PAVA Program Inclusion Act

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. 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 (S. 3969) to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to explicitly authorize distribution of grant funds to the voting accessibility protection and advocacy system of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the system serving the American Indian consortium, and for other purposes, 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 include extraneous material on S. 3969 in the Record.

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

I rise in strong support of S. 3969, the PAVA Program Inclusion Act.

The bill before us today is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation that makes an important technical correction in the Help America Vote Act's Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access, or PAVA, program to explicitly include the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the

system serving the American Indian consortium as eligible recipients of PAVA funding.

When Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002, it made significant changes to the country's voting process, addressing needed improvements to voting systems and voter access identified in the wake of the 2000 election. Since its enactment, Congress has provided billions of dollars under HAVA to help States improve voters' access to the ballot, including hundreds of millions of dollars in election security funds over fiscal years 2018, 2020, and 2022 and $400 million under the CARES Act to help voters access the ballot during the COVID- 19 pandemic.

Amongst the numerous changes made, HAVA recognized the unique obstacles persons with disabilities face at the polls, authorizing funding for the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access program, otherwise known as PAVA. The PAVA program funds activities aimed at increasing access to the polls and the ballot for voters with disabilities, ensuring they have access to all aspects of the voting process, and awarding funding to eligible protection and advocacy systems across the country.

Since HAVA's enactment, the millions of dollars in funding allocated under the PAVA program allows protection and advocacy systems across the country to conduct activities such as disability training for poll workers, maintaining voting hotlines, examining polling places for accessibility, and even more.

There are 57 protection and advocacy systems across the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as well as the American Indian consortium. The P&A affiliated with the American Indian consortium serves Native Americans with disabilities in the Four Corners region of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah.

P&As are federally mandated and protect the rights of persons with disabilities through legally based advocacy. Unfortunately, HAVA's definition excluded the protection and advocacy systems serving the Northern Mariana Islands and the American Indian consortium serving the Four Corners region. I don't think we intended that, and this bill fixes that.

Reintroduced this Congress by our colleague, Representative Ruben Gallego of Arizona, and our former House colleague, Senator Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, S. 3969 puts the P&As serving the Northern Mariana Islands and the American Indian consortium on equal footing with all 55 other P&As. It does so without changing the program's overall authorization level or other elements of the program.

Fixing this oversight will help ensure all voters with disabilities, regardless of where they live, can fully participate in the electoral process.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by all 57 protection and advocacy systems expressing support for the bill, as well as a letter of support from the National Disability Rights Network and a letter from the designated protection and advocacy systems in California and Illinois, all supporting this bill's package.

January 28, 2020.

Representative Zoe Lofgren,

Chairwoman, House Administration Committee, Washington, DC.

Representative Rodney Davis,

Ranking Member, House Administration Committee, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, language making this correction has passed the House twice this Congress in other legislation, and it should be enacted into law.

The Senate passed this bill by unanimous consent in March, and passing it in the House today will ensure that it will go to the President's desk to become law.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the proponent of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our majority leader.

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

We have agreement on this bill from the Senate, and that is a good thing. I should note that we have had discussions, primarily at a staff level, on the election observer measure mentioned by the ranking member and Mr. Steil. We continue to evaluate the proposal, but we found a few concerns. I will mention them now. It is not arbitrary.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Reclaiming my time. My staff indicates that there have been discussions. Obviously, that was at a staff level. But I have outlined what the concerns are, and I would at this point like to close so that we can let the House get to its other business.

To go on suspension, both sides of the aisle need to agree, and I think that is a very important provision of our procedures that will continue, whichever party is in the majority, and that was how this ended up. Because that bill really is not necessarily connected with this PAVA bill. I will talk about another bill that is not connected with the PAVA bill, and that is the venue bill I mentioned earlier this morning.

I forgot to mention, and I put it into the Record last night, that the Progressive Policy Institute, as well as the chamber of commerce, opposes that venue provision. I do think the fact that Senator Cruz, Senator Cotton, Senator Hawley, Mr. Buck and Mr. Gaetz are for it doesn't persuade me that it is a safe measure to move forward to, even though I very much support the Neguse bill. If this does not pass today, I am sure the Neguse bill will come back because we do need resources to enforce our antitrust laws. I am totally on board with that.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will pass this bill from the Senate that will protect disabled voters in the Northern Mariana Islands and the American Indian consortium, that they will have the same access to funding as all the others, and I urge support.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a different day here on the House floor for a debate over a bill with Committee on House Administration jurisdiction. I once again agree with the majority that this is a good piece of legislation, albeit I was a little concerned when my colleague just mentioned that officials in California and Illinois support this bill. I had to take a step back and realize, well, maybe I will talk to my team about who those officials are before I offer my wholehearted support.

