[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 158 (Thursday, September 29, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8252-H8264]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              MERGER FILING FEE MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2022

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1396, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 3843) to promote antitrust enforcement and protect 
competition through adjusting premerger filing fees, and increasing 
antitrust enforcement resources, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Crow). Pursuant to House Resolution 
1396, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 117-66 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3843

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Merger 
     Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2022''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

  TITLE I--MODERNIZING MERGER FILING FEE COLLECTIONS; ACCOUNTABILITY 
                  REQUIREMENTS; LIMITATION ON FUNDING

Sec. 101. Modification of premerger notification filing fees.
Sec. 102. Reporting requirements for merger fee collections.

        TITLE II--DISCLOSURE OF SUBSIDIES BY FOREIGN ADVERSARIES

Sec. 201. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 202. Mergers involving foreign government subsidies.

            TITLE III--VENUE FOR STATE ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 301. Venue for State Antitrust Enforcement.

  TITLE I--MODERNIZING MERGER FILING FEE COLLECTIONS; ACCOUNTABILITY 
                  REQUIREMENTS; LIMITATION ON FUNDING

     SEC. 101. MODIFICATION OF PREMERGER NOTIFICATION FILING FEES.

       Section 605 of Public Law 101-162 (15 U.S.C. 18a note) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``$45,000'' and inserting ``$30,000'';
       (ii) by striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$161,500,000'';
       (iii) by striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2023''; and
       (iv) by striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2022'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``$125,000'' and inserting ``$100,000'';
       (ii) by striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$161,500,000'';
       (iii) by striking ``but less'' and inserting ``but is 
     less''; and
       (iv) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``$280,000'' and inserting ``$250,000''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``but 
     is less than $1,000,000,000 (as so adjusted and 
     published);''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) $400,000 if the aggregate total amount determined 
     under section 7A(a)(2) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 
     18a(a)(2)) is not less than $1,000,000,000 (as so adjusted 
     and published) but is less than $2,000,000,000 (as so 
     adjusted and published);
       ``(5) $800,000 if the aggregate total amount determined 
     under section 7A(a)(2) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 
     18a(a)(2)) is not less than $2,000,000,000 (as so adjusted 
     and published) but is less than $5,000,000,000 (as so 
     adjusted and published); and
       ``(6) $2,250,000 if the aggregate total amount determined 
     under section 7A(a)(2) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 
     18a(a)(2)) is not less than $5,000,000,000 (as so adjusted 
     and published).''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c)(1) For each fiscal year commencing after September 
     30, 2023, the filing fees in this section shall be increased 
     by an amount equal to the percentage increase, if any, in the 
     Consumer Price Index, as determined by the Department of 
     Labor or its successor, for the year then ended over the 
     level so established for the year ending September 30, 2022.
       ``(2) As soon as practicable, but not later than January 31 
     of each year, the Federal Trade Commission shall publish the 
     adjusted amounts required by paragraph (1).
       ``(3) The Federal Trade Commission shall not adjust amounts 
     required by paragraph (1) if the percentage increase 
     described in paragraph (1) is less than 1 percent.
       ``(4) An amount adjusted under this section shall be 
     rounded to the nearest multiple of $5,000.''.

     SEC. 102. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR MERGER FEE COLLECTIONS.

       (a) FTC and DOJ Joint Report.--For each of fiscal years 
     2023 through 2027, the Federal Trade Commission and 
     Department of Justice shall jointly and annually report to 
     the Congress on the operation of section 7A of the Clayton 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 18a) and shall include in such report the 
     following:
       (1) The amount of funds made available to the Federal Trade 
     Commission and the Department of Justice, respectively, from 
     the premerger notification filing fees under this section, as 
     adjusted by the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2022, 
     as compared to the funds made available to the Federal Trade 
     Commission and the Department of Justice, respectively, from 
     premerger notification filing fees as the fees were 
     determined in fiscal year 2022.
       (2) The total revenue derived from premerger notification 
     filing fees, by tier, by the Federal Trade Commission and the 
     Department of Justice, respectively.
       (3) The gross cost of operations of the Federal Trade 
     Commission, by Budget Activity, and the Antitrust Division of 
     the Department of Justice, respectively.
       (b) FTC Report.--The Federal Trade Commission shall include 
     in the report required under subsection (a), in addition to 
     the requirements under subsection (a), for the previous 
     fiscal year--
       (1) for actions with respect to which the record of the 
     vote of each member of the Federal Trade Commission is on the 
     public record of the Federal Trade Commission, a list of each 
     action with respect to which the Federal Trade Commission 
     took or declined to take action on a 3 to 2 vote; and
       (2) for all actions for which the Federal Trade Commission 
     took a vote, the percentage of such actions that were decided 
     on a 3 to 2 vote.
       (c) Summary.--The Federal Trade Commission and the 
     Department of Justice shall make the report required under 
     subsection (a) available to the Committees on the Judiciary 
     of the House of Representatives and of the Senate, and shall, 
     for fiscal years 2023 through 2027, no later than July 1, 
     present a summary of the joint annual report for the 
     preceding fiscal year, including the information required in 
     subsections (a) and (b) of this section, to the Committees on 
     the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the 
     Senate.

