H.Res. 1396

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1396 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1396, providing for consideration of three measures.

First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7780 under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor, and makes in order two amendments, and provides one motion to recommit.

Second, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3843 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and a motion to recommit.

Third, the rule provides for consideration of S. 3969 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration and a motion to commit.

The rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered on September 28 to September 30. This authority lasts through September 30, 2022.

Lastly, the rule provides standard recess instructions from October 3 to November 11.

Mr. Speaker, an average of 18 young Americans took their own lives every

day in 2020. When children take their own lives, families and communities are left broken. This includes the community of Moorhead, Minnesota, which faced the devastating loss of 13-year old Horizon Middle School student Jacoby Blake to suicide just last year.

These sad stories happen all over this country in all of our districts. Mental health disorders, as a whole, are a common cause of death. It is estimated by CDC that 8 million deaths worldwide, which represents about 14.3 of total annual deaths, are attributable to mental disorders.

Even before the pandemic, the unmet mental and behavioral health needs of young people, students, and teachers, were a serious problem.

In talking with teachers in the district I represent in the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay area, it is clear that this problem has become a crisis. Teachers, administrators, and parents, often tell me that dealing with their students and their children's and their own mental and behavioral health challenges is among the most difficult things they deal with every day.

The data, unfortunately, backs up these stories. Teachers are saying, just last year, almost half of the students experienced persistent sadness or hopelessness, and nearly 20 percent seriously considered suicide.

Think of that, Mr. Speaker. Almost one in four American children have considered suicide in the last 2 years.

At the same time, 27 percent of teachers reported symptoms of depression, which is significantly higher than average adults, and those numbers have been growing.

Despite these warning signs, over 60 percent of children experiencing major depression do not receive any form of mental health treatment, and only 22 percent of teachers reported receiving emotional support from their school, their school district, or professional staff.

This is at a time when investments in the National Institute of Mental Health is discovering exponential information about how our brains work, how they cognitively develop, and the danger to trauma.

We are not getting this information out to the people who need it the most. We know that when people get treatment, they succeed. They overcome their difficulties.

As a Nation, we are underinvesting in the resources our students need, and our communities, our parents, our teachers, our administrators, to stay healthy, to succeed in school, and retain talented teachers and professionals and make sure that future Americans grow and are ready to carry on the legacy that we have inherited from former generations.

While the School Social Work Association of America recommends a ratio of 250 students per social worker, not one single State meets this recommended ratio. The national average is 2,106 of students per social worker; 2,106, as opposed to the recommended average of 250.

I am proud this week that the House is advancing my legislation, the Mental Health Matters Act, to confront this crisis head on, to give communities and parents and teachers the resources they need.

This bill was drafted with the needs of students, parents, and teachers in mind and is the product of months of careful consideration about how Congress can best respond to our Nation's mental health crisis.

This legislation before us would expand the school-based mental and behavioral health workforce, promote accessibility for students with disabilities, provide resources to address trauma in young children, and strengthen the ability of Americans with employer-sponsored insurance to access mental health and substance use disorder treatments they are statutorily entitled to.

From my discussions with mental health professionals over the years and research that has informed this legislation, it is clear that failure to address these challenges at a young age can harm performance at school and work and lead to ever worsening mental and behavioral health outcomes later in life for individuals and for our country.

Anxiety and reading disorders co-occur in approximately 25 percent of students. For individuals whose reading challenges persist into adulthood, there is a greater likelihood of depression, low self- esteem, and difficulty in social functioning.

To break this cycle, a provision I authored would help Head Start agencies implement evidence-based interventions to improve the health of children and staff.

While investment is needed for greater access to school-based mental health and behavioral health, individuals and families with employer- sponsored health insurance must also have robust access to treatment outside of school.

Some insurers, unfortunately, have placed arbitrary coverage limits on mental and behavioral health care, making it hard for patients to access treatment in the same way they would for physical ailments. This legislation makes great strides in the fight for mental health parity so that families can focus more on staying healthy and less on battling insurers for coverage.

Mental health and suicide prevention are deeply personal issues for me, having lost my own father to suicide almost 34 years ago. In advancing this bill, it is my hope that we can prevent many families from having to experience what mine went through several decades ago.

Also included in today's rule is the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act. This bipartisan bill would increase the filing fee that large corporations must pay the Federal Trade Commission in order to conduct a merger.

A recent surge in merger filings has placed a strain on the FTC's resources, and updating the fee schedule will help the agency cope with its many demands.

Finally, we will also consider the PAVA Program Inclusion Act under the rule. This Senate-passed legislation would help ensure that all programs designed to help voters with disabilities can access Federal funds regardless of their location.

Unfortunately, programs designed to help individuals with disabilities vote who are Native Americans or who live in the Northern Mariana Islands are not currently able to access the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access funds in the same manner as other Federal programs. The PAVA Program Inclusion Act will fix this injustice, and passing this bill will send it to President Biden's desk to be signed into law.

Mr. Speaker, we have a great opportunity this week to make transformative investments in our Nation's future and our mental health and pass other commonsense legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the comments from my friend.

Just on the mental health part, we did have hearings in the subcommittee I am proud to chair, the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions. We have had ongoing discussions with both the ranking member of that subcommittee and the ranking member of the full committee, so I think this is to be continued.

