Congressional Record, Volume 168 Issue 158 (Thursday, September 29, 2022)

[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 158 (Thursday, September 29, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8228-H8230]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AMENDING SECTION 301 OF TITLE 44, UNITED STATES CODE, TO ESTABLISH A
TERM FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING
OFFICE

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (S. 4791) to amend section 301 of title 44, United States Code, to
establish a term for the appointment of the Director of the Government
Publishing Office.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

S. 4791

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TERM FOR APPOINTMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE
GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE.

(a) In General.--Section 301 of title 44, United States
Code, is amended--

[[Page H8229]]

(1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The President''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) The Director shall be appointed for a term of 10
years.
``(c) An individual appointed to the position of Director,
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, may be
reappointed to that position in accordance with subsections
(a) and (b).''.
(b) Application to Incumbent.--If there is an individual
serving in the position of Director of the Government
Publishing Office, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, on the date of enactment of this Act--
(1) the amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with
respect to the appointment of such individual; and
(2) the term of the individual for purposes of subsection
(b) of section 301 of title 44, United States Code, as added
by subsection (a), shall be considered to have started on the
date on which the individual assumed the office of Director
of the Government Publishing Office.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney
Davis) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.

General Leave

Ms. LOFGREN. 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 the measure under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong support of S. 4791. This bill, which was introduced
by Senator Roy Blunt, passed the Senate by unanimous consent. It would
establish a term of 10 years for the Director of the Government
Publishing Office.
Unlike the heads of other legislative branch agencies like the
Architect of the Capitol, the Comptroller General, and the Librarian of
Congress, the Senate-confirmed Director of the Government Publishing
Office has no defined term.
Now, the Government Publishing Office, or GPO, as we often refer to
it, is one of the true treasures of the legislative branch. Since it
was founded in 1861, it has grown from a modest operation to one of the
world's largest and most renowned information organizations.
Every day, GPO provides the government and public both conventionally
printed products like the Congressional Record and passports, and
digital services like eBooks, digital publishing, mobile access, and
more. It also plays a key role in continuity of government in case of
an emergency.
Over the course of the past several years, we have seen firsthand the
importance of effective leadership at GPO. The COVID-19 pandemic caused
the largest disruption to agency operations since the Civil War. But
thanks in no small part to the leadership of Director Hugh Halpern, GPO
provided top-notch, uninterrupted service to Congress to ensure that we
were able to provide relief to American families, communities, and
small businesses; and the agency did so thoughtfully and responsibly,
with the discipline needed to stay as safe as possible.
In fact, one prominent business award organization named GPO the
``Most Valuable Employer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.''
This bill would bring the GPO in line with the rest of the
legislative branch and establish the same 10-year term for its director
that currently exists for the Architect of the Capitol and the
Librarian of Congress. As with those agencies, the Director of the
Government Publishing Office would be eligible for reappointment and,
given his track record, certainly would have earned it.
Formalizing the term of the director will ensure that the agency has
effective leadership and allow for increased transparency and
accountability. For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support
this piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 4791, a bill that will
establish a 10-year term limit for the Director of the Government
Publishing Office.
I thank my friend in the Senate, Senator Roy Blunt, for introducing
this bill earlier this month, and for the Senate's quick action on it.
Although a change to a term limit may seem inconsequential, I would
like to encourage my colleagues that this is a bill that will greatly
benefit the entire legislative branch.
The GPO plays a vital role for our Congress. As the original
``Government's Printer,'' the agency has supported the House and the
Senate for over 160 years. Although Americans engage with their
government in much different ways than they did in 1861 when the GPO
first opened its door, the agency has adapted. It has upheld its vision
to achieve an ``America Informed'' by updating processes, technology,
products, and even its name, to meet the needs of Americans today.
Much of the strategic success over time can be pinned down to two
driving forces: Congress keeping GPO accountable to the needs of the
institution, and strong agency leadership.
Today, we find ourselves at a time when GPO is under the strongest
leadership it has seen in decades. Director Hugh Halpern is a man whose
career was shaped in the House of Representatives. From working on
numerous House committees, including the Rules Committee, to being
Director of Floor Operations, Hugh knows our institution and has taken
that knowledge to the GPO.
In the time since his appointment, he has greatly increased the
transparency of the GPO, of course, with congressional oversight; has
launched numerous modernization initiatives to ensure that GPO products
truly serve Congress and the American people; and got GPO back to work
faster than any other legislative branch agency as we overcame the
pandemic.
The strategic plan GPO has in place is setting a course of
predictable and accountable progress, a plan that should be supported
by stable leadership. Right now, GPO is unlike other legislative branch
agencies in not having a set term for its director. S. 4791 corrects
that and aligns the GPO director position with its counterparts by
establishing a 10-year term limit.
Not only does this strengthen the agency by increasing institutional
stability, but it also reinforces that the Director of the GPO serves
Congress and the American people, not the executive branch.
I am thankful for Director Halpern's leadership and innovation at the
GPO, and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation to
further the GPO's accountability to this institution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Halpern did, indeed, work in the House of Representatives. He was
on the Republican staff, and I think it is meaningful that the chair
and ranking member of the House Administration Committee, Democrat and
Republican, feel the same way; that he has done a terrific job as
director of this office.
The term limits is not about him. It is my understanding he actually
supports Senator Blunt's bill; but it is simply to have a time where
you evaluate and then you can reappoint, just as with the Librarian of
Congress and the Architect of the Capitol.
Since I don't have additional speakers, I am going to take advantage
of a little bit of time to discuss an item that will be up for
consideration on the floor later today; and that has to do with a
proposed change to venue rules for Federal antitrust cases. It is very
arcane, which is why I think it is important to discuss the minutiae of
this.
In 1968, Congress acted to allow a senior judge panel to consolidate
cases where it would be efficient for the Court. Here is the example.
State AGs have the capacity, right now, and would in the future, to
file antitrust cases. But if you had, as they did in 1968, a
multiplicity of AGs filing a case in different States, you would end up
with different witnesses having to go through the same thing over and
over again, inconsistent rulings; and so that is why the Congress
consolidated this.
In that case, it was large, multi-district litigation having to do
with electrical equipment, and it has worked pretty well. Why we would
change it is something that has been a mystery to

