Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1396, I call up the bill (S. 3969) to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to explicitly authorize distribution of grant funds to the voting accessibility protection and advocacy system of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the system serving the American Indian consortium, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 S. 3969 in the Record.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of S. 3969, the PAVA Program Inclusion Act. The bill before us today is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation that makes an important technical correction in the Help America Vote Act's Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access, or PAVA, program to explicitly include the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the system serving the American Indian consortium as eligible recipients of PAVA funding. When Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002, it made significant changes to the country's voting process, addressing needed improvements to voting systems and voter access identified in the wake of the 2000 election. Since its enactment, Congress has provided billions of dollars under HAVA to help States improve voters' access to the ballot, including hundreds of millions of dollars in election security funds over fiscal years 2018, 2020, and 2022 and $400 million under the CARES Act to help voters access the ballot during the COVID- 19 pandemic. Amongst the numerous changes made, HAVA recognized the unique obstacles persons with disabilities face at the polls, authorizing funding for the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access program, otherwise known as PAVA. The PAVA program funds activities aimed at increasing access to the polls and the ballot for voters with disabilities, ensuring they have access to all aspects of the voting process, and awarding funding to eligible protection and advocacy systems across the country. Since HAVA's enactment, the millions of dollars in funding allocated under the PAVA program allows protection and advocacy systems across the country to conduct activities such as disability training for poll workers, maintaining voting hotlines, examining polling places for accessibility, and even more. There are 57 protection and advocacy systems across the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as well as the American Indian consortium. The P&A affiliated with the American Indian consortium serves Native Americans with disabilities in the Four Corners region of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah. P&As are federally mandated and protect the rights of persons with disabilities through legally based advocacy. Unfortunately, HAVA's definition excluded the protection and advocacy systems serving the Northern Mariana Islands and the American Indian consortium serving the Four Corners region. I don't think we intended that, and this bill fixes that. Reintroduced this Congress by our colleague, Representative Ruben Gallego of Arizona, and our former House colleague, Senator Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, S. 3969 puts the P&As serving the Northern Mariana Islands and the American Indian consortium on equal footing with all 55 other P&As. It does so without changing the program's overall authorization level or other elements of the program. Fixing this oversight will help ensure all voters with disabilities, regardless of where they live, can fully participate in the electoral process. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by all 57 protection and advocacy systems expressing support for the bill, as well as a letter of support from the National Disability Rights Network and a letter from the designated protection and advocacy systems in California and Illinois, all supporting this bill's package. January 28, 2020. Representative Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman, House Administration Committee, Washington, DC. Representative Rodney Davis, Ranking Member, House Administration Committee, Washington,

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, language making this correction has passed the House twice this Congress in other legislation, and it should be enacted into law. The Senate passed this bill by unanimous consent in March, and passing it in the House today will ensure that it will go to the President's desk to become law. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the proponent of this legislation.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our majority leader.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have agreement on this bill from the Senate, and that is a good thing. I should note that we have had discussions, primarily at a staff level, on the election observer measure mentioned by the ranking member and Mr. Steil. We continue to evaluate the proposal, but we found a few concerns. I will mention them now. It is not arbitrary.