I would say on the mental health part of the rule, the urgency is right now, as I outlined in my opening comments. It is something we will have to continue to work with and hopefully will in good faith because all of these issues are on mental health, particularly for young people. I have agreed in my conversations with my friends, the ranking members, Ms. Foxx and Mr. Allen, and I look forward to continuing that. I think there is a real urgency on that.

On the trust, I respectfully disagree. Given the level of inequality in this country right now, I think it is really important that we support competition in the marketplace, and the Federal Trade Commission needs the resources to make sure that that happens.

The PAVA bill obviously has bipartisan support.

On all of these bills, I am anxious to get them off the floor today as a rule and look forward to seeing the continued debate tomorrow on the specific bills and the outcome of those bills.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I always say that I respect and admire my friend from the San Francisco Bay Area. Sometimes, we disagree.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the names and correspondence of several organizations I will mention just briefly. These are 40 different organizations that have written to Congress in support of H.R. 3843, the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act.

Amongst them are Accountable Tech, American Trust Institute, American Family Voices, Artist Rights Alliance, Center for Democracy and Technology, Center for Digital Democracy, Common Sense Media, Consumer Action, Consumer Reports, Free Press Action, Open Markets Institute, Our Revolution, the Service Employees International Union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the Writers Guild of America West, amongst others. We have covered a broad group here.

These organizations include:

Accountable Tech, American Antitrust Institute, American

Economic Liberties Project, American Family Voices, Artist

Rights Alliance, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-

CIO, Athena, Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment,

Center for Democracy & Technology, Center for Digital

Democracy, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Common

Sense Media, Consumer Action.

Consumer Reports, Demand Progress, Demos, Economic Security

Project Action, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC),

Farm Action Fund, Fight for the Future, Free Press Action,

Future of Music Coalition, Institute for Local Self-Reliance,

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, National Grocers

Association, New York Communities for Change.

Open Markets Institute, Our Revolution, P Street/

Progressive Change Campaign Committee, People's Parity

Project, Public Citizen, Public Knowledge, Revolving Door

Project, Service Employees International Union, The

Democratic Coalition, The Tech Oversight Project, UltraViolet

Action, Writers Guild of America West (WGAW).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record The Washington Post article titled: ``U.S. arrests along Mexico border top 2 million a year for first time.''

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

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

(By Nick Miroff)

U.S. authorities made more than 2 million immigration

arrests along the southern border during the past 11 months,

marking the first time annual enforcement statistics have

exceeded that threshold, according to figures provided by

senior Biden administration officials Monday.

In August, U.S. Customs and Border Protection detained

203,598 migrants crossing from Mexico, the latest figures

show, putting authorities on pace to tally more than 2.3

million arrests during the government's 2022 fiscal year,

which ends Sept. 30. The total, which includes some people

apprehended more than once, far exceeds last year's record of

more than 1.7 million arrests.

The historic migration wave this year has been driven by

soaring numbers of border-crossers from outside Mexico and

Central America, the two largest traditional sources of

illegal entries. Migrants from Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba

accounted for more than one-third of those taken into custody

along the southern border last month, according to Customs

and Border Protection, a 175 percent increase over August

2021.

Biden administration officials blamed the governments of

those countries, whose strained relations with Washington

severely limit the ability of authorities to send them

deportees. Many of the migrants apply for humanitarian

protection in the United States and tend to have strong

asylum claims.

``Failing communist regimes in Venezuela, Nicaragua, and

Cuba are driving a new wave of migration across the Western

Hemisphere, including the recent increase in encounters at

the southwest U.S. border,'' Customs and Border Protection

Commissioner Chris Magnus, said in a statement. ``Those

fleeing repressive regimes pose significant challenges for

processing and removal,'' he said, using the official term

for deportations.

Biden administration officials continue to insist they are

building a ``safe, orderly and humane'' immigration system

while blaming the Trump administration for ``dismantling''

channels for legal migration.

Critics say Biden administration officials have fallen far

short of meeting their refugee admission goals, and the

number of migrants who have died this year attempting to

cross into the United States is at an all-time high. Scores

have drowned in the Rio Grande in recent months, and 53 were

killed in June when smugglers in Texas packed migrants into a

sweltering tractor trailer with a failing cooling system.

Republican lawmakers blame the record number of crossings

on President Biden's reversal of Trump administration border

policies. Over the past several months, the Republican

governors of Texas and Arizona have sent more than 10,000

migrants on buses to Washington, New York and other northern

destinations to put pressure on Democrats by straining relief

services in their jurisdictions.

Last week, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) shipped a

planeload of Venezuelans to Martha's Vineyard in

Massachusetts, transporting them to a wealthy island enclave

with limited services for migrants.

Biden administration officials also say the high border

numbers are distorted by repeat crossing attempts by migrants

who have been previously arrested. Last month, 22 percent of

those taken into custody had a prior arrest in the previous

12 months, the latest figures show.

One factor Biden administration officials blame for the

repeat crossings is the Title 42 emergency public health

policy, implemented at the start of the pandemic, that allows

U.S. agents to rapidly ''expel'' some migrants back to

Mexico. The Biden administration's attempt to phase out Title

42 was blocked in federal court last spring.

The latest figures show the percentage of border-crossers

expelled under Title 42 has been falling and remains far

lower under Biden than President Donald Trump. About 36

percent of the 203,598 migrant ``encounters'' resulted in an

expulsion last month, down from 83 percent when Biden took

office.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), said Monday that the strain on

Democratic-run cities will force the administration to see

the border surge as a crisis. ``Maybe, just maybe, they'll

see that what's happening along our border every day is

dangerous, unsustainable, and a problem that we need to work

on together to address,'' he said.