        TITLE II--DISCLOSURE OF SUBSIDIES BY FOREIGN ADVERSARIES

     SEC. 201. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Foreign subsidies, which can take the form of direct 
     subsidies, grants, loans (including below-market loans), loan 
     guarantees, tax concessions, preferential government 
     procurement policies, or government ownership or control, can 
     distort the competitive process by enabling the subsidized 
     firm to submit a bid higher than other firms in the market, 
     or otherwise change the incentives of the firm in ways that 
     undermine competition following an acquisition.
       (2) Foreign subsidies are particularly problematic when 
     granted by countries or entities that constitute a strategic 
     or economic threat to United States interests.
       (3) The Made in China 2025 plan, states that the Chinese 
     Communist Party will ``support enterprises to carry out 
     mergers and acquisitions (M&A), equity investment, and 
     venture capital overseas''.
       (4) The 2020 report to Congress from the bipartisan U.S.-
     China Economic and Security Review Commission concluded that 
     the Chinese Government subsidizes companies with a goal of 
     their expanding into the United States and other countries, 
     finding that ``[t]his process assists Chinese national 
     champions in surpassing and

[[Page H8253]]

     supplanting global market leaders''. The report warns that 
     the risk is particularly acute when it comes to emerging 
     technologies, where China seeks to ``surpass and displace the 
     United States altogether [and that] [f]ailure to appreciate 
     the gravity of this challenge and defend U.S. competitiveness 
     would be dire . . . [and] risks setting back U.S. economic 
     and technological progress for decades''.
       (5) In remarks before the Hudson Institute on December 8, 
     2020, FTC Commissioner Noah Phillips stated, ``[O]ne area 
     where antitrust needs to reckon with the strategic interests 
     of other nations is when we scrutinize mergers or conduct 
     involving state-owned entities . . . companies that are 
     controlled, to varying degrees, by the state . . . [and] 
     often are a government tool for implementing industrial 
     policies or to protect national security''.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to require 
     parties providing pre-merger notifications to include in the 
     notification required under section 7A of the Clayton Act (15 
     U.S.C. 18a) information concerning subsidies they receive 
     from countries or entities that are strategic or economic 
     threats to the United States.

     SEC. 202. MERGERS INVOLVING FOREIGN GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES.

       (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``foreign entity 
     of concern'' has the meaning given the term in section 40207 
     of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (42 U.S.C. 
     18741(a)).
       (b) Accounting for Foreign Government Subsidies.--A person 
     required to file a notification under section 7A of the 
     Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a) that received a subsidy from a 
     foreign entity of concern shall include in such notification 
     content regarding such subsidy.
       (c) Authority of Antitrust Regulators.--The Federal Trade 
     Commission, with the concurrence of the Assistant Attorney 
     General in charge of the Antitrust Division of the Department 
     of Justice, and in consultation with the Chairperson of the 
     Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the 
     Secretary of Commerce, the Chair of the United States 
     International Trade Commission, the United States Trade 
     Representative, and the heads of other appropriate agencies, 
     and by rule in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United 
     States Code, shall require that the notification required 
     under subsection (b) be in such form and contain such 
     documentary material and information relevant to a proposed 
     acquisition as is necessary and appropriate to enable the 
     Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General 
     in charge of the Antitrust Division of the Department of 
     Justice to determine whether such acquisition may, if 
     consummated, violate the antitrust laws.
       (d) Effective Date.--Subsection (b) shall take effect on 
     the date on which the rule described in subsection (c) takes 
     effect.

            TITLE III--VENUE FOR STATE ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 301. VENUE FOR STATE ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT.

       Section 1407 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (g) by inserting ``or a State'' after 
     ``United States'' and striking ``; but 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)''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (h).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Jordan) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).


                             General Leave

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. 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. 3843.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3843 is bicameral, bipartisan legislation that 
consists of three distinct titles, each of which would make modest, but 
important improvements to modernize our antitrust system and to help 
protect competition.
  Title I of the bill updates the filing fees that merging parties pay 
to the Federal antitrust enforcers that review their transactions. 
These fees have not been updated in two decades, which has left these 
agencies in desperate need of more resources to complete their 
increasingly heavy workload.
  This bill raises the fees that parties pay for large transactions and 
lowers the fee that parties pay for small- and medium-sized 
transactions, which ensures that larger deals pay their fair share.
  Critically, this legislation raises revenue to support necessary 
antitrust enforcement while also saving taxpayers $1.4 billion over the 
next 5 years.
  Title II of the bill requires merging parties to notify the antitrust 
agencies if they are subsidized by countries or entities that are 
strategic or economic threats to the United States.
  This notification requirement gives the agencies immediate access to 
the information they need to assess the full competitive consequences 
of subsidized transactions and enables them to better protect U.S. 
economic interests when they review proposed mergers.
  Title III of this legislation ensures that States do not have to 
waste precious time and taxpayer dollars when they litigate antitrust 
suits in Federal courts. It does this by exempting State enforcement of 
the Federal antitrust laws from the often time-consuming and costly 
multidistrict litigation process. Federal antitrust enforcement 
agencies are already exempt from this process, and the bill simply puts 
State antitrust enforcement on equal footing with the Federal 
Government.
  Each element of this legislation enjoys bicameral, bipartisan 
support. Titles I and II have already passed the House as part of the 
America COMPETES Act, and title III passed the Senate by unanimous 
consent.
  Together, they would help ensure that our antitrust agencies have the 
resources they need to protect competition, would provide important 
disclosures about foreign economic adversaries, and would strengthen 
State enforcement of our antitrust laws.
  I thank Mr. Neguse for sponsoring this important package of 
bipartisan legislation. I also thank Mr. Cicilline and Mr. Buck, the 
chair and ranking member of the Antitrust Subcommittee, for their 
leadership on these bills and on competition issues generally.
  I urge all Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' While 
parts of this bill have some support, the package before us today does 
nothing but empower the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade 
Commission.
  Why would we support more funding for unaccountable officials in the 
Biden administration, particularly these two agencies, the Department 
of Justice, in light of what we have seen from them over the past 
several months?
  Time and time again, they have weaponized that agency to go after the 
American people.
  Now, some are asserting that oh, no, this wouldn't give more money to 
the bureaucracy. But this is the kind of Washington budget gimmick that 
the swamp uses to grow government all the time.
  In the majority's own committee report on the bill they acknowledge 
``the updated fee structure would provide the U.S. Department of 
Justice and the Federal Trade Commission with additional resources to 
review mergers and enforce the antitrust laws; more money for Merrick 
Garland and the DOJ to harass the American people.

