Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, Americans are tired of monopolies that saddle them with less choices and higher prices.

The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice must have the resources that they need to aggressively combat anticompetitive mergers.

This commonsense, bipartisan legislation that we are considering today is absolutely needed right now in order to protect consumers. It makes giant companies pay their fair share, improves transparency, and streamlines litigation.

This should not be--and it isn't--a partisan piece of legislation. At a hearing I was chairing as the chair of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce, we had testimony last year from a Bush- appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission, Bill Kovacic, who called for a tripling in the FTC budget. He recognized that this agency should play a leading role in enforcing our laws that protect consumers, workers, and innovation.

I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a very compelling statement made by both Senator Klobuchar and Senator Durbin in favor of the legislation.

(By Amy Klobuchar, U.S. Senator from Minnesota, Sept. 29, 2022)

Klobuchar, Durbin Issue Statement Urging House to Pass Bipartisan

Legislation to Strengthen Antitrust Enforcement

Washington.--U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Chairwoman

of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition

Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights, and Dick Durbin (D-

IL), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the

statement below urging the House of Representatives to pass--

H.R. 3843, the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act.

``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. We call on all House Members to

support this important bipartisan legislation.''

The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act includes the House

companion to Klobuchar's merger filing fees reform bill with

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Senator Durbin to help

ensure antitrust enforcers have sufficient resources to

protect consumers by updating merger filing fees and lowering

the burden on small and medium-sized businesses. It also

includes the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act,

Klobuchar's legislation with Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) to

empower state antitrust enforcement by allowing state

attorneys general litigating antitrust cases to remain in

their selected courts. H.R. 3843 has been endorsed by a

coalition of State Attorney Generals:

Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record Mr. Kovacic's testimony.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce

Safeguarding American Consumers: Fighting Frauds and Scams During the

Pandemic

Testimony of William E. Kovacic, February 4, 2021

Federal Trade Commission Budget and Compensation Levels for Employees

There is a grave mismatch between the duties Congress has

assigned the FTC and the resources it has given the agency to

carry out its mandate. There is a serious need to raise the

FTC's budget, but not simply to build a larger staff by

hiring more people. Reforms to the federal compensation

system are necessary to attract and retain a larger number of

elite personnel. I do not see how the FTC or many other

public agencies can recruit and retain necessary personnel

without a significant increase in the salaries paid to

managers and staff.

Consider two possibilities for compensation reform. The

first is to align FTC salaries with the highest scale paid to

the various US financial service regulators. One model would

be the compensation scale used to pay employees of the

banking regulatory agencies; the salary scale for these

bodies exceeds the General Schedule (GS) federal civil

service wage scale by roughly twenty percent. In adopting the

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in

2010, Congress concluded that the importance of the mission

of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

warranted higher salaries for the agency's personnel. If the

higher salary scale made sense for the CFPB, I see no good

reason why a more generous compensation schedule is not

appropriate for what is the nation's leading consumer

protection agency (and its leading federal data protection

authority.

A second, more ambitious alternative would be to triple the

FTC's existing budget of about $330 million per year and use

the increase mainly to raise salaries and partly to add more

employees. This experiment might be carried out for a decade

to test whether a major hike in pay would increase the

agency's ability to recruit the best talent, retain the

talent for a significant time, and apply that talent with

greater success in a program that involves prosecuting

numerous ambitious cases and devising other significant

policy initiatives.

A major increase in compensation, either by adopting the

CFPB model or trying our my more ambitious proposal, is a

crucial test of our national commitment to improve the

foundations for effective consumer protection enforcement.

The nation should spend what it takes to get the best

possible personnel to run the difficult cases (and carry out

other measures, such as the promulgation of trade regulation

rules) that will be the pillars of a new, expanded

enforcement program. Such steps will become even more

important if new political leadership seeks to close the

revolving door, which has operated as a mechanism to

encourage attorneys and economists to accept lower salaries

in federal service in the expectation of receiving much

higher compensation in the private sector at a later time.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 466.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Bacon (Hartzler)

Beatty (Cicilline)

Bilirakis (Fleischmann)

Brooks (Fleischmann)

Buchanan (Bucshon)

Carter (TX) (Weber (TX))