Biden officials defending the administration's border

record pointed to a decline in the number of Mexican and

Central American migrants arrested over the past three months

as a sign their enforcement policies are having some success,

including efforts to target smuggling organizations in Latin

America.

Mr. Speaker, the numbers don't lie. If the annual number of apprehensions at the border is set to break records, that means fewer migrants are making it into the country. The notion that Biden is doing nothing is just absolutely not true.

Just secondarily, my good friend and co-chair of the Cancer Survivors Caucus from Georgia, we have a wonderful relationship. On this I agree, but I disagree on the process. As somebody who has spent a lot of time on opioid abuse, and we know that in our experience with people like myself who survived cancer, particularly more painful ones, that is a product when used properly that can bring relief to people, but we know about the abuse. As you said, a lot of that led to fentanyl.

We are against illegal drugs hurting Americans. We want to support effective remedies to that. I would say that one of the most effective things we can do--having had a long experience personally and professionally in behavioral health--is to invest in the kind of bill we have in front of us--with all due respect, with my name on it--to get upstream, so we make sure that people have the resources, evidence- based resources. So it is not as subjective to get the services they need to protect themselves in an, unfortunately, far-too-free market when it comes to the abuse of both legal and illegal drugs.

With all due respect, again, I am happy to work with the gentleman, but I really think, from my perspective, it is an argument to engage in the investment in behavioral health and mental health services. I will still work with the gentleman to make sure people aren't bringing these awful products across our border.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say in brief response that I have great respect, obviously, for our emergency responders. I appreciate what the gentlewoman's husband does for a living and what they have to go through. We all agree that we have to support thoughtful oversight to stop these drugs from getting into the hands of people who it can do great damage.

I have been to the border multiple times, both as a Member of Congress and as a member of the California State Legislature. We have a problem, and it has been a problem through Republican administrations and Democratic administrations, both in State houses in the border States and here in Washington, D.C.

We are not for open borders. We want to stop people being harmed by illicit drugs. So the idea that we are not, I would respectfully say that is not accurate.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I will read a few numbers, particularly on the part of the rule that is the Mental Health Matters Act, which I am proud to be the author of with Chairman Scott.

Suicide is the second leading cause of death for ages of Americans 10 to 24; second for 12 to 18.

For adolescents, depression, substance abuse, and suicide are extremely important concerns--an epidemic, I would say--among adolescents age 12 to 17.

In 2018 to 2019, 15.1 percent of young Americans had major depressive episodes; 36.7 had persistent feelings of sadness and hopelessness; 4.1 had a substance abuse disorder; 18 percent seriously considered attempting suicide; 16 percent made a suicide plan; and 10 percent attempted suicide.

Madam Speaker, 10 percent of America's young people have attempted suicide; 2.5 percent made suicide attempts requiring medical treatment.

For all those reasons, the part of the rule that is the Mental Health Matters Act is extremely important to this country. Is it perfect? Of course not, from every perspective of 535 Members of Congress and 435 Members of the House. But the need is too urgent, in my view, to wait. That is why it is so important that not just this rule passes but the bill is passed.

We need to put resources in the FTC with the most income inequality and consolidation of wealth through mergers. Not always in our best interest. It is important that the FTC has the resources it needs to actually enforce the statutes as they currently have.

Madam Speaker, we need to help Americans, and specifically teachers and students, get back to doing what they do best, teaching and learning.

The legislation before us on the rule will help provide the resources to improve mental health outcomes and educational attainment.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my good friend from California for yielding time.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7780, the Mental Health Matters Act, is a package of bills our country would be better off without. For example, Title VI of the bill, the Strengthening Behavioral Health Benefits Act, contains dangerous policy which would threaten access to critical workplace benefits.

How would this legislation drive employers to drop benefits? H.R. 7780 allows the Department of Labor, DOL, to levy civil monetary penalties against plans and employers for ambiguous mental health parity violations.

Employers who offer mental health benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, do so voluntarily. They should not be penalized for violating standards that are unclear and vague. Republicans and

Democrats alike support mental health parity, which is why Congress has passed multiple laws to ensure employers are able to meet mental health parity requirements.

Yet, despite receiving explicit direction from Congress outlining what DOL must provide to plans, the Department has yet to issue guidance. Employers and plans have been asking the Department for years to comply with the law and provide examples which illustrate compliance and noncompliance, recommendations to advance compliance, and clarifying information on how plans may demonstrate compliance.

However, instead of helping plans comply, DOL has blamed them for not being able to read the minds of Washington bureaucrats. Providing DOL with the authority to levy civil monetary penalties against plans and increase their risk of litigation will only force plans to drop mental health coverage.

This legislation would also increase DOL's budget for mental health parity enforcement by an additional $275 million over 10 years, a sure sign DOL wants to double down on its aggression toward employers. This money would be better spent on compliance assistance instead of targeting employers based on ambiguous standards.

Additionally, Title VII, the Employee and Retiree Access to Justice Act, gets rid of arbitration clauses, class action waivers, and discretionary clauses in employee benefit plans. This opens the door to increased litigation against plan sponsors which could drastically increase the cost of administering these plans.

Democrats are treating ERISA arbitration like a treacherous backroom deal, but, in reality, arbitration settles disputes more quickly and more often in favor of claimants than litigation. The only people who benefit from months and years in litigation are trial lawyers.

