cortez and mr. mccormick, they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentleman seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. buchanan, i inform the house that mr. buchanan will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition. >> as the member designated by miss rice, i inform the house that miss rice will vote yes on h.r. 66. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. jacobs of new york, i inform the house that mr. jacobs will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by

congress members ryan and gonzalez and torres, i inform the house these members will vote yes on h.r. 8466. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. weber: mr. carter and mr. gosar. mr. carter will vote yes and mr. gosar will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: as the member designated by by chair johnson and mr. lawson, these members will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by miss mace of south carolina, i inform the house she will vote no on h.r. 8466. >> as the member designated by ms. demmings of florida, i inform the house that ms. demmings will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek

recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. palazzo of mississippi and mr. brooks of alabama, i inform the house that these members will vote nay on h.r. 8466. and as the member designated by by mr. bilirakis of florida, i inform the house that mr. bilirakis will vote yes on h.r. 8466. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: as the member designated by mr. defazio, mrs. kirkpatrick and mr. payne, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 8466. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. cawthorn of north carolina, i inform the house that mr. cawthorn will vote yes on h.r. 8466. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by

mr. al green of texas, i inform the house that this member will vote yes on h.r. 8466. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. gimenez of florida, i inform the house that mr. gimenez will vote aye on h.r. 8466. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? >> as the member designated by by the gentleman from missouri, mr. cleaver, i inform the house that mr. cleaver will vote yes on h.r. 8466. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. mike simpson, i inform the house that mr. simpson will vote yes on h.r. 8466.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. chu, ms. newman, mr. mceachin, mr. evans, and mr. rush, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 8466. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. mast and ms. salazar of florida, i inform the house that

mr. mast and ms. salazar will vote yea on h.r. 8466. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? mrs. cammack: thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mr. dunn of florida, i inform the house that mr. dunn will vote yea on h.r. 8466.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 351. the nays are 73. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the

gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, to suspend the rules and pass senate 3470, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: senate 3470, an act to provide for the implementation of certain trafficking in contracting provisions, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. coverage proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. wasserman schultz of florida, i inform the house that she will vote yes on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. madison cawthorn of north carolina, i

inform the house that mr. cawthorn will vote yea on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. murphy of flo florida, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mrs. murphy will vote yes on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? mrs. cammack: thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mr. dunn of florida, i inform the house that mr. dunn will vote yea on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? from texas? ms. escobar: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. meng, ms. garcia, mr. soto, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. buchanan of florida, i inform the house that mr. buchanan will vote yea on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek

recognition? mr. garamendi: as the member designated by ms. speier, vargas, and horsford, i inform the house that these members will vote aye. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. fulcher: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. mike simpson of idaho's second district, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. simpson will vote yes on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? mrs. trahan: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. lynch, i inform the house that mr. lynch will vote aye on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? m >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. conway of california, i inform the house that ms. conway will vote yes on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. peter defazio, mrs. ann kirkpatrick, and mr. donald payne, i inform the house that these members

will vote yes on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. jacobs of new york, i inform the house that mr. jacobs will vote yes on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. kaat lien rice -- kathleen rice of new york, i inform the house that miss rice will vote yes on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by michelle steel of california, i inform the house that she will vote yes on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. neguse: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. porter, mrs. cherfilus-mccormick, and ms. ocasio-cortez, i inform the house that these three members will vote yes on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. weber: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. paul

gosar, i inform the house that he will vote yes on s. 3470. mr. cicilline: ms. jayapal, ms. jackson lee, ms. kelly of illinois, mrs. beatty of ohio, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. fleischmann: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. bilirakis of florida, mr. palazzo of mississippi, and mr. brooks of alabama, i inform the house that all these members will vote yea on s. 3470. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. demings of florida, i inform the house that mrs. demings will vote aye on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. mast and ms. salazar of florida, i inform the house that mr. past and ms. salazar -- mr. mast and ms. salazar will vote yea on s.

3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. adams: mr. speaker -- >> as the member designated by mr. rice and ms. herrera beutler, i inform the house that they will vote yes on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? ms. stevens: as the member designated by chair johnson and mr. lawson, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. joe wilson from south carolina, i inform the house that mr. wilson will vote yea on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. cuellar: as the member designated by mr. al green of texas, i inform the house that

this member will vote yes on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. gimenez of florida, i inform the house that mr. gimenez will vote aye on s. 3470. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. correa: mr. speaker, as the member designated by congress members tim ryan, vincente gonzalez and ritchie torres, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. mace, south carolina, i inform the house that ms. mace will vote yes on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. takano: mr. speaker, as the member designated by chairwoman maxine waters, i inform the house that chairwoman waters will vote yes on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr.