But in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, as part of the Help America Vote Act created in 2002, Congress authorized funding for the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access program to help ensure every eligible American, regardless of their abilities, can participate in the election process and cast their ballot privately and independently.

Funds for the PAVA program are currently allocated to only 55 of 57 legally established protection and advocacy systems across the country. The bill today makes an important correction to ensure that both the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the American Indian consortium are included as eligible recipients for the first time.

This bill, as mentioned by my colleague, sponsored by my good friend, Senator Roy Blunt, passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and Republicans on the Committee on House Administration are supportive of these changes and have no issues with the bill.

To be honest, I am somewhat disappointed that my colleagues in the majority on the Committee on House Administration have chosen not to pass this bill under suspension. For months, our staffs have been working together to pair the PAVA Program Inclusion Act with H.R. 8517, the Confirmation of Congressional Observer Access Act, a noncontroversial bill brought forward by Subcommittee on Elections Ranking Member Bryan Steil.

Both bills make nonpartisan, noncontroversial amendments to HAVA. Mr. Steil's bill doesn't change Federal law or practice but simply provides a citation of convenience for existing law that gives the House authority to deploy official observers to watch the conduct of congressional elections in the States and territories.

Both Democrats and Republicans have long deployed House staff as election observers to monitor congressional elections. Sometimes, our observers have had access difficulties, including in a widely publicized event in Maricopa County, Arizona, 2 years ago.

So, we listened when many State and local election officials asked Congress to speak more clearly about this constitutional exercise so they can more readily provide access for our observers, which is why our committee staffs had agreed in principle to move both bills together.

That was until just a few weeks ago when the Democrats' staff said they had issues. But when my staff reached out, they couldn't say what those issues were and met my staff with silence.

We gave Democrats another opportunity to bring these bills up together during Rules Committee earlier this week when Mr. Steil offered an amendment to include his election observer bill, but it was rejected along party lines.

Now, we are here on the House floor talking about a bill that should have passed under suspension alongside Congressman Steil's commonsense bill to ensure integrity and faith in our elections.

While I will support the bill before us today, I urge my Democrat colleagues in the majority to quickly bring forward the Confirmation of Congressional Observer Access Act for a vote, as well.

I was encouraged by comments earlier this week at the Committee on

Rules by my good friend, the chair of the Subcommittee on Elections, Congressman G.K. Butterfield, about Mr. Steil's good piece of legislation and continue to hope we can work together on a bipartisan basis to make it law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, could I make a quick point of personal privilege?

Is there any way to get the time of that ``magic minute'' this time? I want to sign a printout from the Congressional Record for my good friend from Maryland.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask Majority Leader Hoyer about his time.

I have somewhat become used to being the antagonist to some of the majority's legislation when it comes to election administration, which I think has been so shortsighted on its impact to the American people. But this is one of those opportunities where we see good legislation come from the Senate, and this is an opportunity for us to show the American people that Republicans and Democrats can get along and pass important bills that are going to positively impact those who are disabled, and ensure that every single person who may be dealing with a disability in this country and in our territories has the right to vote, the eligibility to vote, and the opportunity to vote. That is what this bill does.

Really, I have got to thank again my colleague, Roy Blunt, Senator Blunt, who used to be in leadership in this institution, as many of us know and remember so well. I thank him for bringing Republicans and Democrats on the House Administration Committee and Leader Hoyer and I together on this very important issue.

I wish he would have come in earlier on some other issues, we might have had a little more bipartisan agreement. I will have to talk to him about that and ask him why he didn't do that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends, Leader Hoyer and Chairperson Lofgren, and I thank the staff for pushing this important bill forward.

