The vote was 393-8.
Both chambers passed initial versions in recent months and reached an agreement on a final bill this week. It next heads to the Senate for final passage — where it’s expected to pass — then to the President Donald Trump’s desk for his signature.
The vote took place during the chamber’s final vote series before House members left town to campaign in their districts until after the midterm elections.
Addiction could stem from ancient retrovirus, study suggests

The crisis is a devastating problem that has been a top priority for most lawmakers due to the widespread havoc it’s wreaking across the nation. In 2016, more than 63,600 people died from an overdose in the United States — and 42,249 of those deaths involved an opioid, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Provisions in the final package touch on a wide range of issues related to the crisis, such as expanding access to treatment and recovery services, coming up with opioid alternatives for pain treatment, intercepting illegal opioids at mail facilities and combating use of fentanyl.
The legislation includes more than 70 provisions based on bills by members of both the House and Senate, who’ve been working on the issue for more than a year.
It also comes after Congress passed a massive spending bill in March that included $4 billion to address the crisis. Included in another spending bill that the President is expected to sign this weekend is $6.7 billion for programs that fight, treat, and stop substance abuse.
“Seldom can we say that federal legislation will actually save lives, but we know this bipartisan package will do just that by improving treatment for those battling addiction, and slowing the flow of illegal, deadly synthetic drugs into America,” said Oregon Republican Rep. Greg Walden, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
The top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Frank Pallone, described the legislation as a “critical step” in the ongoing battle to address the issue.
“While this legislation will not solve every problem, I do believe it includes important policies that will help turn the tide of this tragic opioid epidemic,” he said on the House floor. “It will also improve treatment options for those battling other substance use disorders.”

Jeff Flake had barely finished speaking before Sen. Chuck Grassley cut him off, adjourning the committee. “Because of the two-hour rule, we’re adjourned,” Grassley said. There was a moment of silence, before Sen. Feinstein asked incredulously, “What?”

Flake seemed to be surprised, too.

Sen. Dianne Feinstin then turned to Grassley to argue there was no vote, to which Grassley replied, “We had to get this all done by 2:00.”

“Well, is it done? Is Flake’s argument going to happen or did you cut off a vote?” Feinstein asked.

“We didn’t have a motion,” Grassley said. “This is all a gentlemen and women’s agreement.”

Feinstein repeated “a gentleman and women’s agreement…” then cut off a colleague who interrupted. “Let him say what he’s committed to,” she said, as the microphones cut off.

“They have to do what they think is right. They have to be comfortable with themselves,” Trump said of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “That’ll be a decision that they’re going to have to make. … Whatever they think is necessary is OK.”
Trump was reacting on the fly from the White House to news that Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, a key swing vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination, was demanding a week-long FBI investigation before a vote is held on the Senate floor to confirm Kavanaugh.
But Trump made clear he had been meeting with the Chilean president and did not yet have all the information about the discussions on Capitol Hill.
“I’m just hearing a little bit about it,” Trump said. “I just want it to work out well for the country. If that happens, I’m very happy.”
After a day spent sitting rapt before his television watching emotionally charged testimony, Trump awoke Friday confident in his Supreme Court nominee’s chances. That optimism was evident by the parade of White House officials blanketing morning television to proclaim Kavanaugh’s name all but cleared from sexual assault allegations, which were levied in vivid detail by his accuser Christine Blasey Ford.
But if Trump’s team was buoyed by Kavanaugh’s explosively irate response, they were not quite ready to proclaim outright victory ahead of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s meeting.
“We believe we’re getting there,” Raj Shah, a White House spokesman detailed to Kavanaugh’s confirmation team, said on CNN’s “New Day,” long before Flake requested a delay. “We think that yesterday was a strong step forward.”
“I certainly hope so and I certainly think so and I think that we have to move forward in this process,” said White House press secretary Sarah Sanders when questioned on ABC if the votes were in place for confirmation.
It was a cautiously upbeat approach that reflected a still-uncertain fate for Kavanaugh, whose angry and tearful performance on Capitol Hill played well at the White House but less clear how it affected the fence-sitting senators who will decide whether to confirm or deny him a seat on the court.
A wrenching day, and now a decision

White House officials have been in regular contact with those Republican lawmakers, which include Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
Sanders told reporters on Friday that Trump himself hadn’t yet spoken to those senators following the hearing. Trump did phone Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday, and they agreed that the Senate should move forward on voting on Kavanaugh’s confirmation — though that was before Flake requested the delay of the full floor vote.

In an exclusive on-camera interview with CNN, Facebook Head of Cybersecurity Policy Nathaniel Gleicher tells Donie O’Sullivan how the tech giant is trying to solve its troll problem and avoid a repeat of 2016.