Ms. LOFGREN. Reclaiming my time. My staff indicates that there have been discussions. Obviously, that was at a staff level. But I have outlined what the concerns are, and I would at this point like to close so that we can let the House get to its other business. To go on suspension, both sides of the aisle need to agree, and I think that is a very important provision of our procedures that will continue, whichever party is in the majority, and that was how this ended up. Because that bill really is not necessarily connected with this PAVA bill. I will talk about another bill that is not connected with the PAVA bill, and that is the venue bill I mentioned earlier this morning. I forgot to mention, and I put it into the Record last night, that the Progressive Policy Institute, as well as the chamber of commerce, opposes that venue provision. I do think the fact that Senator Cruz, Senator Cotton, Senator Hawley, Mr. Buck and Mr. Gaetz are for it doesn't persuade me that it is a safe measure to move forward to, even though I very much support the Neguse bill. If this does not pass today, I am sure the Neguse bill will come back because we do need resources to enforce our antitrust laws. I am totally on board with that. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will pass this bill from the Senate that will protect disabled voters in the Northern Mariana Islands and the American Indian consortium, that they will have the same access to funding as all the others, and I urge support. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I do so reluctantly, because title I, raising the fees for enforcement, I am for that. As a matter of fact, I am a cosponsor of that bill. And title II, the foreign measure, I am for that. But title III is going to create a problem. This has been advanced as if it is noncontroversial. That is not the case. It is complicated. Let me try and be very simple. In 1968, Congress enacted a provision where if there was a multiplicity of antitrust lawsuits filed by State AGs who have concurrent jurisdiction, a senior panel could consolidate the cases so you wouldn't have inconsistent discovery, inconsistent decisions outside of the various regions. You don't need that with the Department of Justice because they do the consolidation internally when they bring the case. That is why it worked for the AGs, and it has worked very well for a long time. Contrary to what some have said, this is not a tech change. This is a venue change for all businesses, which is why I think the Chamber of Commerce said they would score the vote. I think we need to listen to the main proponent, Mr. Buck, on this. Last night, during the rule debate, he said Big Tech is crushing competition and crushing conservative speech, and that is what his venue bill is about, to prevent moderation of speech. Content moderation is important. We have seen, in the January 6th Committee, a lot of material that has spread lies, that has incited violence, and that content should be moderated. It should not be subject to a bogus effort by State AGs to prevent content moderation through the antitrust provision. To claim that that would not happen, I mean, AGs can bring cases right now without this provision--in fact, California just did against Amazon. Fine. Go at it if you have a case. But if you don't think that the attorney general of Texas, who is currently hiding from a process server and facing other legal complications, wouldn't try to use this to undermine content moderation, I think you are sadly mistaken. That would be, I am sure, for my Democratic colleagues, not their intent, but that would be a very sad result that would not be good for our country. Now, if we turn this bill down, I am sure what will happen is that the Committee on Rules will put the first two provisions that have broad support in our party back up, and I will happily vote for them, to give the resources for enforcement and the like. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this measure, with great sadness that we have been put in this spot.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Somos Mayfair, a community organization located in East San Jose. Mayfair is a vibrant neighborhood with a deep legacy of social services, community organizing, and social justice movements. Renowned labor leader Cesar Chavez did early work here and it is recognized as the birthplace of the Chicano Civil Rights Movement. Somos Mayfair builds community power in East San Jose through leadership development and by organizing resident-led solutions, Somos has built an inclusive vision of a thriving, healthy, and safe community. Recent accomplishments include: Building a network of resident leaders trained to be community organizers, leaders, and advocates; Providing over 1,600 parents and young children the resources and community they need through their Family Resource Centers; Collaborating with partners to win the development of Quetzal Gardens--a new project making affordable apartments available to residents; Securing $1.2 million for translation services within San Jose public schools; and Championing a local preference policy to protect residents from displacement. As we move forward in challenging, yet hopeful times, we salute Somas Mayfair and its families. We look forward to working together to create opportunities and advancement for all working families.