                              {time}  1230

  Even proponents of the bill are talking about how this would get 
resources to the agencies while saying it doesn't include an 
appropriation. This logic is laughable.
  We know where this money is going. In fact, the chairman of the 
committee said in his opening remarks that the DOJ and FTC are ``in 
desperate need of more resources.'' We know where this money is going, 
$280 million, $140 million to each agency, every single year.
  Congress has already appropriated money to hire 87,000 new IRS 
agents, and now we are going to give hundreds of millions of dollars to 
the DOJ and the FTC. Such a deal for the taxpayer. Where does it stop?
  If you want to do something about Big Tech, this bill is not the 
vehicle. A bill that empowers these two agencies to, I think, collude 
with Big Tech to come after conservatives is not the way to go. I hope 
we can vote this down.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I do 
so reluctantly, because title I, raising the

[[Page H8254]]

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.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will respond to the gentlewoman from California. I appreciate the 
fact that she is a ``no'' on this bill, but I think her logic is all 
wrong. This bill would actually give $140 million to the DOJ so they 
can continue to do what they are already doing, work with Big Tech to 
censor certain information from getting to we the people.
  Why do I say that? Because we know it happened. Just a month ago, 
Mark Zuckerberg said the FBI came and told him not to allow the story 
about Hunter Biden's laptop to be on their platform. They gave him the 
old wink-wink, oh, we think this is Russian disinformation, which we 
know it wasn't. Now, we are going to give that agency $140 million more 
to go collude with Big Tech to keep we the people from getting valuable 
information before the most important election that we have, the 
election of the Commander in Chief of our country?
  That is why this thing is so scary and why we should be against it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned about 
this for the reasons that are stated.
  There are a lot of people who are confused about it because what they 
have done here is they have taken three pieces of legislation, three 
titles, and merged them into one.
  I don't have a problem with two of the three. In response to Ms. 
Lofgren, I think that antitrust enforcement provision is okay because 
currently it is not explained what the U.S. Judicial Panel on 
Multidistrict Litigation can transfer are State AGs' antitrust cases 
that arise under Federal laws to other jurisdictions. That title would 
prevent that from happening. We are okay with that. I voted for that in 
committee.
  But one of the other titles here is the disclosure of subsidies by 
foreign adversaries. We didn't get any regular order on that. We didn't 
get to actually debate that, mark it up in committee. The substance of 
that one is okay because it would require parties to notify when they 
receive subsidies from countries that are threats to the U.S. when 
filing a merger. We all agree on that.

  The problem is, the thing we are so concerned about, is what Ranking 
Member Jordan has just talked about, the Merger Filing Fee 
Modernization Act.
  For folks who are trying to follow this back home, this would change 
filing fees paid by companies seeking regulatory approval for mergers. 
It would reduce the fees for deals valued under $1 billion, and it 
would raise them for the larger mergers, over $1 billion.
  Now, here is the problem. All of this sounds fine so far, but here is 
the problem. There are no restrictions on the use of the additional 
funding that is generated by these fees. And the FTC and the DOJ will 
have even more power to institute their bad policies. This is not a de 
minimus amount. We are talking about $1.5 billion over 5 years. That is 
a lot of money.
  Just so you know, since President Biden took office, the FTC has 
pursued radical goals beyond its jurisdiction. One Commissioner said 
she supports prioritizing FTC investigations relating to systematic 
racism and rulemaking for racist practices. These are very amorphous 
terms. They have been abused and used for all sorts of nefarious 
purposes.
  Republican Commissioner Wilson described Democrat goals as rooted in 
``a unified worldview that draws heavily on . . . Marxism.'' That is at 
the FTC.
  Some of the actions of the Chair, Lina Khan, are just outrageous, 
what she has done.
  The DOJ, of course, has indeed been weaponized. We have been talking 
about that in committee. We have been laying out the evidence, and we 
will be presenting that to the American people in the new Congress that 
begins in January.
  If what the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Nadler, 
said is true, that they are ``in desperate need of more resources,'' 
maybe they could have not spent money and resources by siccing the FBI 
and all the U.S. Attorney's Offices on parents who are going to school 
board meetings to object to curriculum that their kids are being 
exposed to and mandates, school closures, and all the rest.
  This is outrageous. These institutions have been weaponized, and the 
people are losing their faith in them. We cannot, in good conscience, 
stand on this floor and send them $1.5 billion to engage in more of 
this madness.
  We have no choice but to oppose the legislation for that reason, and 
I think it is a good one. I think most of our colleagues are going to 
agree.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I must confess I am a little puzzled at 
some of the remarks of Mr. Johnson. He says the FTC sics the FBI on 
parents or whatever. The FTC has no jurisdiction over the FBI and has 
nothing to do with them. The FTC is part of--never mind.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  H.R. 3843 is a modest yet critical first step to modernizing the 
antitrust laws. It generates revenue; it makes foreign adversarial 
interests in transactions more apparent; and it allows more streamlined 
antitrust enforcement by State attorneys general.
  On the first issue, I think there is general agreement that the fees 
that are involved in mergers haven't been raised in decades. This 
simply allows smaller mergers to pay less and larger mergers to pay 
more.
  There is no question about it--this issue came up at the Committee on 
Rules--this bill does not fund a single additional dollar to any 
agency. This is a revenue generator. There is no appropriation. The 
appropriations process will require that this be treated like any other 
revenue the Federal Government generates, in that the Appropriations 
Committee, in regular order, will decide how to spend the money.