Sophie Turner plays Sansa Stark and told IGN there were “a lot of tears” when she read the series finale script.
“I think, you know, as an actor it was really satisfying — I think for everyone, everyone’s storylines — to be able to act out the way that it all ends,” she said. “It was really satisfying for us.”
As for how obsessed viewers of the hit HBO series will feel, Turner had a different opinion.
“Who knows if it will be satisfying for the fans,” Turner said. “I think a lot of fans will be disappointed and a lot of fans will be over the moon, I think.”
Based on the popular George R.R. series of fantasy novels, “Game of Thrones” is known for its rabid — and vocal — fan base and they’ve been eagerly awaiting the eighth and final season of the show.
“I think it will be really interesting to see people’s reactions. But, for me, reading the script, it was just, like, heartbreaking to read at the very final page of the script. It just says, ‘End of Game of Thrones,'” Turner said. “That was really emotional.”
The actress, who is also reprising her role as X-Men member Jean Grey in “Dark Phoenix,” gave some insight into her “Game of Thrones” character during the final season.
“She kind of takes ownership over who she is and what she stands for,” Turner said. “Over the course of the series, she’s been completely unaware of what she wants, where she wants to be, who she really is. At the end of this season, I feel she is the most self-assured character in the show.”
“Game of Thrones” is slated to return in summer 2019.

Facebook suspends data firm with Trump ties

Facebook is facing an existential crisis.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal has done immense damage to the brand, sources across the company believe. It will now take a Herculean effort to restore public trust in Facebook’s commitment to privacy and data protection, they said. Outside observers think regulation has suddenly become more likely, and yet CEO Mark Zuckerberg appears missing in action.

Subscribe to PACIFIC

The scandal also highlights a problem that is built into the company’s DNA: Its business is data exploitation. Facebook makes money by, among other things, harvesting your data and selling it to app developers and advertisers. Preventing those buyers from passing that data to third parties with ulterior motives may ultimately be impossible.

Indeed, the most alarming aspect of Cambridge Analytica’s “breach” is that it wasn’t a breach at all. It happened almost entirely above board and in line with Facebook policy.

Aleksandr Kogan, a University of Cambridge professor, accessed the data of more than 50 million Facebook users simply by creating a survey filled out by 270,000 people. Facebook provided Kogan with the data of anyone who took the survey, as well as their friends’ data. In a statement, Facebook said, “Kogan gained access to this information in a legitimate way and through the proper channels that governed all developers on Facebook at that time.”

Are you quitting Facebook? Tell us why or why not.

The one rule Kogan violated, according to Facebook, was passing the user data to third parties, including Cambridge Analytica, the political data firm founded by former Trump aide Steve Bannon and conservative donor Robert Mercer.

But even Facebook sources acknowledged to CNN that it is impossible to completely monitor what developers and advertisers do with the data once it’s in their hands. It’s like selling cigarettes to someone and telling them not to share the cigarettes with their friends.

The limits of Facebook’s ability to enforce compliance with data usage was highlighted by Facebook’s own response to Kogan’s violation. Facebook says it learned of Kogan’s violation in 2015 and was subsequently assured by all parties that the data had been destroyed. But Facebook also says it learned just days ago that “not all data was deleted.”

In a statement, Facebook deputy general counsel Paul Grewal said “protecting people’s information is at the heart of everything we do.” That may be a hard argument for the public to accept given that Facebook’s business is providing people’s information to outside parties whose ultimate goals are unknowable.

Related: What you need to know about Facebook’s data debacle

Facebook says that starting in 2014 it gave users greater control over what parts of their information are shared with app developers and advertisers. It also says it has enhanced its app review process to require developers “to justify the data they’re looking to collect and how they’re going to use it — before they’re allowed to even ask people for it.”

Still, the sources inside Facebook acknowledge that such measures cannot guarantee that some people won’t succeed in mining Facebook data and passing it off to third parties.

Related: Zuckerberg and Facebook under fire from politicians in US and UK

On Capitol Hill, the talk of regulation is growing louder. Lawmakers seeking tighter restrictions on big tech feel even more emboldened than they did in the wake of revelations about Russian meddling in the 2016 election, a source on Capitol Hill told CNN.

Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar has called on Zuckerberg to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which she serves, to explain “what Facebook knew about misusing data from 50 million Americans in order to target political advertising and manipulate voters.”

Meanwhile, Zuckerberg and the rest of the Facebook leadership seem conspicuously absent. Neither the Facebook CEO nor his top deputy, Sheryl Sandberg, have commented publicly on the matter. They have left that task to Grewal, a lawyer. No one has provided an adequate explanation for why Facebook did not disclose Kogan’s violation to the more than 50 million users who were affected when the company first learned about it in 2015.

“We are conducting a comprehensive internal and external review and are working to determine the accuracy of the claims that the Facebook data in question still exists. That is where our focus lies as we remain committed to vigorously enforcing our policies to protect people’s information,” Grewal said in a statement Sunday.

All of this comes as Facebook is already getting questions about the long-term appeal of its platform, at least in the United States. The number of daily active users in the United States — a whopping 184 million — declined for the first time last quarter. Facebook also lost 2.8 million users under the age of 25 last year, and is set to lose another 2 million this year, according to eMarketer.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal is likely to hasten user disenchantment with the network, sources inside Facebook acknowledged. Facebook is increasingly being seen as a platform vulnerable to manipulation by political groups, foreign governments, or worse.

