skip to main content

H.R. 5645: Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules Act of 2018

May 9, 2018 at 4:25 p.m. ET. On Passage of the Bill in the House.

This was a vote to pass H.R. 5645 (115th) in the House.

H.R. 5645 would amend the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act to align certain procedures followed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) when it reviews a proposed merger or acquisition with the procedures followed by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The bill also provides the FTC with the same authority DOJ already possesses to seek an injunction against a proposed merger in Federal court; therefore, removes the ability of the FTC to pursue internal administrative litigation following a court’s denial of an FTC preliminary injunction request. This bill does not inhibit either agency’s authority to challenge monopolistic transactions or ones that would substantially lessen competition.

Two federal agencies, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission, share responsibility for the enforcement of federal antitrust laws. These laws generally promote marketplace competition and protect consumers from anticompetitive mergers and business practices.

Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 to prohibit certain anticompetitive business activities and require the government to investigate and pursue trusts. In 1914, Congress passed two additional antitrust laws: the Federal Trade Commission Act, which created the FTC, and the Clayton Act. With some revisions, these are the three core federal antitrust laws still in effect today.

Section 7 of Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions that would ‘‘substantially lessen competition’’ or “tend to create a monopoly.” “The DOJ and the FTC have essentially identical authority to enforce such provisions. When the antitrust enforcement agencies conclude that the consummation of a proposed transaction would violate Section 7, the agencies pursue an injunction of the transaction in Federal court. Generally speaking, if the court grants the injunction, the parties abandon the merger; if the court denies the injunction, the parties consummate the transaction shortly thereafter.”

“The FTC and DOJ confront different standards when seeking a preliminary injunction of a proposed transaction in court.” When reviewing the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction, courts apply the standard explicitly set forth in Section 13(b) of the FTC Act.  By comparison, Section 15 of the Clayton Act, pursuant to which DOJ seeks injunctions, does not specify a standard of review; therefore, DOJ must meet the traditional preliminary injunction standard. These disparate preliminary injunction standards can yield different results.

In a report issued by the bi-partisan Antitrust Modernization Commission, they recommended that, “Parties to a proposed merger should receive comparable treatment and face similar burdens regardless of whether the FTC or the DOJ reviews their merger. A divergence undermines the public’s trust that the antitrust agencies will review transactions efficiently and fairly. More important, it creates the impression that the ultimate decision as to whether a merger may proceed depends in substantial part on which agency reviews the transaction. The importance of removing any potential divergence is underscored by the fact that it often is mere chance or, the ‘flip of a coin,’ that determines which agency reviews the proposed transaction.”[4]

Additionally, in contrast to the DOJ, the FTC sometimes only seeks a preliminary injunction in such proceedings in order to preserve their right to pursue administrative litigation following the denial of a preliminary injunction request. When the FTC seeks to prevent the consummation of a proposed transaction, it will file simultaneously an administrative complaint that initiates the administrative litigation process, in an attempt to preclude the parties from closing the transaction while the administrative litigation is pending.

In the 114th Congress, identical legislation, H.R. 2745, was passed by the House, by a vote of 235-171 on March 23, 2016.

Source: Republican Policy Committee


All Votes R D
Yea 55%
Nay 45%
Not Voting

Passed. Simple Majority Required. Source:

Ideology Vote Chart

Republican - Yea Democrat - Yea Republican - Nay Democrat - Nay
Seat position based on our ideology score.

Cartogram Map

Each hexagon represents one congressional district. Dark shaded hexes are Yea votes.

What you can do

Vote Details

Notes: The Speaker’s Vote? “Aye” or “Yea”?
Download as CSV

Statistically Notable Votes

Statistically notable votes are the votes that are most surprising, or least predictable, given how other members of each voter’s party voted and other factors.

All Votes

Study Guide

How well do you understand this vote? Use this study guide to find out.

You can find answers to most of the questions below here on the vote page. For a guide to understanding the bill this vote was about, see here.

What was the procedure for this vote?

  1. What was this vote on?
  2. Not all votes are meant to pass legislation. In the Senate some votes are not about legislation at all, since the Senate must vote to confirm presidential nominations to certain federal positions.

    This vote is related to a bill. However, that doesn’t necessarily tell you what it is about. Congress makes many decisions in the process of passing legislation, such as on the procedures for debating the bill, whether to change the bill before voting on passage, and even whether to vote on passage at all.

    You can learn more about the various motions used in Congress at If you aren’t sure what the House was voting on, try seeing if it’s on this list.

  3. What is the next step after this vote?
  4. Take a look at where this bill is in the legislative process. What might come next? Keep in mind what this specific vote was on, and the context of the bill. Will there be amendments? Will the other chamber of Congress vote on it, or let it die?

    For this question it may help to briefly examine the bill itself.

What is your analysis of this vote?

  1. What trends do you see in this vote?
  2. Members of Congress side together for many reasons beside being in the same political party, especially so for less prominent legislation or legislation specific to a certain region. What might have determined how the roll call came out in this case? Does it look like Members of Congress voted based on party, geography, or some other reason?

    One tool that will be helpful in answering this question is the cartogram at the top of the page. A cartogram is a stylized map of the United States that shows each district as an identical hexagon. This view allows you to see the how the representatives from each district voted arranged by their geography and colored by their political party. What trends can you see in the cartogram for this vote?

  3. How did your representative vote?
  4. There is one vote here that should be more important to you than all the others. These are the votes cast by your representative, which is meant to represent you and your community. Do you agree with how your representative voted? Why do you think they voted the way they did?

    If you don’t already know who your Members of Congress are you can find them by entering your address here.

Each vote’s study guide is a little different — we automatically choose which questions to include based on the information we have available about the vote. Study guides are a new feature to GovTrack. You can help us improve them by filling out this survey or by sending your feedback to