mr. reschenthaler:: thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. reschenthaler: thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mario diaz-balart of florida and greg steube, also of florida, i inform the house that they will vote yes on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. newman, ms. chu, mr. rush, mr. mceachin, and mr. evans, i inform the house that these five members will vote yes on s. 3470. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. pfluger of texas, i inform the house that mr. pfluger will vote yes on s. 3470.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? mrs. hartzler: as the member designated by mr. bacon of nebraska, i inform the house that mr. bacon will vote yea on s. 3470.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 423. the nays are zero. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? order. order in the house. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise to talk about one of the great competitions here in our sports and bipartisan competitions in the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, today i rise to talk about the outcome of this year's congressional ryder cup, which is a match between the republican ryder cup team and the democrat ryder cup teams.

mr. allen: i've had the privilege to captain the republican ryder cup team for the past four competitions. the ryder cup, what we do is we raise money for charities that benefit the game of golf. obviously, first tee and both the national links trust, and we raised over $2 million in this effort. . thank you. this year, i'm pleased to announce that the republican team was i want to thank my team, but i want to take this moment to talk about the captain of the democratic team. he is the best player in the united states congress, number

one. all my best players want to take this guy on, because if you beat john yarmuth you have done something. john came to congress in 2007 and when he hit here, he became captain of the democrat ryder cup team. and i think you won four in a row immediately, but john obviously, you are retiring this year. i want to thank you for your supports manship and leadership and competition to the game we all love. let's give john a round. and john, it has been an honor to compete with you as captain. it was a great competition this year. and it is great to see members

of congress come together and compete and talk to each other and enjoy the day. and it was a great day for both teams. and john, i yield to you. mr. yarmuth: i do mean the gentleman, it has been an honor over the last 16 years to participate in this event. my record as a captain after the first four years is not very good and john tanner was the captain for some of those years. but the gentleman from georgia is absolutely right, it is an incredible retreat from what we do around here, to get out on the golf course and play in friendly competition in a game known for its courtesies and to have met so many fine republican friends over the years and in the course of doing that for

raising an awful lot of money for good causes. once again, i thank the gentleman for his kind words. i hope i can come back as captain ameritus and let the former members play. >> i think it would be ploapt. i would like to give the gentleman a round of applause. anything else? mr. yarmuth: congratulations to the victors. it's getting old. i haven't seen that trophy for quite some time. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. congratulations. pursuant to clause pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the

unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentlewoman from mrs. maloney and pass senate 2551. the clerk: senate 2551 an act to require the director of the office of management and budget to establish or otherwise provide artificial intelligence program and for other purposes. ism the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] will the house suspend the rules and pass the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. steube of florida, i inform the house that mr. steube will vote nay. smigd mr. diaz-balart, i inform the house that mr. diaz-balart

will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by miss rice of new york, i inform the house that miss rice will vote yes on s.2551. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina and ms. herrera beutler, they will vote yes on s.2551. ms. escobar: as the member designated by ms. meng and they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by miss mace of south carolina, she will vote yes on s.2551. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. murphy of florida, i inform the house that mrs. murphy will vote yes on s.2551.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr.~wilson of south carolina, i inform the house that mr.~wilson will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by chairman vargas, speier and whoseford, these members will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. gimenez of florida, i inform the house that mr. gimenez will vote yes on s.2551. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? >> as the memberdesignated byes mr. johnson and mr. lawson, these members will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. jacobs of new york, i inform the house that mr. jacobs will vote yes on s.2551. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts

seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. lynch of massachusetts, i inform the house that mr. lynch will vote yes on s.2551. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by michelle steel of california, i inform the house she will vote yes on s.2551. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. beatty, ms. kelly, ms. jackson lee and ms. sewell, they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. mike simpson, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. simpson will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. al green of texas, i inform

the house that this member will vote yes on s.2551. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. buchanan of florida, i inform the house that mr. buchanan will vote yes on s.2551. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by by congress members ryan, gonzalez and torres, these members will vote yes on s.2551. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seeing seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. palazzo of mississippi and mr. bilirakis of florida, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on s.2551. as the member designated by mr. prokes of alabama, i inform the house that mr. brooks will vote nay. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from illinois seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. wasserman schultz of florida, she will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. pfluger of texas, i inform the house that mr. pfluger will vote aye. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. porter and ms. mccormick, they will vote yes. iflt for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. weber: mr. paul gosar and mr. carter, mr. gosar will vote no and mr. carter will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by chairwoman waters, i inform the house that chair waters will vote yes on s.2551.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. dunn of florida, i inform the house that mr. dunn will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. demmings of florida, i inform the house that ms. demmings will vote aye. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. conway of california, i inform the house that ms. conway will vote yes on s.2551. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. defazio and mrs. kirkpatrick and mr. payne, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on s.2551. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? mrs.hartzler: as the member designated by mr. bacon of nebraska, i inform the house that mr. bacon will vote yes on