Cawthorn (Gohmert)

Cherfilus-McCormick (Neguse)

Chu (Beyer)

Cleaver (Adams)

Conway (LaMalfa)

DeFazio (Pallone)

Demings (Dean)

Diaz-Balart

(Reschenthaler)

Dunn (Cammack)

Evans (Beyer)

Gallego (Correa)

Garcia (TX) (Escobar)

Gimenez (Malliotakis)

Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa)

Gosar (Weber (TX))

Herrera Beutler (Meijer)

Horsford (Garamendi)

Jackson Lee (Cicilline)

Jacobs (NY) (Sempolinski)

Jayapal (Cicilline)

Johnson (TX) (Stevens)

Kelly (IL) (Cicilline)

Kirkpatrick (Pallone)

Lawson (FL) (Stevens)

Lynch (Trahan)

Mace (Nehls)

Mast (Waltz)

McEachin (Beyer)

Meng (Escobar)

Murphy (FL) (Peters)

Newman (Beyer)

Ocasio-Cortez (Neguse)

Palazzo (Fleischmann)

Payne (Pallone)

Pfluger (Ellzey)

Porter (Neguse)

Rice (NY) (Morelle)

Rice (SC) (Meijer)

Rush (Beyer)

Ryan (OH) (Correa)

Salazar (Waltz)

Sewell (Cicilline)

Sherman (Garamendi)

Simpson (Fulcher)

Soto (Escobar)

Speier (Garamendi)

Steel (Obernolte)

Steube

(Reschenthaler)

Torres (NY) (Correa)

Vargas (Garamendi)

Wasserman Schultz (Schneider)

Waters (Takano)

Wilson (SC) (Norman)

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6965) to promote travel and tourism in the United States, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 H.R. 6965.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6965, the Visit America Act.

Since the beginning of the COVID pandemic, America's travel and tourism industry has been seriously upended. The pandemic caused a 48 percent reduction for the industry in 2020. The bipartisan Visit America Act is the latest bill that the House has brought to the floor to help turn the tide for a sector that has not rebounded as quickly as some others.

From the Committee on Energy and Commerce, we are so happy that we are able to bring this to the floor.

While travel has certainly increased over the last year, it is still significantly lower than previously before the pandemic. As an example, business travel spending is on the rise, but it is still expected to be 50 percent below 2019 levels. In the meantime, the number of travelers visiting the United States from overseas fell by 79 percent in September 2021 as compared to that same month in 2019.

These are significant reductions that are impacting not only companies directly involved in the tourism and travel industry but small businesses all across the Nation that rely on travelers to keep them in business.

Today, the United States is the only G20 country not to have a high- ranking official focusing on the travel and tourism industry. This has prevented the industry from producing a coordinated approach to recovery of the industry and to make us more competitive with the rest of the world.

H.R. 6965 addresses this deficiency and provides the industry with a path forward for continuing recovery and growth in the future. This bill establishes the role of the assistant secretary of commerce for travel and tourism at the Department of Commerce. It also requires the assistant secretary to develop and implement a COVID-19 pandemic recovery strategy, as well as strategic plans for future disruptions that hopefully we aren't going to see.

The bill also requires the Department of Commerce to develop a 10- year travel and tourism strategy, as well as provides statutory authority for the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, which will aid the assistant secretary in developing and implementing these important strategies.

H.R. 6965 passed out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce last week unanimously, 56-0. I commend the tireless and passionate efforts put forth by Representative Titus, the author of this legislation. Without her and the good work done by Representatives Soto, Case, Kuster, and the late Don Young--God bless his heart--we would not have gotten this agenda done. I also thank Chairmen Nadler and Meeks for working with us to get this to the House floor today.

I know the Senate has also been working on travel and tourism legislation and is moving forward with a package of bills that includes the Visit America Act. Although there are some technical differences between the two bills, my hope is that we can get together and work together as quickly as possible and get this legislation passed.

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, September 23, 2022.

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Pallone: This letter is to advise you that

the Committee on the Judiciary has now had an opportunity to

review the provisions in H.R. 6965, the ``Visit America

Act,'' that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction. I appreciate

your consulting with us on those provisions. The Judiciary

Committee is willing to forgo action on H.R. 6965, with the

understanding that we do not thereby waive any future

jurisdictional claim over those provisions or their subject

matters.