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Billy DeFrank Center. The Center has been an incubator and catalyst for emerging groups and organizations working to meet the needs of the LGBTQ+ community. The Billy DeFrank Center opened its doors on March 1, 1981, in a two- room storefront. They turned opposition into opportunity by using funds from a failed campaign to repeal ordinances extending housing and employment protections to the gay community to finance their Center. The Center named itself after William Price, a popular African American drag queen, Billy DeFrank. A mural on the outside of the building honors his commitment to the community and his inclusive spirit. The Billy DeFrank Center housed several important groups, including High Tech Gays, a major force for change in the 80's and 90's. They successfully sued the Federal Government's Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (DISCO) for discriminatory practices in issuing High Security Clearances to the LGBTQ+ community. Sister Spirit Bookstore, a cultural hub for queer women, moved to Billy DeFrank Center's new and larger site in 1986. Currently, the Center collaborates with various service providers and Silicon Valley Pride to build, unify, and strengthen the LGBTQ+ community in the South Bay. Throughout the past 40 years, the Billy DeFrank Center has been a beacon of hope, a place to be who you are within your chosen family, to share information to address the diversity of needs in the LGBTQ+ community. Please join me in celebrating this significant milestone.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this rule and will vote ``no.'' I am a supporter of all three bills covered by this rule as they were originally introduced. I am even the cosponsor of Representative Neguse's bill to increase filing fees. However, very unfortunately, this rule advances a modified version of that bill. It tacks on provisions from Representative Buck's antitrust enforcement venue bill, and these antitrust venue provisions are unwise public policy. I vocally opposed them during the Committee on the Judiciary markup and have dutifully kept my leadership apprised of my opposition to them since that time. Despite proponents trying to sell these venue provisions as noncontroversial, I am far from the only Member with concerns. Furthermore, in a highly unusual move, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts wrote to Congress outlining their serious concerns with these venue policy provisions. Opposition also comes in letters from the Progressive Policy Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Proponents argue that State attorneys general are in favor. Well, I understand it was sold to them as a noncontroversial provision. Of course, they would be in favor. It makes life easier for them. It doesn't address the very serious issues outlined by the Administrative Office of the Courts, and it doesn't make this good, wise policy. So, very reluctantly, I will vote ``no.'' I would gladly support today's rule if these venue provisions were not tacked onto the other good bills. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letters from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Progressive Policy Institute, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Administrative Office of The United States Courts, Washington, DC, July 19, 2021. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Leader: I write regarding H.R. 3460, the ``State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act of 2021,'' which was ordered reported as amended by the Committee on the Judiciary on June 24, 2021. Neither the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (``Panel'') nor any of the relevant committees of the Judicial Conference of the United States (``Conference'') have had the opportunity to analyze this bill thoroughly. Considering its potential impact on the federal Judiciary and the efficient administration of justice, I offer for your consideration the following initial observations. These comments are neither expressions of support for, nor opposition to the bill. Nevertheless, I hope they are helpful and note that pending a more in-depth analysis, by both the Panel and the relevant Conference committees, additional comments may be submitted. Background Section 1407 was enacted in 1968, in the wake of a large multidistrict antitrust litigation involving alleged conspiracies to divide businesses and fix prices in multiple product lines of electrical equipment. That litigation encompassed more than a thousand actions in numerous federal judicial districts brought, in large part, by public utilities against virtually every manufacturer of electrical equipment. The sudden influx of civil antitrust actions led to the creation of ad hoc procedures to coordinate the litigation before a smaller number of judges to eliminate duplicative discovery and pretrial proceedings. Section 1407 was intended to serve as a permanent solution to the problem that large multidistrict litigations pose to the federal Judiciary's ability to administer its civil docket efficiently and justly. The statute created a panel of seven circuit and district judges, no two of whom shall be from the same circuit, which is authorized to transfer civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact and pending in different districts to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407(a). To distinguish from other forms of transfer and consolidation, transfer for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under Section 1407 is referred to as ``centralization.'' The Panel may transfer actions for centralized pretrial proceedings only if it determines that transfer will be for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions. Id. Civil actions transferred to multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceedings are remanded by the Panel at the conclusion of pretrial proceedings to their transferor districts (i.e., trial is conducted in the district of original filing), unless the actions were terminated during the course of pretrial proceedings. Id. Over the past fifty years, MDLs have encompassed a wide variety of civil litigation in the federal courts, but antitrust litigations have always constituted a core category of cases subject to centralization. Section 1407 contains one exception with respect to antitrust MDLs--enforcement actions by the United States arising under the federal antitrust laws are not subject to transfer under Section 1407. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407(g). Congress has amended Section 1407 only once. As part of the Hart Scott Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, Congress added subsection (h), which authorizes the Panel to consolidate and transfer any action brought under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15c (i.e., State parens patriae actions) for both pretrial purposes and trial. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407(h). Concerns H.R. 3460 would amend 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to limit the Panel's ability to centralize civil actions brought by States under the antitrust laws of the United States and delete the subsection added by the Hart Scott Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. Congress to date has never amended Section 1407 to restrict the Panel's ability to centralize civil actions. Doing so in this instance raises several concerns that merit Congress's consideration. H.R. 3460 May Negatively Impact the Efficiency and Conduct of Antitrust MDLs Restricting the Panel's ability to centralize State antitrust actions could negatively impact the efficiency and conduct of antitrust MDLs. When the Panel centralizes actions under Section 1407, it considers whether centralization will enhance convenience and efficiency with respect to the parties, witnesses, and the federal Judiciary as a whole--the Panel does not limit its consideration to the impact on any one party in isolation. In general, MDL litigation is most efficient when all related actions are centralized before a single judge. Doing so minimizes the potential for duplicative discovery and motion practice, eliminates the potential for inconsistent pretrial schedules or rulings, and conserves the resources of the parties, counsel, and the Judiciary. To the extent there are actions with different legal issues or concerns, the MDL judge can formulate a pretrial program that allows pretrial proceedings with respect to any non-common issues to proceed concurrently with pretrial proceedings on common issues (for example, by creating a separate discovery or motion track for certain actions). This ensures that pretrial proceedings will be conducted in a streamlined manner leading to a just and expeditious resolution of all actions to the overall benefit of the parties. Excepting State antitrust actions from centralization can only increase the number of actions (and, hence, the number of independent parties and courts) outside the ambit of the MDL. Related actions that cannot be centralized can introduce case management difficulties into the MDL. Parties and courts in actions pending outside the MDL may (either actively or inadvertently) undermine attempts to coordinate and streamline discovery and pretrial practice in the litigation. For instance, such actions may be subject to different pretrial schedules, parties and witnesses might by subject to duplicative discovery, and the courts might issue inconsistent pretrial rulings pertaining to the same parties. It also is possible that substantively inconsistent rulings could issue--such as with respect to market definition or which standard of review (per se or rule of reason) applies to a given case. Given the nationwide scope of these antitrust litigations, such inconsistent rulings may complicate proceedings and sow confusion not only among the courts and parties, but also in the marketplace. H.R. 3460 May Result in Inefficient Judicial Administration of Antitrust Litigation Apart from the general impact on efficiency caused by increasing the number of actions that cannot be centralized, there could be particular inefficiencies created by excepting State antitrust actions from centralization. States are, in many ways, similar to private antitrust plaintiffs. For instance, States may sue because they have suffered a direct antitrust injury (e.g., if the State directly purchased a product subject to an alleged price fixing conspiracy). Along with their claims under the federal antitrust laws, States may also include claims brought under state antitrust law for ``indirect'' antitrust damages not permitted under federal antitrust law. Both types of claims are substantially similar to those presented by private plaintiffs asserting antitrust injury as direct or indirect purchasers. As such, these type of State antitrust claims will present factual and legal issues that are similar or identical to those presented by the claims of the private plaintiffs. These common claims generally will be most efficiently litigated in a centralized proceeding. Notably, similar claims by the United States for civil damages due to injury to the government itself are not excluded from centralization under Section 1407. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407(g) (stating that the exemption for claims brought by the United States as a complainant under the antitrust laws ``shall not include section 4A of the Act of October 15, 1914, as added July 7, 1955 (69 Stat. 282; 15 U.S.C. 15a)''). In addition, States may bring federal antitrust claims on behalf of their citizens who have suffered harm due to the alleged anticompetitive conduct (parens patriae actions). Those citizens may be class members in private antitrust actions. Indeed, Section 4C of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15c, imposes on State parens patriae actions notice and opt out requirements akin to those for private class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Courts also are statutorily obligated to exclude from any award in a parens patriae action any amounts that duplicate awards in private actions. See 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15c(a)(1). A single MDL judge usually will be best