[[Page H8230]]

me. The arguments in favor, I think, do not hold water.
The Administrative Office of the Courts has pointed out that the U.S.
cases are not subject to transfer under this section; and why is that?
The Department of Justice coordinates itself, unlike the separate
attorneys general.
I do think that the possibility of adverse outcomes is quite
possible. Certainly, Mr. Neguse's bill to raise fees is something I
support. I am a cosponsor of that bill. But if we reject the venue
provisions, we will just go back and bring Mr. Neguse's bill up later;
so that is what I would recommend.
I just want to say something further. This venue rule is not just
oriented toward one sector of the economy. Mr. Buck, the author,
mentioned technology yesterday, ``Big Tech'' was his words.
But this isn't about technology. It is any business that is a
defendant in an antitrust case. As I mentioned, the initiation was an
electrical equipment company.
But I think we should listen to what people say. Mr. Buck, in his
remarks, said yesterday, Big Tech is crushing conservative speech, and
that appears to be his motivation.
Well, he quotes his friend, Senator Cruz, and he says, the greatest
threat to democracy in this country is Big Tech; that Senator Cruz
agrees with that. Well, really? I mean, Senator Cruz, who voted not to
amend the Electoral Count Act that was promoted by Roy Blunt, the
author of this; who tried to overturn the election of 2020; who says
that moderating inflammatory or dangerous content is a violation of
free speech or may be a violation of antitrust.
I think that is the danger here; and I listened to Mr. Buck because
he said this is about conservative speech. So I think one potential
outcome of this is litigation that will be brought in favorable forums
to try and prevent content moderation.
If you are Infowars, and you are inciting violence, I am hoping
whatever platform you are on takes you down. That is not conservative
speech or liberal speech, that is dangerous speech, and I do hope that
we will see this for what it is.
Not every AG is a model of probity. The Attorney General in Texas
right now is hiding from process servers and has, as we know, some
other legal problems.
To suggest that every Attorney General is going to be guided by
principles of law, as we would hope the Department of Justice and many
of the AGs are, would be a serious mistake.
I am glad to have had a moment to get into this very arcane issue
because there may not be time later today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
I actually have some time left myself and was debating on what to
talk about. I don't really have anything to talk about with successful
fantasy football teams this weekend, so I am actually glad that my
colleague brought up the Electoral College Act.
What we saw in the Senate were some changes to their legislation that
we had requested the House majority do when that bill passed the House
last week, so I am excited to see those changes in the Senate.
I am excited that the chairperson mentioned during our rules debate
last week that maybe we could have a conference committee. That is a
chance for bipartisan agreement on a very important issue, so I look
forward to seeing whether that opportunity presents itself.
But as we stand here today, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to put the
Government Publishing Office Director in line with every other
executive branch appointed legislative branch employee, like the
Architect of the Capitol, like the Librarian of Congress.
What is happening at the GPO has garnered bipartisan support today,
and we need to continue to see that progress.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.

{time} 1045

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I also urge adoption of Senator Blunt's
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, S. 4791.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________