[[Page H8255]]

  People should also not be concerned because, under the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2022, the DOJ Antitrust Division's use of 
appropriated funds is limited to ``expenses necessary for the 
enforcement of antitrust and kindred laws.'' There is already a 
limitation.
  It doesn't provide any additional funding. It simply generates 
revenues and shifts burdens to the largest transactions so that the 
taxpayers don't have to be responsible for their review.
  In recent decades, the rising tide of economic concentration has 
given rise to monopolies that exercise outsized influence over our 
democracy and our political institutions. At the same time, the budgets 
for antitrust enforcement agencies have not kept pace with the demands 
placed on them.
  As Brian Deese, the director of the National Economic Council, 
explained: ``It is unacceptable for these agencies' resources to lag so 
far behind the growth of the economy they are charged with 
protecting.'' That is why the Biden-Harris administration issued a 
Statement of Administration Policy in support of this bill.
  We can have the fight about whether additional resources are 
necessary during the appropriations process. This bill simply raises 
the fees, gives smaller businesses a break, and doesn't appropriate a 
single dollar.
  Title III of the bill strengthens antitrust enforcement by preventing 
the State antitrust actions from being dragged into private litigation 
in another venue.
  This legislation enjoys wide support among the States. Last year, the 
National Association of Attorneys General and every single State 
attorney general in the United States wrote a letter urging Congress to 
pass the bill's amendment to the multidistrict litigation statute ``as 
soon as possible so that our citizens can benefit from more efficient, 
effective, and timely adjudication of antitrust actions.''
  Mr. Speaker, I, too, urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
legislation, and I applaud them for their sponsorship. I thank Mr. 
Buck, who has been a tremendous leader on this package of bills. There 
should be no question. Senator Lee, Senator Cotton, and Senator 
Grassley have said that this package represents ``a strong bipartisan 
consensus.''

  These bills improve antitrust enforcement without appropriating any 
more funds. You don't have to believe me. Those are your Republican 
colleagues who made the same point.
  In addition to that, this multijurisdiction litigation robs State 
attorneys general who bring a Federal antitrust action in Federal court 
from the ability to litigate in that court, which often, by dragging 
them to another State, is a great benefit to the big corporations, to 
the monopolists, but it is harmful to their own constituents, their 
consumers, their businesses, which is why they support this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a number of items to reflect the 
broad support enjoyed by H.R. 3843.
  First, is a strong Statement of Administration Policy, which makes 
clear this legislation is necessary to support the President's mission 
to enforce the antitrust laws, to combat the excessive concentration of 
industry, the abuse of market power, and the harmful effects of 
monopoly and monopsony.
  Second, is a letter of support for the State Antitrust Enforcement 
Venue Act of 2021, signed by every attorney general in the United 
States, including California's Rob Bonta, who makes clear that: 
``States should accordingly be on equal footing with Federal enforcers 
in deciding where, when, and how to prosecute cases'' and not subject 
to a system where their enforcement actions ``may be subject to 
transfer to a multidistrict litigation at the request of the 
defendant,'' where the cases are typically ``postponed and may be 
joined with other lawsuits brought by private plaintiffs.''
  Third, is a letter from a broad coalition of 36 labor, consumer, and 
public interest groups, including Public Citizen, Public Knowledge, 
Open Markets Institute, AFL-CIO, Teamsters, and SEIU, which states: 
``This bipartisan, bicameral legislation represents a critical first 
step for Congress to reverse the course of lax antitrust enforcement 
that has proved to be destructive to small businesses, workers, 
communities, and innovation.''
  Fourth, is a statement from Chris Jones of the National Grocers 
Association, who says that: ``This bipartisan bill does not change the 
antitrust laws; it takes the simple step of helping enforcers have a 
better shot of deterring abusive marketplace conduct that American 
consumers cannot afford right now.''
  Finally, a statement from Diana Moss, president of the American 
Antitrust Institute, states that: ``Additional resources are needed to 
enable the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the 
Federal Trade Commission to review and investigate billion-dollar 
deals.''
  For all of those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
support this commonsense package that will help to enhance competition, 
give us the ability to improve our economy, and benefit consumers, 
workers, innovators, and small businesses.