s.2551. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. cleaver of missouri, i inform the house that mr. cleaver will vote yes on s.2551. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: as the member designated by ms. chu, + new man, mr. mceachin, these members will vote yes on s.2551. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. mast and ms. salazar of

florida, i inform the house that mr. mast and ms. salazar will vote yes on s.2551. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> it is an honor to be recognized by you and i am the member designated by mr. madison

cawthorn of north carolina, i inform the house that mr. cawthorn will vote yes on s.2551. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 393, the nays

are 29. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules is suspended and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, message from the senate. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house has passed to modify the requirement its for administrator of small business administration related to -- for other purposes in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the vote on the motion the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone to suspend the rules and pass senate 958 on which the yeas and nays are ordered the clerk will report the title. the clerk: senate 958, an act to amend the health public service

act for new access grants for community health centers. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] . . . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> as the member designated by mrs. murphy of florida, i inform the house that mrs. murphy will vet owe. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: as the member designated by mr. madison cawthorn of north carolina, i inform the house that mr. cawthorn will vote yea on s. 95. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. sherman, vargas, speier and hosmer, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on s. 598. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?

>> as the member designated by ms. mace of south carolina, i inform the house that ms. mace will vote yes on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. wasserman schultz from florida, i inform the house that she will vote yes on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina, ms. herrera beutler of washington, i inform the house that they will vote yea on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. gar see ark ms. meng, mr. soto, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. conway of california, i inform the house that ms. conway will vote yes on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: as the member designated by ms. ann kirkpatrick, mr. donald payne and mr. peter defazio, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. pfluger of texas, i inform the house that mr. pfluger will vote yes on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by miss kathleen rice of new york, i inform the house that that miss rice will vote yes on senate bill 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. gimenez of florida, i inform the house that mr. gimenez will vote aye on s. 958. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. lynch of massachusetts, i inform the house that mr. lynch will vote aye on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri seek recognition? as the member designated by mr. bacon of nebraska, i inform the house that mr. bacon will vote aye on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. demings of florida, i inform the house that mrs. demings will vote aye on s.

95. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. john carter of the great state of texas and mri inform the house that they will vote yes on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> as the member designated by mr. rush, mr. mceachin, these members will vote yes on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. bilirakis of florida, mr. palazzo of mississippi, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on s. 958. mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. brooks of alabama, i inform the house that mr. brooks will vote nay on s. 958. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by chair johnson and mr. lawson, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. buchanan of florida, i inform the house that

mr. buchanan will vote yea on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by chairwoman maxine waters, i inform the house that chair waters will vote yes on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. jacobs of new york, i inform the house that mr. jacobs will vote yea on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. cherfilus-mccormick, ms. ocasio-cortez, ms. mccormick, i inform the house that they will vote yes on s. 598. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> as the member designated by mr. steube -- they will vote yes on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> as the member designated by mr. cleaver of missouri, i inform the house that mr. cleaver will vote yes on s.

958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. joe wilson of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. wilson will vote yea on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. al green of texas, i inform the house that the member will vote yes on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mr. dunn of florida, i inform the house that mr. dunn will vote yea on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. beatty of ohio, ms. kelly of illinois, ms, ms. sewell of alabama, ms. jackson leaf texas, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on s. 95. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by michele steele of california, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that she will vote aye on s. 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by congress members tim ryan, vicente gonzalez and

ritchie torres, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on s. 95. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mr. mike simpson of idaho's second district, eying eighth i inform the house that mr. simpson will vote yes on senate 958. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. mast and ms. salazar of florida, i inform the house that that mr. mast and ms. salazar will vote yea on s.

958.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 414, the nays are 7. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6965 as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 6965, a bill to promote travel and tourism in the united states and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition sph. >> as the member designated by ms. garcia, ms. meng and mr. soto, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by michele steele of california, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that she will vote aye on h.r. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by representatives sherman, vargas, speier, horsford, i inform the house that these members will vote aye on h.r. 6965678. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. buchanan of florida, i inform the house that mr. buchanan will vote aye on h.r. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: frowrp does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. donald payne, ms. ann kirkpatrick and mr. peter defazio, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri seek recognition?

>> as the member designated by mr. bacon of nebraska, i inform the house that mr. bacon will vote aye on h.r. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. cherfilus-mccormick, ms. ocasio-cortez and ms. mccormick, i inform the house that they will vote aye on h.r. 6965678. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> as the member designated by mr. wilson of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. wilson will vote aye on h.r. 6965678. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> as the member designated by miss kathleen rice of new york, i inform the house that miss rice will vote aye on h.r. 6965678. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek riggs in? >> as the member designated by mr. steube of florida, i inform the house that mr. steube will vote yes on h.r. -- will vote no on h.r. 6965. additionally, as the member designated by mr. mario diaz-balart, i inform the house that mr. mario diaz-balart will vote yes on 6965.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. chu, ms. newman, mr. rush, mr. mceachin, mr. evans, i inform the house that they will vote yes on h.r. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. mast of florida, i inform the house that mr. mast will vote no on h.r. 6965. mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. salazar of florida, i inform the house that ms. salazar will vote yes on h.r. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. lynch of massachusetts, i inform the house that mr. lynch will vote aye on h.r. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina, ms. herrera beutler of washington, i inform the house that they will vote yea on h.r. 6965678. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. murphy of florida, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mrs. murphy will