This bill also contains provisions regarding the youth mental health crisis. There is bipartisan agreement that addressing the mental health of youth matters. However, we can't ignore the fact that Democrats exacerbated the youth mental health situation by prolonging school shutdowns.

At the behest of teachers unions, Democrat politicians from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to school district administrators kept classrooms shuttered, despite knowing that schools were not major vectors of spread and that children were suffering from this forced isolation. The results have been catastrophic.

In 2021, more than one-third of high school students reported they experienced poor mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to one study, from February to March 2021, the number of ER visits by young girls for suspected suicide attempts was up by more than 50 percent compared to 2019.

School closures fail students, which is why we should be spending our time addressing the massive learning loss students suffered because of these shutdowns. This is a problem that cannot be neglected, especially if we want to see these young people have as bright a future as possible.

Lastly, H.R. 7780 includes the Respond, Innovate, Succeed, and Empower Act, or RISE Act, the intent of which Republicans support.

While I agree that students with disabilities shouldn't have to jump through hoops to obtain accommodations at school, this legislation will have unintended consequences as currently drafted.

For example, this legislation forces colleges and universities to accept outdated documentation from students who are claiming disability status but who do not, in fact, have a disability. This legislation should have been debated with stakeholders before being rushed to the House floor, but, as usual, Democrats took a shortcut.

I encourage my colleagues to work across the aisle and utilize the deliberative process to form more commonsense and targeted legislation if they actually want to address our country's mental health situation.

H.R. 7780 is a bill that tries to do too much and none of it well.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chair, our colleagues keep saying the goal is compliance. Well, if the goal is compliance, then it is up to the Department to define the standard. Employers do not know what the standard is. Therefore, they do not know what is expected of them to comply.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. McClain).

Mr. Chair, I would like to correct the record regarding a comment Chairman Scott made at the Rules Committee Tuesday that employers must offer mental health benefits.

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 at parity 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. DOL 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 DOL'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.

DOL should follow the law and issue additional guidance, specifically standards, to employers and plans.

Helping employers would undermine the Democrats' long-term goal of weakening employer-sponsored insurance and implementing government-run healthcare.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, 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.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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 better understand the prevalence of mental health disabilities and substance use 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 Act, 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 violate 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.

Mr. Chair, I will oppose this amendment; I encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, we are hearing a lot lately about how bills are imperfect, but we should go ahead and pass them.

Mr. Chair, we have an opportunity to improve legislation before we pass it, but there seems to be no appetite on the part of 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 our side of the aisle?

It makes no sense.

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 Education do its job. Clean this up. Then we could pass good legislation, maybe not perfect, but certainly better than what we are facing here today.

Mr. Chair, I agree, don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. For heaven's sake, let's pass good legislation, not legislation that isn't as good as it could be.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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 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 prime time. First, I have concerns about the program's bloated $30 million price tag over 3 years. It is 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, NIOSH, to examine. This includes how changes in workplace protocols or traumatic grief from COVID-19 in the workplace contributes to adverse worker mental health.

These criteria are overly prescriptive. Congress should let NIOSH do its job in determining what kinds 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 am disappointed by the lack of effort to develop 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 healthcare for workers.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

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 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 would 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 and see if it will stick. That is a rotten way to run this country, Mr. Chairman. We can do better.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this rule and will vote ``no.''

I am a supporter of all three bills covered by this rule as they were originally introduced. I am even the cosponsor of Representative Neguse's bill to increase filing fees. However, very unfortunately, this rule advances a modified version of that bill. It tacks on provisions from Representative Buck's antitrust enforcement venue bill, and these antitrust venue provisions are unwise public policy.

I vocally opposed them during the Committee on the Judiciary markup and have dutifully kept my leadership apprised of my opposition to them since that time.

Despite proponents trying to sell these venue provisions as noncontroversial, I am far from the only Member with concerns.

Furthermore, in a highly unusual move, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts wrote to Congress outlining their serious concerns with these venue policy provisions. Opposition also comes in letters from the Progressive Policy Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Proponents argue that State attorneys general are in favor. Well, I understand it was sold to them as a noncontroversial provision. Of course, they would be in favor. It makes life easier for them. It doesn't address the very serious issues outlined by the Administrative Office of the Courts, and it doesn't make this good, wise policy.

So, very reluctantly, I will vote ``no.'' I would gladly support today's rule if these venue provisions were not tacked onto the other good bills.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letters from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Progressive Policy Institute, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Administrative Office of

The United States Courts,

Washington, DC, July 19, 2021.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Leader: I write regarding H.R. 3460, the ``State

Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act of 2021,'' which was ordered

reported as amended by the Committee on the Judiciary on June

24, 2021. Neither the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation (``Panel'') nor any of the relevant committees of

the Judicial Conference of the United States (``Conference'')

have had the opportunity to analyze this bill thoroughly.

Considering its potential impact on the federal Judiciary and

the efficient administration of justice, I offer for your

consideration the following initial observations. These

comments are neither expressions of support for, nor

opposition to the bill. Nevertheless, I hope they are helpful

and note that pending a more in-depth analysis, by both the

Panel and the relevant Conference committees, additional

comments may be submitted.