                  Statement of Administration Policy,


H.R. 3843--Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2022--Rep. Neguse, D-
                         CO, and 39 cosponsors

       The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 3843, the 
     Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2022.
       Open, fair, and competitive markets are essential to the 
     welfare of American families, workers, farmers, and 
     businesses. As the President stated in his Executive Order on 
     Promoting Competition in the American Economy, ``it is the 
     policy of my Administration to enforce the antitrust laws to 
     combat the excessive concentration of industry, the abuses of 
     market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and 
     monopsony.'' The Act would support this critical mission in 
     three important respects.
       First, to vigorously enforce the antitrust laws, the 
     Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission 
     (FTC) need the resources to do their jobs. Yet even as the 
     number, size, and complexity of mergers has grown, the amount 
     oft he filing fees that parties must pay in advance of 
     premerger review by the DOJ and the FTC has not kept pace. 
     Moreover, both agencies' annual appropriations support many 
     fewer employees today than they did in 1979, even though the 
     economy has grown significantly since then, and even though 
     the agencies' core missions involve bringing complex cases 
     against some of the best-resourced companies in the world.
       The Act would update the regime for merger filing fees to 
     make it fairer and better targeted. The Act would reduce the 
     size of the fees required for smaller transactions, while 
     raising them for the largest mergers that often require the 
     most extensive reviews.
       Second, the Act would respect the important role of State 
     Attorneys General in Federal antitrust enforcement by 
     harmonizing the process for transferring antitrust cases 
     filed by State Attorneys General with those filed by Federal 
     agencies. This would increase the efficiency and efficacy of 
     antitrust enforcement.
       Third and finally, the Act would require disclosure of 
     merger subsidies by foreign adversaries. Requiring disclosure 
     of foreign subsidies, such as by Chinese and Russian 
     entities, in the premerger notification process would assist 
     the DOJ and the FTC in preventing anticompetitive 
     transactions through which adversaries could gain influence 
     over important parts of the economy.
       The Administration encourages the House to pass the 
     bipartisan Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2022 and 
     looks forward to working with Congress on this important 
     legislation.
                                  ____


                                           National Association of


                                            Attorneys General,

                                    Washington, DC, June 18, 2021.
     Hon.  Amy Klobuchar,
     Chair, Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, & 
         Consumer Rights,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon.  Michael Lee,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Competition Policy, 
         Antitrust, & Consumer Rights,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. David N. Cicilline,
     Chair, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and 
         Administrative Law,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ken Buck,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and 
         Administrative Law,
     Washington, DC.
     Re Support for the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act of 
         2021

       Dear Chairs Klobuchar and Cicilline and Ranking Members Lee 
     and Buck: We write to express our strong support for the 
     State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act of 2021; H.R. 3460, S. 
     1787. State attorneys general around the country are actively 
     pursuing significant antitrust enforcement actions on behalf 
     of consumers in their respective states. Although these law 
     enforcement actions are brought in the public interest, they 
     may be subject to transfer to a multidistrict litigation at 
     the behest of defendants, where the cases are typically 
     postponed and may be joined with numerous other lawsuits 
     brought by private plaintiffs. Enforcement actions filed by 
     the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission on 
     behalf of the United States, however, cannot be transferred 
     to a multidistrict litigation. 28 U.S.C.

[[Page H8256]]

     Sec. 1407(g). Federal enforcers are entitled to select and 
     remain in their preferred venue and pursue relief without 
     undue delay and distractions caused by the particularized 
     interests of private plaintiffs. State antitrust enforcement 
     actions should be extended the same protections from transfer 
     as those brought on behalf of the United States.
       As Congress has recognized, the states play an essential 
     role in the enforcement of competition laws in the United 
     States. States should accordingly be on equal footing with 
     federal enforcers in deciding where, when, and how to 
     prosecute cases. We appreciate your sponsorship of the State 
     Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act of 2021 and advocate for its 
     passage as soon as possible so that our citizens can benefit 
     from more efficient, effective, and timely adjudication of 
     antitrust actions.
           Sincerely,
       Phil Weiser, Colorado Attorney General; Jeff Landry, 
     Louisiana Attorney General; Treg R. Taylor, Alaska Attorney 
     General; Rob Bonta, California Attorney General; Karl A. 
     Racine, District of Columbia Attorney General; Christopher M. 
     Carr, Georgia Attorney General; Clare E. Connors, Hawaii 
     Attorney General.
       William Tong, Connecticut Attorney General; Ken Paxton, 
     Texas Attorney General; Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas Attorney 
     General; Kathleen Jennings, Delaware Attorney General; Ashley 
     Moody, Florida Attorney General; Leevin Taitano Camacho, Guam 
     Attorney General; Lawrence Wasden, Idaho Attorney General.
       Kwame Raoul, Illinois Attorney General; Tom Miller, Iowa 
     Attorney General; Daniel Cameon, Kentucky Attorney General; 
     Brian Frosh, Maryland Attorney General; Dana Nessel, Michigan 
     Attorney General; Lynn Fitch, Mississippi Attorney General; 
     Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General; Aaron D. Ford, 
     Nevada Attorney General; Gurbir S. Grewal, New Jersey 
     Attorney General.
       Todd Rokita, Indiana Attorney General; Derek Schmidt, 
     Kansas Attorney General; Aaron M. Frey, Maine Attorney 
     General; Maura Healey, Massachusetts Attorney General; Keith 
     Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General; Eric S. Schmitt, 
     Missouri Attorney General; Douglas Peterson, Nebraska 
     Attorney General; John M. Formella, New Hampshire Attorney 
     General; Hector Balderas, New Mexico Attorney General.
       Letitia James, New York, Attorney General; Wayne Stenehjem, 
     North Dakota Attorney General; Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney 
     General; Ellen F. Rosenblum, Oregon Attorney General; Domingo 
     Emanuelli-Hernandez, Puerto Rico Attorney General; Alan 
     Wilson, South Carolina Attorney General; Herbert H. Slatery 
     III, Tennessee Attorney General; T.J. Donovan, Vermont 
     Attorney General; Robert W. Ferguson, Washington Attorney 
     General.
       Josh Stein, North Carolina Attorney General; Edward 
     Manibusan, Northern Mariana Islands Attorney General; Dawn 
     Cash, Oklahoma Acting Attorney General; Josh Shapiro, 
     Pennsylvania Attorney General; Peter F. Neronha, Rhode Island 
     Attorney General; Jason R. Ravnsborg, South Dakota Attorney 
     General; Sean Reyes, Utah Attorney General; Mark R. Herring, 
     Virginia Attorney General; Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia 
     Attorney General; Joshua L. Kaul, Wisconsin Attorney General; 
     Bridget Hill, Wyoming, Attorney General.
                                  ____