In the event a House-Senate conference on this or similar

legislation is convened, the Judiciary Committee reserves the

right to request an appropriate number of conferees to

address any concerns with these or similar provisions that

may arise in conference.

Please place this letter into the Congressional Record

during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank

you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked

regarding this matter and others between our committees.

Sincerely,

Jerrold Nadler,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).

Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to support this legislation because it is so important, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Lowell Sachnoff, renowned fighter for justice, who will be receiving the 2022 Justice John Paul Stevens Award on September 29, 2022. The Stevens Award, presented by The Chicago Bar Association and Chicago Bar Foundation, is the highest and most prestigious award that is presented annually to lawyers and judges whose career best exemplifies the distinguished career of United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Lowell Sachnoff was born on Maxwell Street in Chicago, the son of Ukrainian immigrants who fled Eastern Europe, settled in Chicago, and raised their family during the Great Depression. He was inspired to become a lawyer by his grandparents' stories about how terrible life was in a lawless society. Since graduating from Harvard Law School in 1957, Mr. Sachnoff has been on two parallel tracks: doing well and doing good.

He has had a long and successful legal career in Chicago. After a few years at Ross, McGowan, and O'Keefe, he was appointed General Counsel for the Illinois Department of Mental Health, where he overhauled the state mental health code to expand the rights of the mentally ill and worked with the medical community to bring treatment of the mentally ill into the 20th century.

In the early 1960s, Mr. Sachnoff established the law firm of Sachnoff & Weaver with a few friends. As he puts it, ``We had a vision. We

wanted to do well, because we were young and had growing families, but we also wanted to do good. As the firm grew to 130 lawyers, we found that we could still do both; after our merger with Reed Smith, the firm encouraged us to stay on the same path.''

On that path, Mr. Sachnoff was a successful securities and antitrust lawyer, winning groundbreaking price-fixing and takeover cases. But he also advocated for the wrongfully incarcerated, for women, minorities, the poor, and society's most vulnerable.

In 2006, Sachnoff & Weaver was one of the first firms to represent Guantanamo Bay detainees. Lowell and his colleagues helped successfully negotiate the release of three prisoners who had been held for many years without being charged with any crime. He also litigated women's rights issues, winning a jury verdict in the 1980s against the City of Chicago allowing police officers to routinely strip search women for minor traffic violations and represented a class of women's health clinics, obtaining a celebrated jury verdict and nationwide injunction in 1998 against forcible blockades of clinic entrances.

Now retired as a corporate litigator, Sachnoff continues to volunteer on public interest matters, most notably working with Senator Dick Durbin and his staff toward closing the Guantanamo prison, thus removing a moral and legal stain on our country, and to release patients unlawfully held in state mental hospitals.

Lowell Sachnoff is a cherished friend, mentor, and advisor. He works alongside his wife, Fay Clayton, also an accomplished retired lawyer and women's rights advocate. My husband, Robert Creamer, and I have enjoyed the privilege of their friendship, wisdom, kindness, and insights. Congratulations to Lowell Sachnoff on this well-deserved recognition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the assault weapons ban.

I live very close to Highland Park, Illinois, and I have heard from literally hundreds of people and met with hundreds of people--students, teachers, parents, small businessowners, and, yes, even law enforcement officials--who demand that we pass an assault weapons ban.

Today's vote would not be possible without the fearless and tireless work of advocates and survivors. This day is for them. I think that there is no rational reason that we would allow these weapons of mass destruction that ravage our families, our communities, and even our way of life to be on the streets of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote to ban assault weapons.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of the cosponsors of the legislation. Particularly, I want to mention Robin Kelly, who is not able to be here today. I know she wanted to be able to speak to this legislation.

But it was brought to our Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee by a really brave mom, and that is Trista Hamsmith, a woman who lost her 18-month-old daughter, Reese, tragically after she ingested a tiny button cell battery.

And I am just so proud of not only the subcommittee, but the full committee that unanimously has passed this and brought it now to the floor.

But we give a special thanks to Trista Hamsmith, mom of Reese.