Background

Section 1407 was enacted in 1968, in the wake of a large

multidistrict antitrust litigation involving alleged

conspiracies to divide businesses and fix prices in multiple

product lines of electrical equipment. That litigation

encompassed more than a thousand actions in numerous federal

judicial districts brought, in large part, by public

utilities against virtually every manufacturer of electrical

equipment. The sudden influx of civil antitrust actions led

to the creation of ad hoc procedures to coordinate the

litigation before a smaller number of judges to eliminate

duplicative discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Section 1407 was intended to serve as a permanent solution

to the problem that large multidistrict litigations pose to

the federal Judiciary's ability to administer its civil

docket efficiently and justly. The statute created a panel of

seven circuit and district judges, no two of whom shall be

from the same circuit, which is authorized to transfer civil

actions involving one or more common questions of fact and

pending in different districts to a single district for

coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. See 28

U.S.C. Sec. 1407(a). To distinguish from other forms of

transfer and consolidation, transfer for coordinated or

consolidated pretrial proceedings under Section 1407 is

referred to as ``centralization.'' The Panel may transfer

actions for centralized pretrial proceedings only if it

determines that transfer will be for the convenience of the

parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient

conduct of such actions. Id. Civil actions transferred to

multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceedings are remanded by

the Panel at the conclusion of pretrial proceedings to their

transferor districts (i.e., trial is conducted in the

district of original filing), unless the actions were

terminated during the course of pretrial proceedings. Id.

Over the past fifty years, MDLs have encompassed a wide

variety of civil litigation in the federal courts, but

antitrust litigations have always constituted a core category

of cases subject to centralization. Section 1407 contains one

exception with respect to antitrust MDLs--enforcement actions

by the United States arising under the federal antitrust laws

are not subject to transfer under Section 1407. See 28 U.S.C.

Sec. 1407(g). Congress has amended Section 1407 only once. As

part of the Hart Scott Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of

1976, Congress added subsection (h), which authorizes the

Panel to consolidate and transfer any action brought under 15

U.S.C. Sec. 15c (i.e., State parens patriae actions) for both

pretrial purposes and trial. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407(h).

Concerns

H.R. 3460 would amend 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to limit the

Panel's ability to centralize civil actions brought by States

under the antitrust laws of the United States and delete the

subsection added by the Hart Scott Rodino Antitrust

Improvements Act of 1976. Congress to date has never amended

Section 1407 to restrict the Panel's ability to centralize

civil actions. Doing so in this instance raises several

concerns that merit Congress's consideration.

H.R. 3460 May Negatively Impact the Efficiency and Conduct of

Antitrust MDLs

Restricting the Panel's ability to centralize State

antitrust actions could negatively impact the efficiency and

conduct of

antitrust MDLs. When the Panel centralizes actions under

Section 1407, it considers whether centralization will

enhance convenience and efficiency with respect to the

parties, witnesses, and the federal Judiciary as a whole--the

Panel does not limit its consideration to the impact on any

one party in isolation. In general, MDL litigation is most

efficient when all related actions are centralized before a

single judge. Doing so minimizes the potential for

duplicative discovery and motion practice, eliminates the

potential for inconsistent pretrial schedules or rulings, and

conserves the resources of the parties, counsel, and the

Judiciary. To the extent there are actions with different

legal issues or concerns, the MDL judge can formulate a

pretrial program that allows pretrial proceedings with

respect to any non-common issues to proceed concurrently with

pretrial proceedings on common issues (for example, by

creating a separate discovery or motion track for certain

actions). This ensures that pretrial proceedings will be

conducted in a streamlined manner leading to a just and

expeditious resolution of all actions to the overall benefit

of the parties.

Excepting State antitrust actions from centralization can

only increase the number of actions (and, hence, the number

of independent parties and courts) outside the ambit of the

MDL. Related actions that cannot be centralized can introduce

case management difficulties into the MDL. Parties and courts

in actions pending outside the MDL may (either actively or

inadvertently) undermine attempts to coordinate and

streamline discovery and pretrial practice in the litigation.

For instance, such actions may be subject to different

pretrial schedules, parties and witnesses might by subject to

duplicative discovery, and the courts might issue

inconsistent pretrial rulings pertaining to the same parties.

It also is possible that substantively inconsistent rulings

could issue--such as with respect to market definition or

which standard of review (per se or rule of reason) applies

to a given case. Given the nationwide scope of these

antitrust litigations, such inconsistent rulings may

complicate proceedings and sow confusion not only among the

courts and parties, but also in the marketplace.

H.R. 3460 May Result in Inefficient Judicial Administration

of Antitrust Litigation

Apart from the general impact on efficiency caused by

increasing the number of actions that cannot be centralized,

there could be particular inefficiencies created by excepting

State antitrust actions from centralization. States are, in

many ways, similar to private antitrust plaintiffs. For

instance, States may sue because they have suffered a direct

antitrust injury (e.g., if the State directly purchased a

product subject to an alleged price fixing conspiracy). Along

with their claims under the federal antitrust laws, States

may also include claims brought under state antitrust law for

``indirect'' antitrust damages not permitted under federal

antitrust law. Both types of claims are substantially similar

to those presented by private plaintiffs asserting antitrust

injury as direct or indirect purchasers. As such, these type

of State antitrust claims will present factual and legal

issues that are similar or identical to those presented by

the claims of the private plaintiffs. These common claims

generally will be most efficiently litigated in a centralized

proceeding. Notably, similar claims by the United States for

civil damages due to injury to the government itself are not

excluded from centralization under Section 1407. See 28

U.S.C. Sec. 1407(g) (stating that the exemption for claims

brought by the United States as a complainant under the

antitrust laws ``shall not include section 4A of the Act of

October 15, 1914, as added July 7, 1955 (69 Stat. 282; 15

U.S.C. 15a)'').