                                               September 27, 2022.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: We are writing to 
     urge you to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3843, the Merger Filing Fee 
     Modernization Act of 2022. This bill will strengthen 
     enforcement of our antitrust laws by helping to inject much-
     needed funds to the antitrust enforcement agencies, the 
     Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and the Federal 
     Trade Commission, and allow them to properly fulfill their 
     role safeguarding the economy and consumers from 
     anticompetitive conduct and harmful mergers. We task our 
     antitrust enforcers with a duty to protect us, and it is only 
     right we give them adequate resources to do so.
       This legislation contains a package of important bipartisan 
     and bicameral proposals:
       Title I: Modernizing Merger Filing Fee Collections: The 
     parties to a merger over a certain size pay a nominal fee to 
     the agencies when they seek merger review and this will 
     remain the case after the Merger Filing Fee Modernization 
     Act. The current fee structure is outdated; it has not kept 
     pace with the growth of the economy or with inflation. The 
     number of mergers has skyrocketed: notifications doubled from 
     2010 to 2020. The bipartisan, bicameral Merger Filing Fees 
     Modernization Act would lower fees for the smallest mergers. 
     Fees would be raised on only the very largest mergers or 
     acquisitions involving companies that can easily and 
     equitably pay the increase. The bill also indexes the fees to 
     inflation, to help them keep up with a growing economy over 
     time.
       Additionally, the bill contains a reporting requirement, so 
     Congress will have information on how the bill has affected 
     agency budgets and its overall efficacy in strengthening 
     sound and effective enforcement of our antitrust laws.
       Title II: Disclosure of Subsidies by Foreign Adversaries: 
     This will require merger notification filings to include 
     information about any subsidies the merging parties have 
     received from countries or entities that are ``strategic or 
     economic threats to the United States.''
       Title III: Venue for State Antitrust Enforcement: This bill 
     would give state attorneys general the same ability that 
     federal antitrust enforcers have to stay in the court of 
     their choosing when bringing a federal antitrust suit rather 
     than have a defendant seek to move a case to a more favorable 
     venue.
       While we believe much more must be done this year, this 
     bipartisan, bicameral legislation represents a critical first 
     step for Congress to reverse the course of lax antitrust 
     enforcement that has proved to be destructive to small 
     businesses, workers, communities, and innovation. While we 
     continue to support the broader antitrust reforms put forward 
     in the House and Senate, we recognize that antitrust 
     enforcers should urgently have the resources they need, and 
     it is imperative that the legislative package included in 
     H.R. 3843 move forward in the House.
       This carefully crafted bill is bipartisan and not 
     controversial. Enacting it now will give a much-needed 
     funding boost to antitrust enforcement and the open, vibrant 
     marketplace it promotes and protects, benefitting us all: 
     consumers, workers, entrepreneurs, and communities. We ask 
     you to vote yes on H.R. 3843, the Merger Filing Fee 
     Modernization Act of 2022.
           Sincerely,
       Public Knowledge, Consumer Reports, Accountable Tech, 
     American Economic Liberties Project, American Family Voices, 
     Artist Rights Alliance, Asian Pacific American Labor 
     Alliance, AFL-CIO, Athena, Campaign for Family Farms and the 
     Environment, Center for Democracy & Technology, Center for 
     Digital Democracy, Center for Economic and Policy Research, 
     Common Sense Media, Consumer Action, Demand Progress, Demos, 
     Economic Security Project Action, Electronic Privacy 
     Information Center (EPIC), Farm Action Fund.
       Fight for the Future, Free Press Action, Future of Music 
     Coalition, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, International 
     Brotherhood of Teamsters, New York Communities for Change, 
     Open Markets Institute, Our Revolution, P Street/Progressive 
     Change Campaign Committee, People's Parity Project, Public 
     Citizen, Revolving Door Project, Service Employees 
     International Union, The Democratic Coalition, The Tech 
     Oversight Project, Ultra Violet Action, Writers Guild of 
     America West (WGAW).
                                  ____


