[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 25, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2691-S2692]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1787

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I rise again today in support of the 
bipartisan State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act. This is an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan bill. In fact, 99 Senators support passing 
this bill. Only one--oddly, the lead cosponsor of this bill--has 
objected.
  Now, the nature of the objection was that passing this bill would 
somehow reduce the chances of passing that Senator's own wholly 
unrelated bill, a different bill, a bill not touching the subject 
matter of this bill. But the idea that it must be all or nothing is 
silly, and it highlights one of the more vexing problems facing 
Congress. The idea that unless Congress will pass all of what a 
particular Senator wants, that no one else can pass anything is 
something that is a cause of great dismay and frustration.
  Making it easier for State attorneys general to enforce the antitrust 
laws is good policy, but it is, of course, not a silver bullet. I agree 
we still need meaningful reform at the Federal level. Passing this bill 
would, in no way, shape, or form, set back that project. It would just 
allow State attorneys general to bring antitrust suits now rather than 
worrying that Big Tech companies will be able to slow them down by 
requesting that courts combine them with private litigation.
  This UC is precisely what happened in the Texas v. Google case. In 
fact, unanimously passing this bill will only strengthen momentum in 
Congress for meaningful, much-needed antitrust reform. It will be a 
proof of concept of sorts, one that indicates that we can set aside our 
egos and partisan differences in order to achieve a shared goal--in 
this case, a goal that I believe is shared by all 100 Members of this 
body.
  Standing in the way of that achievement accomplishes nothing. In 
fact, it only plays into the hands of Big Tech. Big Tech would love 
nothing more than to see antitrust reform suffocate and die on the 
Senate floor, yet another victim of this ``all or nothing'' mindset, of 
this mindset that would suggest unless we pass all of what I want now, 
you can't pass anything, even something that I support.
  It is important that we pass this bill. All 100 Senators support it. 
There is only one who has been objecting, and the basis of that 
objection has nothing to do with the merits of the legislation; it has 
only to do with the misguided and, ultimately, incorrect assumption 
that this would somehow interfere with that Senator's wholly unrelated 
bill.
  To that end, Madam President, as if 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 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. As chairman of the appropriate jurisdictional committee 
and on behalf of Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I appreciate the longstanding friendship I 
have with my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from 
Illinois. I know he has no objection to passing this bill in this 
fashion. In fact, it was after a long negotiation process culminating 
with an agreement between me and the Senator from Illinois that we made 
modifications to this legislation--modifications I didn't want to make 
but I made in order to get this passed.
  It was represented to me in good faith by the Senator from Illinois 
that it would pass the hotline; it could pass by unanimous consent, if 
it happened. Had it all gone according to how we had every reason to 
believe and how the Senator from Illinois had every reason to believe 
at the time, this would have been passed by now.
  What we didn't anticipate was that the lead cosponsor of this 
legislation who had herself been a part of these negotiations, been a 
part of the conversation about how we were going to get it passed, and 
been a part of the conversations about the very modification that might 
be necessary in order to get it passed by unanimous consent, would then 
suddenly decide to object.
  Again, this is based not on a substantive objection to the bill, of 
which she is the lead cosponsor; it is based solely on her assessment 
that this might somehow jeopardize her chances of passing another 
antitrust bill, an antitrust bill that does not contain any provision 
like this one, an antitrust bill that does not preclude consideration 
of this one nor would this preclude consideration of that one. It is, 
in short, folly, to say the least, to object to this under these 
circumstances.
  It is also bad faith, I believe, to object at the very last minute 
after many, many months of negotiation on this issue as the lead 
cosponsor of the legislation. It is unfortunate that she is unwilling 
to agree to that.
  It is unfortunate, also, she is not willing to be here to raise the 
objection on her own but insisting on doing so through a third party--
through no fault of his own--who is here at her request, being a good 
colleague, as he is, doing as she had requested.

[[Page S2692]]

  This is unnecessary. This is petty. We are better than this. We need 
to pass this bill. I will be back. I am not going to quit until this 
thing is passed, because the fact is, all 100 Senators agree that this 
is good legislation, including the objecting absent party.
  We should never get to the point where egos get in the way. And egos, 
alone, prevent us from passing legislation that all 100 Senators agree 
would make things better. I can tell you, there is no one who would be 
happier about this than Big Tech. So if the objecting Senator, who is 
absent today, wishes to make sure that Big Tech is held accountable, 
then she should allow this to pass forthwith without her objection. If, 
on the other hand, she wants to make it easier for Big Tech, then this 
objection would be the way to go.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. As cosponsor of both pieces of legislation that are being 
debated here, I would say to the Senator from Utah: Keep the faith. The 
day will come. This legislation will see the light of day, and I 
believe should become law along with Senator Klobuchar's bill. I 
believe both are good pieces of legislation.
  This is not the appropriate moment, but that moment will come.