In addition, States may bring federal antitrust claims on

behalf of their citizens who have suffered harm due to the

alleged anticompetitive conduct (parens patriae actions).

Those citizens may be class members in private antitrust

actions. Indeed, Section 4C of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.

Sec. 15c, imposes on State parens patriae actions notice and

opt out requirements akin to those for private class actions

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Courts also are

statutorily obligated to exclude from any award in a parens

patriae action any amounts that duplicate awards in private

actions. See 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15c(a)(1). A single MDL judge

usually will be best positioned to coordinate state and

private litigations.

H.R. 3460 Could Adversely Affect the Interest of States

Excluding State antitrust actions from MDL proceedings

could adversely affect the interests of the States. While

States might gain greater autonomy with respect to their

individual actions, they would lose much of their ability to

participate in and influence the centralized proceedings.

Collaboration between private plaintiffs and State Attorneys

General also may be reduced, particularly if the States

retain outside counsel to prosecute their antitrust claims.

Such counsel may have attorneys' fees or other incentives

inconsistent with close coordination with the MDL. This could

result (absent coordination between the different courts) in

competing pretrial schedules and inconsistent orders that

complicate the management and adjudication of both the State

antitrust action and the MDL.

H.R. 3460 Could Undermine the Panel's Efforts to Enhance

Coordination with Federal Antitrust Litigation

Excluding State antitrust actions from centralization could

undermine the Panel's efforts to facilitate coordination and

cooperation between private antitrust litigation and

antitrust actions brought by the United States. Where there

is a federal enforcement action or investigation that cannot

be included in a given antitrust MDL, the Panel often will

centralize the MDL in the court where the federal antitrust

action or grand jury proceedings are pending to facilitate

any appropriate and necessary coordination with the private

actions. By multiplying the number of actions excluded from

centralization under Section 1407, the proposed legislation

might eliminate this alternative means of facilitating

coordination with respect to litigations involving both

federal and state antitrust actions.

Conclusion

Thank you for considering these comments. We request that

the Committees of the Judicial Conference and the Panel have

the opportunity to conduct more in-depth analysis of the

legislation before any further consideration by Congress.

Sincerely,

Roslynn R. Mauskopf,

Director.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1396, I call up the bill (H.R. 3843) to promote antitrust enforcement and protect competition through adjusting premerger filing fees, and increasing antitrust enforcement resources, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3843.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3843 is bicameral, bipartisan legislation that consists of three distinct titles, each of which would make modest, but important improvements to modernize our antitrust system and to help protect competition.

Title I of the bill updates the filing fees that merging parties pay to the Federal antitrust 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 workload.

This bill raises the fees that parties pay 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 antitrust enforcement while also saving taxpayers $1.4 billion over the next 5 years.

Title II of the bill requires merging parties to notify the antitrust 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 III of this legislation ensures that States do not have to waste precious time and taxpayer dollars when they litigate antitrust suits in Federal courts. It does this by exempting State enforcement of the Federal antitrust laws from the often time-consuming and costly multidistrict litigation process. Federal antitrust enforcement agencies are already exempt from this process, and the bill simply puts State antitrust enforcement on equal footing with the Federal Government.

Each element of this legislation enjoys bicameral, bipartisan support. Titles I and II have already passed the House as part of the America COMPETES Act, and title III passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

Together, they would help ensure that our antitrust agencies have the resources they need to protect competition, would provide important disclosures about foreign economic adversaries, and would strengthen State enforcement of our antitrust laws.

I thank Mr. Neguse for sponsoring this important package of bipartisan legislation. I also thank Mr. Cicilline and Mr. Buck, the chair and ranking member of the Antitrust 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Madam Speaker, I must confess I am a little puzzled at some of the remarks of Mr. Johnson. He says the FTC sics the FBI on parents or whatever. The FTC has no jurisdiction over the FBI and has nothing to do with them. The FTC is part of--never mind.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see that Mr. McClintock's argument is against all antitrust laws. Consumers make choices, so what do you need antitrust laws for is essentially what he is saying.

Companies buy other companies not just for good reasons. They buy other companies to reduce the competition, and thereby enable them to charge higher monopolistic prices. That is why we have antitrust laws.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with Mr. Issa. We should never have passed the Sherman Act to deal with those newfangled railroads.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).

Mr. Speaker, we do know how the money is going to be spent. It is going to be spent on antitrust enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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, may I inquire how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Rhode Island an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I find it amazing that the gentleman from Ohio would argue 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, well, there is a Presidential election coming up. That is the purpose of elections.

At the present time, the American people 2 years ago elected Joe Biden President and Kamala Harris Vice President, and the President appointed the Secretary of Justice and the chairman of the FTC, both of whom I think are doing an excellent job. But it is a matter of debate which can be decided in the next Presidential election.

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.

All that the increase in fees does is update, because the last increase of fees was I don't know how many years ago, and there has been inflation. We need the enforcement against the large Big Tech companies because, as Mr. Jordan already earlier 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 that their power must be properly supervised by proper enforcement of the antitrust laws.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), who is a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, this bicameral and bipartisan legislation is supported by a broad coalition of labor, consumer, and public interest groups.

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 excessive concentration of industry, the abuses of market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and monopsony.''