So, as the chairman mentioned, these batteries are found in many household devices and even toys that are used by children. And it is estimated that once every 3 minutes, a child is treated in an emergency room having swallowed one of these small batteries.

These deaths and injuries that continue are absolutely not necessary because voluntary standards for their packaging and to protect children are just not present.

And so, Reese's Law would require that the Consumer Product Safety Commission draft mandatory standards for these button cell or coin batteries. And these standards will ensure that the batteries' packaging would have information about what is dangerous; and that they would be child-resistant and would have warning labels on the packages and instructions for parents to protect their children.

More times than not, I want to just say that in our subcommittee we learn from parents about the hazards that their children face. And I am just so proud that, with the help of Gus Bilirakis, the ranking member of the subcommittee, the help of both the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee, and our full committee, we are able to address these hazards.

And the fact that Trista was able to bring Reese's story to us and tell it--you know, sometimes I think that our subcommittee is--you know, we have to pass out tissues because of the stories that we hear from these parents--and turn their tragedy into power and are able to make the difference.

So I just want to thank my friends and colleagues, and I look forward to passing this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am here to shed light on the unprecedented mental health crisis that is devastating countless families, including many in my own community.

Earlier this year, I attended the funeral of Orli Sheffey, an outstanding young constituent, and the daughter of my dear friend Steve Sheffey. She passed away at the age of 19 as a result of mental illness--an invisible illness that far too many Americans confront. I rise to honor Orli today. In Hebrew, Orli means ``my light,'' and Orli was a light to so many. She was a daughter, a sister, a classmate, and a friend, and while her time on this Earth was brief, her impact is lasting.

It is clear that we must confront the nationwide mental health crisis. Too many people feel like they are in darkness. Too many people feel alone and ashamed. And too many people cannot find the resources and health care that they need. According to reports, 4 in 10 Americans report suffering from anxiety or depression. It's not hard to see why. Americans have been forced to deal with a devastating pandemic, mass shootings, racial injustice, and increasing hate crimes and intolerance.

Congress and the Biden-Harris Administration recognize this crisis. I am proud that we passed the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act, to improve mental health resources for healthcare workers. I am grateful that the 9-8-8 suicide and crisis lifeline is now LIVE. I urge anyone who is struggling with a mental health crisis to call the 9-8-8 lifeline. And we need to make sure that the resources that Congress has already created are known and easily accessible. In 2016, my bill, the Mental Health on Campus Act was enacted through an appropriations package. It created a grant program to ensure that colleges and universities could provide vital mental health resources for students. We must make sure students can access these resources and do not feel ashamed or stigmatized for doing so. There is much more work to be done.

It is critical at this moment that we honor Orli. Part of what we can do is to work to shine light on this crisis. I will never stop fighting to ensure that the mental health needs of our communities are met.

Madam Speaker, I thank the sponsors of this legislation for their support. I have been proud to join them.

Madam Speaker, you know, you would think that everyone would want to protect access to contraception and to family planning, especially people who are opposed to abortion. Yet, we have seen that there have been efforts to exclude available and effective contraception, that there has been an effort to limit the choices that women have to even have contraception. So, yes, we absolutely need to pass this bill. We need to pass it into law. We need to do it right now.

Madam Speaker, 99 percent of Americans are in favor of contraception, so let's pass this legislation. We should do it with all our Members on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 380.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Auchincloss (Beyer)

Barragan (Beyer)

Bowman (Neguse)

Boyle, Brendan F. (Beyer)

Carter (TX) (Weber (TX))

Correa (Beyer)

Crist (Wasserman Schultz)

Demings (Kelly (IL))

Escobar (Garcia (TX))

Foster (Spanberger)

Gallego (Soto)

Gosar (Weber (TX))

Houlahan (Spanberger)

Kahele (Kelly (IL))

Katko (Joyce (OH))

Keating (Beyer)

Kirkpatrick (Pallone)

Lawson (FL) (Evans)

Leger Fernandez (Kuster)

Meng (Kuster)

Moore (WI) (Beyer)

Newman (Beyer)

Palazzo (Fleischmann)

Pingree (Kuster)

Porter (Neguse)

Salazar (Kim (CA))

San Nicolas (Takano)

Sires (Pallone)

Smucker (Keller)

Stevens (Kuster)

Taylor (Weber (TX))

Thompson (MS) (Bishop (GA))

Walorski (Fleischmann)

Williams (GA) (Neguse)

Wilson (SC) (Norman)

Amendments En Bloc No. 8 Offered by Ms. DeLauro of Connecticut

Madam Speaker, I lived the days before abortion was safe and legal in the United States of America, and I remember the desperation of women, some of them my friends, some of whom had to make really dangerous decisions about how they were going to be able to exercise control over their own bodies and make this most personal decision on their own. Some women died because they sought these dangerous methods on their own to end a pregnancy.