                     NATIONAL GROCERS ASSOCIATION,

                                               September 27, 2022.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Grocers 
     Association (NGA), I am writing to urge you to VOTE YES on 
     H.R 3843, the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2022. We 
     believe this bipartisan legislation will deliver important 
     results for consumers, workers, and independent grocers who 
     rely on the benefits that flow from free and fair 
     competition.
       Vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws is a necessary 
     component of American free enterprise. H.R. 3843 gives the 
     federal enforcers and State Attorneys General critical tools 
     and resources needed to address abuses of market power in the 
     grocery industry that intensifies food price inflation and 
     reduces consumer access to critical products.
       Today, dominant retail companies and e-commerce giants 
     wield unprecedented economic power with little to no 
     antitrust oversight or enforcement. These companies exercise 
     their power over the marketplace to dictate discriminatory 
     terms and conditions to suppliers, including by demanding 
     more favorable pricing and price terms, more favorable 
     supply, and access to exclusive products. This economic 
     discrimination has only worsened in the current environment 
     of supply chain disruption and increasing inflation.
       Independent community grocers play a crucial role in 
     ensuring food access, especially in smaller, rural 
     communities as well as high density urban ones where 
     independents tend to locate. Unfortunately, these communities 
     have suffered the most recently as independent grocers face 
     declining supply delivery rates and share a disproportionate 
     burden of wholesale food price increases.
       Antitrust enforcers at the State and Federal level play a 
     critical role in restoring the free play of competitive 
     markets, but they must have the resources and tools at their 
     disposal to address abuses of market power that harms 
     consumers. This bipartisan bill does not change the antitrust 
     laws, it takes the simple step of helping enforcers have a 
     better shot of deterring abusive marketplace conduct that 
     American consumers cannot afford right now. For these 
     reasons, we urge you to vote YES on H.R 3843.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Chris Jones,
          Senior Vice President of Government Relations & Counsel,
                                     National Grocers Association.


                                 American Antitrust Institute,

                                               September 27, 2022.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy: The 
     American Antitrust Institute (AAI) writes to support a 
     proposal under H.R. 3843, the Merger Filing Fee Modernization 
     Act of 2022, that is integral to increasing the transparency 
     and public analysis of

[[Page H8257]]

     merger enforcement in the United States. Transparency and 
     public analysis are critical in promoting stronger 
     enforcement of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, at a time of 
     mounting concerns over declining competition, increasing 
     concentration, and cadence of the harmful effects of past 
     mergers on consumers, workers, and innovators.
       AAI supports the proposal under H.R. 3843 to delineate new 
     categories of merger filing fees for billion-dollar mergers 
     that are outlined in Title 1, Section 101(1)(D)(4-6), 
     ``Modification of Premerger Notification Filing Fees.'' Under 
     the proposal, merger filing fees would account for major 
     categories of mergers worth $1 billion and up. These include 
     fees for mergers valued between (1) $1B-$2B ($400K filing 
     fee); (2) $2B-$5B ($800K filing fee); and (3) more than $5B 
     ($2.25M filing fee).
       AAI recently released the white paper, What Does the 
     Billion-Dollar Deal Mean for Stronger Merger Enforcement? The 
     findings in the AAT paper strongly support the Title 1, 
     Section 101(1)(D)(4-6) proposal for more specificity in 
     filing fees for billion-dollar mergers and additional agency 
     resources. Additional resources are needed to enable the U.S. 
     Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal 
     Trade Commission to review and investigate billion-dollar 
     deals.
       The AAI white paper unpacks the advent of the billion-
     dollar merger in the 1990s and the growth of billion-dollar 
     transactions over time. Supported by empirical analysis of 
     enforcement data, the paper analyzes the outsized impact of 
     billion-dollar deals on enforcement and associated 
     implications for the allocation of scarce agency resources. 
     This resource allocation issue extends to early-stage 
     inquiries (i.e., second requests) and late-stage inquiries 
     (i.e., investigations). Importantly, it also extends to how 
     the agencies resolve challenged, illegal mergers though 
     settlement, versus forced abandonments, restructurings, and 
     injunctions.
       The AAI white paper contains a number of important 
     recommendations. One is that the antitrust agencies be 
     required to report data for multiple categories of mergers 
     above $1 billion in their annual reports to Congress under 
     the Hart Scott Rodino Act. A second recommendation is the 
     need for more resources to enable the agencies to review 
     billion-dollar deals. A third recommendation is that the 
     agencies undertake a review of resource allocation for both 
     early-stage and late-stage inqurnes involving billion-dollar 
     deals. A fourth recommendation is that the agencies review 
     their own successes and failures in past settlements of 
     challenged, billion-dollar mergers.
       In sum, the recommendations set forth in What Does the 
     Billion-Dollar Deal Mean for Stronger Merger Enforcement? are 
     necessary to enable competition research, education, and 
     advocacy organizations like AAI, to analyze merger 
     enforcement data and to render policy recommendanons that are 
     responsive to changing trends that directly impact the vigor 
     of merger enforcement.
       We appreciate your attention to AAI's comments in regard to 
     H.R. 3843.
           Sincerely,
                                                Diana Moss, Ph.D.,
                          President, American Antitrust Institute.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock), a distinguished member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, this bill imposes $1.4 billion in new 
fees on large companies seeking mergers and makes it easier to block 
those mergers.
  Now, mergers only occur when they promote efficiency and 
productivity. They only occur when they enhance a company's ability to 
provide better goods and services at lower prices. Interfering in this 
process harms the prosperity of every American.
  Let's start with the simple fact that taxes and fees on businesses 
aren't paid by businesses. They are paid by consumers through higher 
prices, employees through lower wages, and investors through lower 
earnings.
  How does increasing consumer prices protect consumers?
  Where will these fees go?
  Well, they are going to go to increasingly corrupt bureaucracies like 
the FTC. That agency is now led by a radical leftist who has declared 
her intention to use the powers of government to replace consumer 
decisions with her own, all to advance her brand of ideological 
zealotry.
  The worst damage this does is to make the marketplace less efficient, 
which makes prices higher, consumer choices less satisfying, and 
ultimately diminishes our prosperity as a society.
  Markets are inherently democratic because they fundamentally are 
regulated by consumer choices. Consumers vote every day with every 
dollar they spend what the market will provide and at what prices. 
Consumer choices reward companies that best meet their needs and punish 
the companies that don't.
  Now, the left seeks to substitute its judgment for yours. It seeks to 
tell you what choices you may make to advance their political goals. 
For example, personally I don't care for Jeff Bezos' political views, 
but he has built a successful, gigantic company by satisfying his 
consumers.
  Americans have voted with their dollars every day that the services 
that Amazon provides are better than the many other alternatives they 
have to choose from. The moment they decide otherwise, Amazon will 
shrink and competitors will emerge and grow to fill those gaps.
  Substituting government's judgment for yours, as this bill does, 
ultimately undermines your right to decide for yourself who is best at 
providing for your own needs.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to reject not only this bill, but the poisonous, 
authoritarian, and destructive ideology behind it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see that Mr. McClintock's argument 
is against all antitrust laws. Consumers make choices, so what do you 
need antitrust laws for is essentially what he is saying.
  Companies buy other companies not just for good reasons. They buy 
other companies to reduce the competition, and thereby enable them to 
charge higher monopolistic prices. That is why we have antitrust laws.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and sponsors of 
the bill for their hard work. Let me say, the reason is obvious why I 
rise in support of H.R. 3843, the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act 
of 2022.
  Does anybody know the word ``consumers''? Do I need to spell it out 
on the floor of the House?
  Ultimately, mergers, in many instances, have a detrimental impact on 
consumers, either by way of cost or loss of services. Read the history 
books.
  Does anybody know that in years past there were opportunities for 
many, many flights across America? The aviation industry has been 
changed by mergers. That is a prime example.
  This particular legislation updates the filing fees that merging 
parties may pay to the Federal antitrust enforcers. It requires merging 
parties to disclose any subsidies from countries or entities that are 
strategic or economic threats to the United States.
  The people of the United States are consumers, Mr. and Mrs. Jones 
walking and working every day to make ends meet.
  As Democrats have done in the Inflation Reduction Act and the 
reduction in healthcare costs and insulin costs, we are bringing down 
fees. But there is something about justice that is involved in this, as 
well.
  We strongly support this. And the National Association of Attorneys 
General and every single State attorney general wrote a letter urging 
Congress to pass the bill's amendments to the multidistrict litigation 
statute ``as soon as possible so that our citizens benefit from more 
efficient, effective, and timely adjudication of antitrust actions.''
  Merging fees are to provide the extra resources that are needed, and 
the administration feels that to vigorously enforce the antitrust laws, 
the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission need the resources to do their 
job.
  And, again, who do we represent but the people of the United States?
  Who are they? Consumers.
  What happens when mergers come?
  Lack of services, lack of opportunity, lack of a more fiscally 
responsible commercial scheme, if you will, so that they can get 
resources, goods, and services without having enormous expense.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 3843 because this 
helps consumers, and it brings justice to this system. This is a bill 
that is long overdue, and I thank those who sponsored it.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), my friend.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask my colleagues, how many more 
times do we need to see it, the abuse of power by the Department of 
Justice?