Every single United States Senator--every Democrat, every Republican--agrees with this. It is only in this House that there are some people who, for unfathomable reasons, disagree.

Madam Speaker, this bill is squarely in the tradition of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Celler-Kefauver Act, and it should be passed.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3843, the ``Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2021,'' a bill to ensure fair treatment of small- and medium-sized businesses that are engaged in a merger.

This bill enhances fairness by incentivizing mergers between small and medium-sized enterprises while simultaneously disincentivizing monopolization from larger corporations.

Small and medium-sized enterprises, also known as SMEs, are integral to the U.S. economy. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, over the past decade, SMEs have created approximately two-thirds of new private sector jobs, greatly expanding the job market and providing new financial opportunities for hardworking families and individuals.

However, current merger filing fees have impeded businesses that are looking to merge because steep fees may be unaffordable for these SMEs.

Meanwhile, large corporations benefit from disproportionately smaller merging fees that enable them to dominate marketplaces by absorbing smaller companies.'

This bill intends to modify and expand the schedule by establishing graduated merger filing fees and requiring that such fees are adjusted each year based on the Consumer Price Index.

To ensure a fair market for the public, the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2021 adjusts the fees made during the merger process based on the aggregate total amount of the merger, considering the adjusted price at the beginning of the fiscal year.

The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2021 intends to directly solve this issue by amending the aggregate total brackets utilized to determine the filing fee of the merger, where larger aggregate totals incur greater fees.

This legislation would amend the merger fees by decreasing them from $45,000 to $30,000 for the first bracket. The criteria to qualify for this bracket are also adjusted. The bracket qualification has been increased to include aggregate total amounts of up to $161,500,000 from the previous value of $100,000,000.

Similar adjustments are made to the next two brackets, decreasing the meger fee for companies in the second bracket from $125,000 to $100,000 and decreasing the fee of the third, and formerly highest, bracket from $280,000 to $250,000.

Finally, the bill will add a fourth, fifth, and sixth bracket for the largest companies which have aggregate total amounts that exceed $1,000,000,000, $2,000,000,000, and $5,000,000,000 respectively. In this way, larger mergers are less incentivized as they must pay a larger fee than before.

According to Texas Economic Development, the state of Texas is home to 3 million small businesses. Texas is home to diverse and numerous small businesses committed to technological discovery and economic stimulation, ranging from scientific development to agriculture and forestry.

Allowing SMEs to thrive without the extra pressures of merger fees is integral to safeguarding the economic freedoms these businesses need in order to grow and compete against large corporations who seek to dominate and monopolize the marketplace.

Overall, these changes accomplish two goals in promoting a fair marketplace for small- and medium-sized companies.

First, the adjusted merger fee has been decreased for smaller firms, and the qualifying aggregate total has been increased, which encourages mergers among medium-sized companies. By decreasing the fees required for mergers, medium-sized businesses will have more financial resources to reallocate towards developing their workforce, acquiring needed materials, and reinvesting.

Second, this bill hopes to discourage mergers between larger businesses by establishing larger brackets such that businesses whose aggregate total accounting for more than $1,000,000,000, $2,000,000,000, and $5,000,000,000 will not be grouped together. These businesses will be required to pay a larger fee, ideally discouraging monopoly formations.

Additionally, this bill seeks to provide oversight of foreign transactions that may potentially influence the U.S. market. Merging companies must disclose any subsidies received from foreign economic competitors.

The Merger Filing Fee Act of 2021 promotes mergers between medium- sized businesses by adjusting the fee for merging based on the 2022 fiscal year, while also disincentivizing larger-sized businesses from forming monopolies by creating higher brackets with greater fees.

A fair marketplace can be fostered through the implementation of this bill, encouraging small and medium-sized businesses to look for growth opportunities and mitigate extra pressures added by foreign economic imbalances.

Madam{ Speaker, I urge my fellow Congressmembers to support this bill dedicated to ensuring a fair marketplace for ambitious and innovative American companies by eliminating cost hurdles and establishing fairness in relation to large corporations.

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 adversarial interests in transactions more apparent; and it allows more streamlined antitrust enforcement by State attorneys general.

On the first issue, 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 and larger mergers to pay more.

There is no question about it--this issue came up at the Committee on Rules--this bill does not fund a single additional dollar to any agency. This is a revenue generator. There is no appropriation. The appropriations process will require that this be treated like any other revenue the Federal Government generates, in that the Appropriations Committee, in regular order, will decide how to spend the money.

People should also not be concerned because, under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, the DOJ Antitrust Division's use of appropriated funds is limited to ``expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and kindred laws.'' There is already a limitation.

It doesn't provide any additional funding. It simply generates revenues and shifts burdens to the largest transactions so that the taxpayers don't have to be responsible for their review.

In recent decades, the rising tide of economic concentration has given rise to monopolies that exercise outsized 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 Deese, the director of the National Economic Council, explained: ``It is unacceptable for these agencies' resources to lag so far behind the growth of the economy they are charged with protecting.'' That is why the Biden-Harris administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy in support of this bill.

We can have the fight about whether additional resources are necessary during the appropriations process. This bill simply raises the fees, gives smaller businesses a break, and doesn't appropriate a single dollar.

Title III of the bill strengthens antitrust enforcement by preventing the 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 State attorney general in the United States wrote a letter urging Congress to pass the bill's amendment to the multidistrict litigation statute ``as soon as possible so that our citizens can benefit from more efficient, effective, and timely adjudication of antitrust actions.''