Let's be clear: Roe v. Wade wasn't the beginning of women having abortions; it was the end of women dying from abortions.

Abortion is healthcare. When Roe v. Wade finally became the law of the land, women were able finally to control their own bodies.

This bill is about freedom, and one of the most precious freedoms that we have is the freedom to travel from State to State in the United States of America.

What happens to the woman who is happily pregnant and who may be going to visit her family in Illinois, where, thank God, abortion is still legal? Are you going to check her out? Is she going to have to prove somehow that she is not going for an abortion? How are you going to enforce this without going into all the personal history of women who are traveling across State lines?

Enough is enough. In the United States of America, the right to travel is sacred. It is protected under the Commerce Clause, and we will not go back. Women will not go back.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 346.

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, my amendment is very simple. It gives a preference to defense contractors who will remain neutral in union organizing. I say neutral--not pro and not con. Contractors who commit to remain neutral in organizing campaigns commit to not breaking strikes, and it gives preferences also to those who would have a union bargaining agreement. These are not requirements. These are preferences, the kind of preferences that we have for small businesses and that we have for veterans and a number of other preferences that are given.

Now, let's understand that we are talking about $422 billion in contracts that are given to businesses. By the way, small businesses also have a preference out of a $778 billion defense act. So these are big taxpayer expenditures that we are talking about.

It seems to me given that we want to make sure that workers are also acknowledged that we say that it would be a good thing if we don't have companies like Amazon, for example, that get a lot of money in defense contracts and spend a lot of money trying to make sure that workers cannot bargain collectively. So let's give preferences to those who actually do acknowledge workers. That is the only idea of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) in support of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that this has nothing to do with stifling the rights of companies to communicate. It does prevent them from harassing workers and preventing them from doing what they need to do. I just want to point out that there are companies that include UPS, Levi Strauss, AT&T, Verizon, and, most recently, Microsoft, that have these agreements.

Big companies do it. They can do it.

Let's protect workers and the rights of the companies as well. We can do both.

Mr. Speaker, I am so happy about this bipartisan legislation and really excited about the changes that are going to be made, because for all 24 years that I have been in Congress, I have not had a townhall meeting or a meeting with my constituents where the issue of access and affordability of mental health services has not come up.

Right now, our country is facing a mental health crisis like we have not seen before. We are seeing that families are losing loved ones to COVID, to suicide, and to overdoses.

This bill will provide vital services in substance abuse and mental health, four things mainly. We will see a strengthening of parity. We voted for parity a long time ago, and now we are going to make sure that mental health and physical health are on the same page.

We are going to have 30 programs that are going to strengthen and reauthorize mental health services. We are going to have more education for doctors. We are going to have doctors be able to have more patients for certain mental assistance treatment.

This is a great bill. We should all be proud to vote for it.

Madam Speaker, on June 8, 2022, I was otherwise detained and absent from the vote on Roll Call No. 246. Had I been present, I would have voted: YEA on Roll Call No. 246, H.R. 7352, the PPP and Bank Fraud Enforcement Harmonization Act.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I will share a conversation that I had with Anna Kate, who is a constituent of mine in my district. She called my office absolutely distraught; this was late in the day of the shooting. She said that parents have really reached their breaking point right now and that she is afraid, and she is afraid for her 7-year-old son.

She said, I want to tell my child, you will be safe in school.

What a simple sentence that most parents--any parent--would want to say. ``You will be safe in school.''

But I can't, she said.

Children continue to die, and this is on all of us, all of our conscience. There is no issue more important than this.

We can do something starting today, something real. We can finally pass this legislation. Let's do it.