positioned to coordinate state and private litigations. H.R. 3460 Could Adversely Affect the Interest of States Excluding State antitrust actions from MDL proceedings could adversely affect the interests of the States. While States might gain greater autonomy with respect to their individual actions, they would lose much of their ability to participate in and influence the centralized proceedings. Collaboration between private plaintiffs and State Attorneys General also may be reduced, particularly if the States retain outside counsel to prosecute their antitrust claims. Such counsel may have attorneys' fees or other incentives inconsistent with close coordination with the MDL. This could result (absent coordination between the different courts) in competing pretrial schedules and inconsistent orders that complicate the management and adjudication of both the State antitrust action and the MDL. H.R. 3460 Could Undermine the Panel's Efforts to Enhance Coordination with Federal Antitrust Litigation Excluding State antitrust actions from centralization could undermine the Panel's efforts to facilitate coordination and cooperation between private antitrust litigation and antitrust actions brought by the United States. Where there is a federal enforcement action or investigation that cannot be included in a given antitrust MDL, the Panel often will centralize the MDL in the court where the federal antitrust action or grand jury proceedings are pending to facilitate any appropriate and necessary coordination with the private actions. By multiplying the number of actions excluded from centralization under Section 1407, the proposed legislation might eliminate this alternative means of facilitating coordination with respect to litigations involving both federal and state antitrust actions. Conclusion Thank you for considering these comments. We request that the Committees of the Judicial Conference and the Panel have the opportunity to conduct more in-depth analysis of the legislation before any further consideration by Congress. Sincerely, Roslynn R. Mauskopf, Director.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1372, I call up the bill (H.R. 8873) to amend title 3, United States Code, to reform the process for the counting of electoral votes, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, just a correction. What I actually said in the Rules Committee is I hope we pass this bill. The Senate will pass a bill. They are doing a markup in the Rules Committee next week. If they are different, there is generally a conference committee. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 8873 into the Record.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 8873, the Presidential Election Reform Act. This bipartisan bill is a product of over 2 years of work, first on the Committee on House Administration and subsequently on the January 6th Select Committee. Working in partnership with Representative Liz Cheney, we have had extensive consultation with bipartisan law professors, former judges, and other experts. We have engaged in a fulsome, thoughtful, nonpartisan process, and where Ms. Cheney and I didn't always agree, we compromised, in the great tradition of the legislative process. I thank my friend, colleague, and the vice chair of the January 6th Committee, Liz Cheney. Her partnership, leadership, intelligence, and, frankly, her courage have been invaluable to the select committee's work and to the development of this bill. I want to be very clear: In revising the Electoral Count Act and related laws, that in no way condones the actions of the ex-President and his allies. Indeed, Dr. John Eastman openly admitted that his plan violated the Electoral Count Act. President Trump was told the same. But this bill will make it harder to convince people that they have the right to overthrow the election. Here are a few things the bill does. First, this bill reaffirms that the Vice President's authority at the electoral count is ministerial. The Vice President's authority has always been ministerial and always will be ministerial, but as we saw in 2020, former President Trump and his allies sought to unlawfully exploit the ECA to suggest otherwise. The bill will also enact new electoral counting rules for Congress. Previously, just a few Members of each House were able to derail the proceedings with frivolous objections. That will no longer be the case. Under this bill, no objection will be heard unless one-third of each House supports it, and the only objections that will be permitted are those that are rooted in the Constitution itself, a narrow set of issues. The bill also prevents State and local election subversion. For example, Governors will be required to submit their State's lawful certificate of appointment, and Federal courts will be empowered to force them to do so if they refuse. Ultimately, this bill is about protecting the will of the American voters, which is a principle that is beyond partisanship. The bottom line is this: If you want to object to the vote, you better have your colleagues and the Constitution on your side. Don't try to overturn our democracy. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, on January 6, the President had whipped up a mob, told them that the Vice President could overturn the election, and a majority of the Republicans in this House voted to reject the decision made by American voters as reflected in the electoral college for no reason whatsoever, other than sham fraud claims. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), the vice chair of the January 6th Select Committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 44) authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to present the statue of Harry S. Truman from the people of Missouri, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 82, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.