[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 81 (Thursday, May 12, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2471-S2473]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Mary T. Boyle

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise in support today of Mary 
Boyle, the nominee to serve as Commissioner at the U.S. Consumer 
Product Safety Commission.
  Mary will bring to this role more than a decade of experience on the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, where she previously served as 
general counsel and currently serves as the Executive Director. She is 
deeply knowledgeable about consumer product safety and the functioning 
of the CPSC. I have every confidence that she will be ready to lead on 
day one.
  But it is not just her professional background that makes her perfect 
for this role. As a mom who raised three kids, she knows firsthand how 
important it is for parents to be able to trust the products they use 
every day. She understands the stakes and the devastating consequences 
of unsafe products.
  Just yesterday, the Commerce Committee took an important step forward 
toward protecting kids and infants by passing the STURDY Act, which 
will prevent harmful and ultimately heartbreaking furniture tip-overs. 
Senators Casey and Blumenthal and I have been working on this for quite 
a while. It resulted in the largest furniture recall ever in the 
history of America with IKEA. But we need standards in place across the 
board. I know that we can count on Mary to be another critical partner 
in preventing unsafe products from hurting our kids.
  Mary is clear-eyed about the responsibility of the CPSC. In her 
words, it provides a safety net for the public, and in order to carry 
out that crucial task, it needs a full roster of Commissioners. 
Currently, four of the five slots are filled. To truly address pressing 
product safety issues, we have to fill that fifth seat. We can't afford 
to play politics here. This is about everything from the hazards posed 
by crib bumper pads to the use of toxic chemicals in everyday consumer 
products.
  I got involved in this way, way back before I was a Senator, when we 
had a young child swallow a charm that he got with a pair of tennis 
shoes. It was a giveaway. He didn't die because he choked on that 
charm; he died over a period of days because the lead in that charm, 
which was from a foreign country, got into his system, and he died in 
just a few days. That is how I got involved in the lead standards on 
foreign toys, that is how I started working with the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission, and that is when I saw the difference it can make.
  We passed a bipartisan bill named after Jim Baker's granddaughter--
the Virginia Graeme Baker pool safety bill--after a young kid named 
Abigail Taylor in Minnesota was in a kiddy swimming pool and her 
intestines were ripped out just sitting in the pool because there were 
so many faulty drains in this country.
  I went and visited her in the hospital, and she said: I don't want 
this to happen to any other kid.
  She lived for a year, and during that time, we worked together.
  Then Ted Stevens and I passed a much stronger pool safety bill. And I 
know that the last time I heard testimony from the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission, over a period of a decade, after we lost a number of 
kids every year, not one kid had died because of a simple change to how 
the pool drains worked. That is what the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission can do at its best--make sure it doesn't happen to any other 
kid again.
  The American people are counting on us to get this right, and with 
Mary, we have the opportunity to do just that.
  As Mary said in her testimony, consumers need to be able to go about 
their daily lives without worrying that products they interact with 
every day--washing machines, cell phones, batteries, toys, and 
treadmills, to name just a few--do not injure, maim, or kill them. 
Throughout her impressive career, Mary Boyle has shown that she is 
wholeheartedly dedicated to that mission.
  I am voting in support of her, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1787.

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act 
is a much needed reform that would put State attorneys general bringing 
antitrust suits under the Federal antitrust law on equal footing 
alongside Federal antitrust enforcement personnel by allowing them to 
avoid consolidation with private antitrust suits.
  This would shield these important antitrust actions from the 
inefficiencies of coordinating their litigation with their slower 
moving counterparts brought by private litigants, and it would also 
respect our federalist system of government and recognize the unique 
and essential role that States play specifically in enforcing our 
antitrust laws.
  No doubt, this is exactly why this bill is supported by 45 State 
attorneys general, including Utah, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Texas, 
California, Vermont, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Delaware, Nebraska, 
Connecticut, Missouri, Hawaii, New Jersey, Arkansas, Louisiana, and 
North Carolina, representing the home States of almost every member of 
the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  My own reasons for introducing the legislation are simple. States are 
sovereign entities, and they are entitled to

