A bill 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.

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.

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.

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. 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

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. Speaker, I also urge adoption of Senator Blunt's bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4791, which is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.