PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Sep 27, 2019
Joint Task Force to Combat Opioid Trafficking Act of 2019
This bill authorizes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a joint task force to enhance border security operations to detect, interdict, disrupt, and prevent narcotics such as fentanyl and other synthetic opioids from entering the United States. DHS shall report to Congress as to whether it will establish such a task force. If such a task force is established, DHS shall periodically report to Congress on issues such as what additional resources are needed to detect and prevent narcotics from entering the United States.
The bill also authorizes DHS joint task forces to engage with and receive assistance from outside DHS, including private sector organizations and federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, or international entities.
People & committees
Rep. Langevin, James R. [D-RI-2] · D–RI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 403 - 1 (Roll no. 554). (text: 09/26/2019 CR H8022-8023)
House roll call 554 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 403 - 1 (Roll no. 554).(text: 09/26/2019 CR H8022-8023)
House roll call 554 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8071-8072)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3722.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8022-8024)
Mr. Correa moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 152.
Reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 116-194.
Reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 116-194.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 10, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3722 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3722 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3722 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3722 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.