[[Page S2472]]

pursue law enforcement actions in defense of their citizens in the 
venue and in the manner they think best, period.
  Allowing State antitrust enforcement actions to be consolidated with 
private lawsuits not only impinges upon State sovereignty, it also 
needlessly delays consumer redress for antitrust harm.
  For example, the case brought by 16 States in the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico alleging that Google's conduct in digital advertising has 
violated Federal antitrust laws was transferred from Texas, where that 
lawsuit was originally filed, to the Southern District of New York to 
be consolidated with other cases. The transfer was ordered in August of 
last year. Some 9 months later, discovery is still stayed, and no 
progress has been made. Had the case just remained in Texas, discovery 
would be well underway, and the trial was scheduled for next summer. 
Instead, the case is languishing, and potential remedies to consumer 
harm are being postponed. Google's delay tactics have been successful.

  We must eliminate this loophole--a loophole that allows monopolists 
to delay antitrust enforcement actions brought by State attorneys 
general. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  So, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 261, S. 
1787. I further ask that the Lee amendment at the desk be considered 
and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third 
time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, reserving the right to object, my 
friend and colleague Senator Lee is well aware that I am supportive of 
this bill. We worked together. I am a lead Democrat on this bill to get 
it through the committee.
  I simply believe that this bill must go hand in hand with another 
bill that would look at this issue in a much bigger way; that, yes, 
this is about allowing State attorneys general to do their jobs and 
enforce the law, and that is why he and I have joined forces on this 
bill. But it is also about putting some rules of the road in place on a 
Federal basis.
  We are very close to having a vote on Senator Grassley's and my bill, 
with a broad range of authors and support, which would be the only and 
first Federal competition response to tech monopolies since the advent 
of the internet.
  I have been watching this movie for way too long. We have hearings, 
we throw popcorn at CEOs, we get sound bites on TV, but we don't do 
anything on a Federal basis. We had the Facebook whistleblower come 
forward, tell of the horror, the American people are with us, and we 
dither and do nothing. This is actually the first time that we have a 
coalition across the aisle of people who are ready to move forward on a 
Federal response.
  So my view of this is that, as we work to get our enforcers more 
funds--that is a part of it; Senator Grassley and I have a merger fee 
bill that is moving as part of the competition bill, which is currently 
in conference committee--and as we work on Senator Lee's very worthy 
legislation to focus on allowing the State attorneys general to keep 
their cases in their own jurisdictions, we simply cannot pretend that 
we don't have some role in this.
  If Members don't know about it, maybe they have talked to one of the 
2,700 lobbyists whom the tech companies have hired or maybe they have 
been subject to the $70 million effort on the Federal level. And this 
is not Senator Lee that I am talking about; he is a true maverick and 
is willing to take on special interests. But what I believe is going on 
in this building is that there are a lot of people trying to wait this 
one out and hope we don't have a vote on this bill.
  I appreciate Senator Schumer working with me and leadership on the 
Democratic and Republican sides of the Judiciary Committee to make sure 
that we get this vote.
  So Senator Lee will have a vote on this bill. I would certainly not 
concede at this moment giving tech something they want in this bill 
when we can't even have a vote on the Federal legislation, but we will 
have a vote on Senator Lee's bill. I just believe they have to go hand 
in hand.
  I think he is well aware of Senators doing all kinds of things 
procedurally to be able to get votes, but I think it is really 
important that we don't have a State-only approach when it comes to 
what is going on with tech.
  To again remind my colleagues and those watching this, what our 
bill--this big, bipartisan, important bill--does, it doesn't tear apart 
the company. It doesn't even take on the fact that they are all 
monopolies--and they are monopolies. Google has a 90-percent market 
share. Apple and Google basically, when it comes to app stores, are 
duopolies in dominating the market.
  While Europe is set to vote on their own digital market bill on 
Monday and move this ahead--I was just speaking with them--while 
Australia has taken on the issue of the news organizations, while Great 
Britain is moving ahead, we sit back. It is time to at least take on 
one issue.
  As the Justice Department looks at what is a monopoly, is it a 
monopoly when you have 90 percent market share? The very least we can 
do is put some rules of the road in place.
  What Senator Grassley's and my bill does--and we have taken several 
comments from Members and made changes to that bill--what the bill 
simply does is it says: Hey, monopolies or gatekeeper companies, if you 
own your own companies--which they are increasingly doing--you can't 
use your monopoly status to self-preference your own products in front 
of other products.
  No. 2, you can't copy nonpublic data that you have because of the 
virtue of the fact that you are the gatekeeper and then rip it off and 
make your own products. That is exactly what Amazon did, as the Wall 
Street Journal reported, with a four-employee luggage organizer firm 
when they gave them the data. The next thing you know, it shows up on 
Amazon Basics.
  The third thing you can't do is make companies, small businesses, buy 
a bunch of stuff just to put yourself at the top of the platform.
  The American people are with us on this, poll after poll, including a 
poll that Google accidentally--accidentally--put out there before they 
were able to pull it back that showed 68 percent of people want to use 
the antitrust laws--68 percent of people in their own polling--to be 
able to rein in this problem.
  This is a uniquely American approach, but it must be done hand in 
hand with State enforcement.
  So, all I am asking my friend and colleague to do here--and we 
wouldn't be here if we could have reached an agreement on this--is, I 
will assure him that we will have a vote on his bill; but we must also 
have a vote and finally move ahead on what is only a slice of what we 
could be doing.
  We are not doing some of the things I would want to do, which is look 
back at some of these mergers, which is actually take that email that 
Mark Zuckerberg wrote that said I'd rather ``buy than compete'' and 
look at what they bought in their zest to be able to avoid competition. 
Right now, that is going on with the Justice Department and the FTC. 
But we are simply trying to set some rules of the road, and it is more 
than overdue after an 8-month investigation in the House of 
Representatives--an 8-month investigation.
  What Federal bills have we passed that would put any checks and 
balances on these companies? They just keep getting bigger and bigger 
and bigger. And I am so pleased that some of the State attorneys 
general are taking this on.
  I am eager to get Senator Lee's bill and my bill up for a vote, but 
it will come close to when the vote on the actual Federal rules takes 
place. For these reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I appreciate the insight and the enthusiasm 
for antitrust law and even for this legislation that has been expressed 
by my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Minnesota. 
She and I have been partners on a number of things, including the fact 
that we have alternated back and forth as the chair