Mr. Speaker, I, too, urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation, and I applaud them for their sponsorship. I thank Mr. Buck, who has been a tremendous leader on this package of bills. There should be no question. Senator Lee, Senator Cotton, and Senator Grassley have said that this package represents ``a strong bipartisan consensus.''

These bills improve antitrust enforcement without appropriating any more funds. You don't have to believe me. Those are your Republican colleagues who made the same point.

In addition to that, this 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, to the monopolists, but it is harmful to their own constituents, their consumers, their businesses, which is why they support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a number of items to reflect the broad support enjoyed by H.R. 3843.

First, is a strong Statement of Administration 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 abuse of market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and monopsony.

Second, is a letter of support for 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: ``States should accordingly be on equal footing with Federal enforcers in deciding where, when, and how to prosecute cases'' and not subject to a system where their enforcement actions ``may be subject to transfer to a multidistrict litigation at the request of the defendant,'' where the cases are typically ``postponed and may be joined with other lawsuits brought by private plaintiffs.''

Third, is a letter from a broad coalition of 36 labor, consumer, and public interest groups, including Public Citizen, Public Knowledge, Open Markets Institute, AFL-CIO, Teamsters, and SEIU, which states: ``This bipartisan, bicameral legislation represents a critical first step for Congress to reverse the course of lax antitrust enforcement that has proved to be destructive to small businesses, workers, communities, and innovation.''

Fourth, is a statement from Chris Jones of the National Grocers Association, who says that: ``This bipartisan bill does not change the antitrust laws; it takes the simple step of helping enforcers have a better shot of deterring abusive marketplace conduct that American consumers cannot afford right now.''

Finally, a statement from Diana Moss, president of the American Antitrust Institute, states that: ``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.''

For all of those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense package that will help to enhance competition, give us the ability to improve our economy, and benefit consumers, workers, innovators, and small businesses.

Statement of Administration Policy,

H.R. 3843--Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2022--Rep. Neguse, D-

CO, and 39 cosponsors

The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 3843, the

Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2022.

Open, fair, and competitive markets are essential to the

welfare of American families, workers, farmers, and

businesses. As the President stated in his Executive Order on

Promoting Competition in the American Economy, ``it is the

policy of my Administration to enforce the antitrust laws to

combat the excessive concentration of industry, the abuses of

market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and

monopsony.'' The Act would support this critical mission in

three important respects.

First, to vigorously enforce the antitrust laws, the

Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission

(FTC) need the resources to do their jobs. Yet even as the

number, size, and complexity of mergers has grown, the amount

oft he filing fees that parties must pay in advance of

premerger review by the DOJ and the FTC has not kept pace.

Moreover, both agencies' annual appropriations support many

fewer employees today than they did in 1979, even though the

economy has grown significantly since then, and even though

the agencies' core missions involve bringing complex cases

against some of the best-resourced companies in the world.

The Act would update the regime for merger filing fees to

make it fairer and better targeted. The Act would reduce the

size of the fees required for smaller transactions, while

raising them for the largest mergers that often require the

most extensive reviews.

Second, the Act would respect the important role of State

Attorneys General in Federal antitrust enforcement by

harmonizing the process for transferring antitrust cases

filed by State Attorneys General with those filed by Federal

agencies. This would increase the efficiency and efficacy of

antitrust enforcement.

Third and finally, the Act would require disclosure of

merger subsidies by foreign adversaries. Requiring disclosure

of foreign subsidies, such as by Chinese and Russian

entities, in the premerger notification process would assist

the DOJ and the FTC in preventing anticompetitive

transactions through which adversaries could gain influence

over important parts of the economy.

The Administration encourages the House to pass the

bipartisan Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2022 and

looks forward to working with Congress on this important

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman again for yielding.

I just want to make clear, once again, that this bill does not appropriate money to the FTC, 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 FTC or the Department of Justice will be made like every other appropriation: by the Members of the Congress of the United States after a robust debate, and the Congress will decide.

This generates revenue and makes certain that big mergers are paid for by gigantic near monopolies of big corporations and not by our constituents, and it lowers the price for merger reviews on smaller transactions. So that is all it does.

Secondly, it is important to remember that, as Mr. Buck said, this isn't a Republican or Democrat bill.

I want to read to you a statement from Senator Klobuchar and Senator Durbin:

``The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act is the product of years of bipartisan work in both the House and

Senate to improve the enforcement of our antitrust laws and protect competition and consumers. This package of bills will update merger filing fees and help ensure that the Federal antitrust agencies can be properly funded, that information on foreign subsidies is made available to Federal enforcers, and that State antitrust enforcement can proceed more efficiently and without needless delays.''

I have a statement from Senator Lee, Senator Cotton, and Senator Grassley--Republicans in the Senate--who say: ``This package represents a strong, bipartisan consensus approach to strengthening enforcement of the Federal antitrust 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 is an example of where we can work together collectively to respond to a serious problem: the consolidation of economic power. Antitrust is important because we know competition is the single greatest driver of innovation. Without competition you don't have innovation, and innovation produces more choices, better quality, and lower prices. It benefits consumers, small businesses, and workers.

I 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 Tech know 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 percent in poll after poll.

But one other thing I wanted to just mention is that with concentrated economic power often comes concentrated political power. That is one of the dangers of monopoly. They have too much political power. Let's prove them wrong and pass this bill.