Zoe Lofgren: “Today, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this rule and will vote ``no.'' I am a supporter of all three bills covered…”

“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.…”