I am disappointed and optimistic that we did not get the election observer fixes that both parties want and need and election administrators throughout the country have asked us to address. I am disappointed that was not part of a suspension agreement, where this bill should have been. I am cautiously optimistic with the great opportunity for bipartisanship that we are seeing here today that maybe it can continue after today. I won't hold my breath, but I will continue to remain optimistic and, hopefully, see that moving forward very quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Steil for his remarks, and I thank Leader Hoyer and, also, again, my good friend, Mr. Blunt, for all their hard work.

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

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

This is the first time we have heard these concerns, on the House floor today. We have not had any discussion between our staffs. I would have loved to have worked through some of these.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We are here to debate the rule providing for consideration of three bills: H.R. 7780, Mental Health Matters Act; H.R. 3843, Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act; and S. 3969, Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access, or PAVA, Program Inclusion Act.

H.R. 3843 would increase funding to the Federal Trade Commission without justification or restrictions on that funding. This is the same agency that, through its strategic plan for the next 4 years, removed a longstanding clause that states the agency will not unduly burden legitimate business activity.

In the coming term, the Supreme Court will hear a case as to whether the FTC is mission creeping beyond the bounds of its constitutional authority. The FTC, through its initiatives in antitrust enforcement, has taken an increasing liberal view of its traditional focus on protecting consumers from fraud and ensuring businesses have clear rules to follow and is instead moving toward an interpretation of reshaping the American economy through enforcement action.

In the Committee on the Judiciary, my colleagues offered amendments to put limitations on this funding.

Mr. Roy offered an amendment to prohibit appropriated funds from being used to promote critical race theory and one to require funds to be used to enforce antitrust laws as defined in the Clayton Act.

Mr. Fitzgerald offered one to prohibit funds from being used for non- enforcement activities.

Mr. Bishop offered one to limit the scope of the bill to only apply to mergers involving large technology companies.

All of these failed on party lines, and I can't understand why, unless my colleagues on the left want to encourage the FTC to get involved in issues outside of its purview. The FTC is out of control under this administration and cannot be trusted with these additional resources.

H.R. 7780 misses the mark. Republicans are committed to addressing the mental health crisis facing young people in the country. Unfortunately, this bill is another one-size-fits-all proposal that fails to provide local leaders with the flexibility they need to address the unique problems they face. Republicans support mental health parity, but this bill will actually do the opposite. It opens insurers and employers to lawsuits when they voluntarily offer to provide mental health care benefits.

As with so many bills promoted by the majority this Congress, provisions of this bill ban arbitration clauses, class action waivers, and representation waivers, discouraging other means of settling disputes and pushing creating even more bottlenecks in our judicial system.

During markup, Republicans offered an alternative bill that streamlined existing programs, helped the needs on the ground, helped all students in need regardless of where their school is, and included important accountability metrics. I wish we were discussing that bill here today. Unfortunately, this and every other Republican amendment is effectively blocked from discussion under this rule.

Mr. Speaker, it is for that reason that I oppose the rule and ask Members to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will offer an amendment to the rule allowing for the immediate consideration of H.R. 6184, the HALT Fentanyl Act.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, over 100,000 people died from fentanyl overdoses in a 1-year span, according to the CDC. That is a 30 percent increase from the year before.

Fentanyl is now the number one cause of death for Americans ages 18 to 45. I think we can all agree that something must be done to put a stop to this heartbreaking epidemic.

Fentanyl has been temporarily classified as a schedule I substance. This classification strengthens law enforcement's ability to prosecute fentanyl traffickers, and DEA reports that it has acted as an effective deterrent.

The HALT Fentanyl Act would make the schedule I classification permanent and would also promote research by removing regulations and streamlining the research process. We should do everything we possibly can to put an end to the devastation caused by fentanyl in this country, and the HALT Fentanyl Act is one piece of the puzzle that could make a real difference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) to speak further on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, while I want to be in favor of these bills, Republicans are in agreement that the underlying problems these bills seek to solve are valid and warrant our attention. There are serious flaws with these bills as written that must be considered first. H.R. 7780 is a one-size-fits-all strategy that will not help the people on the ground. What a school in Minneapolis needs is not likely what a school in my rural district needs. Furthermore, it pushes people in the courts to settle disputes and discourages other methods of resolution.

H.R. 3843 trusts the FTC with no-strings-attached funding, even though the FTC is becoming increasingly partisan and cannot be trusted with more resources.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule, and I encourage other Members to do the same.

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

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