Ultimately, however, the real culprit in the eyes of the American public may not be Cambridge Analytica or the Russians, but rather Facebook itself.

Exclusive: Is Facebook doing enough to stop election meddling?

Facebook’s ad targeting system is being used by some employers to unlawfully discriminate based on gender, a new complaint says, the latest in a string of allegations of discrimination being allowed in Facebook ads.

On Tuesday, the ACLU, law firm Outten & Golden, and labor union Communications Workers of America filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Facebook and 10 other employers for allegedly using Facebook ads to discriminate against potential job seekers.

The complaint was filed on behalf of three female job seekers and a group of “thousands” of members represented by the labor union. The named complainants are also seeking to represent a broader proposed class of what the ACLU says is “millions” of Facebook users who may have been similarly impacted.

It alleges that job ads on Facebook were targeted exclusively to male users, and that most of these listings were for positions in male-dominated fields. As a result, all women and non-binary users were excluded from receiving the ads, according to the complaint.

“The employers for those jobs are probably thinking they need to fill them with people who look like the people who currently hold those jobs. The problem is, that is unlawful,” Galen Sherwin, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, told CNNMoney.

The complaint alleges that Facebook (FB) allows advertisers to target job ads based on age and gender. This is against federal and local laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Additionally, the government can forbid job advertising that discriminates based on sex, according to a Supreme Court ruling in 1973, the complaint said.

“I shouldn’t be shut out of the chance to hear about a job opportunity just because I am a woman,” said Bobbi Spees, one of the three complainants in the case, according to a press release.

“There is no place for discrimination on Facebook; it’s strictly prohibited in our policies, and over the past year, we’ve strengthened our systems to further protect against misuse,” Facebook spokesperson Joe Osborne said in a statement to CNNMoney. “We are reviewing the complaint and look forward to defending our practices.” Facebook also said it would soon require all advertisers to consent to complying with its anti-discrimination policies and the law.

Juan Mundel, an assistant professor of advertising at DePaul University, noted that Facebook is “the biggest advertising agency in the world at the moment.”

“While Facebook will do its best to satisfy regulations and make small adjustments, they won’t actually make any decisions that will drastically affect their business model which allows it to hyper-segment consumers,” he added.

According to ACLU’s Sherwin, the fix is simple: She suggests Facebook stop making it an option for employers to select a gender for targeting job ads.

Mundel says, more broadly, Facebook could apply more oversight to determine if employers are appropriately and legally applying targeting for specific ad purposes.

Facebook isn’t the only company allowing advertisers to target ads, according to Mike Yao, a technology and advertising expert at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

“Facebook is an easy target, but I think the problem goes way beyond Facebook,” he said.

In the past, the company has faced criticism about its advertising platform and whether its systems allow for discrimination.

Most recently, the Department of Housing and Urban Development accused Facebook of violating the 1968 Fair Housing Act in August. It filed a formal complaint against Facebook claiming the platform lets landlords and home sellers use targeted ads to discriminate against potential buyers or renters based on race, sex, religion, disability and other factors.

In response, Facebook said it eliminated 5,000 targeting options that could be potentially misused to discriminate.

Last December, a ProPublica and New York Times investigation found that dozens of major employers, including Verizon, ran recruitment ads only for certain age groups. At the time, Facebook said age-based targeting is “an accepted industry practice.”

The ACLU complaint also includes allegations that employers were able to target younger users on Facebook thereby discriminating by age.

In November, a separate ProPublica report found discriminatory advertisements were getting through Facebook’s systems. ProPublica was able to purchase dozens of home rental advertisements targeted toward audiences that specifically excluded “African Americans, mothers of high school kids, people interested in wheelchair ramps, Jews, expats from Argentina and Spanish speakers.”

Discriminatory housing-related advertisements are not allowed under the Fair Housing Act. The law prohibits the advertisement of homes for rent or sale and discriminating “based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.”

Update: Due to an error in an ACLU press release, this story originally misidentified the quoted complainant.”

See how the committee voted below.

Those in favor of advancing the nomination

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas
Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Nebraska
Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-North Carolina
Sen. John Kennedy, R-Louisiana

Those opposed

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota
Sen. Christopher Coons, D-Delaware
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii
Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-California
The signing, which was scheduled to occur in private at noon on Friday, was done in the Oval Office and several lawmakers were present, the aide added.
The bill includes a continuing resolution that will fund remaining unfunded parts of government until December 7.
While the President previously gave mixed signals on whether he will sign the bill — due to its lack of money for a border wall — Trump suggested Wednesday that he would approve it, saying at the end of a meeting in New York, “We’ll keep the government open.”

After the Senate Judiciary Committee decided to move forward with a vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said to fellow senators that she views the stories of Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford differently.