vote yes on h.r. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. pfluger of texas, i inform the house that mr. pfluger will vote yes on s. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. demings of florida, i inform the house that mrs. demings will vote aye on h.r. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. mike simpson of idaho's second dright, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. simpson will vote no on h.r. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. wasserman schultz of florida, i inform the house that she will vote yes on h.r. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. jacobs of new york, i inform the house that mr. jacobs will vote aye on h.r. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition? >> as the member designated by chair johnson and mr. lawson, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mr. brooks of alabama and mr. palazzo of mississippi, i inform the house that mr. brooks and mr. palazzo will both vote nay on h.r. 6965. and mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. bilirakis of florida, i inform the house that mr. bilirakis will vote yea on h.r. 6965. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by chairwoman maxine waters, i inform the house that chair waters will vote yes on h.r. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. gimenez of florida, i inform the house that mr. gimenez will vote aye on h.r. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. cleaver of missouri, i inform the house that mr. cleaver will vote yes on h.r. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?

>> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. carter of texas and mr. gosar of arizona, they will both vote in on h.r. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by congress members tim ryan, vicente gonzalez, ritchie torres, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 6965. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. conway of california, ms. conway will vote yes on h.r. 6965. mr. cicilline: as the member designated by ms. kelly, ms. jayapal, ms. jackson lee and ms. sewell and many mrs. beatty, they will vote yes. >> as the member designated by mr. cawthorn of north carolina, i inform the house that mr. cawthorn will vote yes.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady florida seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. dunn of florida, mr. dunn will vote yes.

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 325 and nays are 93. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rule is suspended and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentleman from hawaii to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 7321 as amended on which yeas and nays are ordered the clerk: h.r. 7321, a bill to amend title 49 united statescode to provide certain air carriers to maintenance enance. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] >> as the member designated by mr. madison cawthorn of north

carolina, i inform the house that mr. cawthorn will vote nay on h.r. 7321. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from texas seek recognition? >> ms. meng, these members well vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina and ms. herrera beutler, they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. wasserman schultz, she will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by michelle steel, i inform the house she will vote aye on h.r. 7321. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by sherman, vargas, spir and whose forward, they will vote aye. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition?

>> as the member designated by mr. steube, mr. steube will vote no. as the member designated by mr. diaz-balart, i inform the house that mr. diaz-balart will vote yes on h.r. 7321. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from massachusetts seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. lynch of massachusetts, i inform the house that mr. lynch will vote aye on h.r. 7321. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by john carter and as the member designated by by paul gosar, i inform the house that they will vote no on 7321. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. lawson, he will vote no. >> as the member designated by mr. pfluger, he will vote yes.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york? >> as the member designated by miss rice of new york, i inform the house that miss rice will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. joe wilson, i inform the house that mr.~wilson will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> ms. porter, she will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. buchanan of florida, i inform the house that mr. buchanan will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. defazio, mr. payne and mrs. kirkpatrick, i inform the house these members will vote yes on h.r. 7321. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by

mr. jacobs of new york, i inform the house that mr. jacobs will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. demmings of florida, i inform the house that ms. demmings will vote yes the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. conway of california, i inform the house that ms. conway will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. cleaver of missouri, i inform the house that mr. cleaver will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. bilirakis of florida and mr. palazzo, they will vote ye. and as the member designated by mr. brooks of alabama, i inform the house that mr. brooks will vote nay on h.r. 7321.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. murphy of florida, i inform the house that mrs. murphy will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. mast and ms. salazar of florida, i inform the house that they will vote yes on h.r. 7321. >> as the member designated by congress member ryan, gonzalez and torres, these members will vote yes on h.r. 7321. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from missouri seek recognition snr mrs.hartzler: as the member designated by mr. bacon, i inform the house that mr. bacon will vote yes. mr. takano: as the member designated by maxine waters, chair waters will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? >> as the member designated by

mr. mike simpson, i inform the house that he will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. chu, ms. new man, mr. rush and mr. mceachin these members will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. dunn, i inform the house that mr. dunn will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. jackson lee, ms. sewell, ms. jaya pell, ms. kelly, these members will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. gimenez of florida, he will vote aye on h.r. 7321.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. pfluger, i inform the house that mr. pfluger will vote nay on on h.r. 7321. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by miss mace of south carolina, i inform the house that miss mace will vote yes on h.r. 7321.