[[Page S2473]]

and ranking member of the Antitrust Subcommittee in the Senate for over 
a decade now.
  As she mentioned, she is the lead cosponsor with me on this bill. We 
have worked together on it.
  Look: I agree completely that we need to hold Big Tech accountable 
under antitrust laws. If you want to hold Big Tech accountable, pass 
this bill. Pass this bill today. There is not a reason to delay.
  No, I understand and appreciate her desire to pass the Klobuchar-
Grassley bill. I get that. It is a different proposal. It is not 
inconsistent with this one. There is no reason why this one couldn't 
pass and still allow the other one to move forward, nor is there any 
reason why this measure becoming law would, in any way, undermine that 
legislation or that legislative proposal.
  As to reaching a deal or not reaching a deal, we have been in 
conversations with the office of Senator Klobuchar for months--
literally, months--about it. We talked about different strategies for 
making sure that we could get it passed--what might have to change. We 
both discussed the fact that we preferred to keep the bill intact with 
the retroactivity provisions in there, but, if necessary, we could 
remove the retroactivity provisions if, by so doing, we could get it 
past the hotline. All of that has been done in consultation with the 
office of the Senator from Minnesota for months--literally months. So 
none of this is a surprise. This was done in tandem with Senator 
Klobuchar's office.
  Finally, I feel the need to push back against the notion that 
whenever something bigger could happen, nothing smaller in that area 
may be allowed to pass prior to that. This is a discreet, very specific 
fix to antitrust law that is desperately needed--urgently needed in 
order to hold Big Tech accountable under our antitrust laws. There is 
no good reason to delay this, and it is unfortunate today that we can't 
do that. I least expected it from the lead cosponsor of the 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Again, I look forward to working with Senator Lee to 
pass this bill, and I also look forward to passing a bill on the 
Federal basis and not just deciding that this should be in the province 
of 50 different States, and I thoroughly plan to work with him to pass 
this bill, and I hope it will be soon.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.