[[Page H8258]]

  I am sure, just like I do, you travel your district, you talk to 
people. Some agree with you; some don't agree with you. You know what 
not one person has said to me? Agree or disagree, not one person has 
said to me: You know what we need, Perry, we need more money for the 
Department of Justice. Not one. I don't know why that is, but maybe it 
is because of the abuse of power.
  I appreciate my colleagues that want to do something with Big Tech. I 
sure want to do something, too.
  In about 3 months, the folks who are destroying this country are not 
going to be in charge around here, and then we can do something 
meaningful. We don't have to take the bad to get a couple good things. 
We can just do the good things and leave the bad things out in 3 more 
months.
  We do a lot of things in good faith around here, Mr. Speaker. We do a 
lot of things in good faith. I am tired of having those things abused.
  People will say: Well, what are you talking about, Perry?
  I will give you an example. President Biden used the HEROES Act--the 
HEROES Act made after 9/11 to support people that were called to duty 
to go and get their education, but they were called to duty. He used 
that to forgive the loans of all these people that incurred student 
debt. It is an abuse.
  First of all, it is not forgiveness. It is Marxism, right?
  Because you are not forgiven, you are paying for it. It is not 
forgiveness.
  How many more times do we need to see it? In good faith. In good 
faith.
  In 3 months, Mr. Speaker, under new management here, we can get a 
great bill instead of some mediocre thing where we have got to accept 
something terrible, $280 million a year, $1\1/2\ billion more for the 
abuse of power.
  Two dozen agents raid a guy's home, a pastor, 7:00 in the morning in 
Bucks County.
  Oh, yeah, DOJ needs more money for that, right?
  You know what they could have done?
  They could have saved a lot of money. They could have picked up the 
phone, called the magistrate. The magistrate could have called the 
pastor and said, You know what, the Federal Government is going to 
charge you. Show up down here at the office, we need to charge you. And 
I bet he would have shown up. The guy is not a criminal.
  More money for that? No way, Mr. President.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones), a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership.
  This bill really should be uncontroversial. But, unfortunately, our 
Nation's largest tech companies don't want any changes to the status 
quo. They are content with little to no antitrust enforcement. They are 
content with their own Gilded Age.
  I regret, deeply regret, that some of my colleagues have agreed to do 
their bidding. It is consumers and small business owners who are paying 
the price in an economy that increasingly only works for large 
corporations and for the ultra-wealthy.
  Our antitrust enforcement system is beyond outdated. The last time 
Congress updated the merger filing fees was in 2001, long before 
companies like Amazon, Facebook, and Apple began their anticompetitive 
and monopolistic frenzy of acquisitions.
  This bill updates those filing fees and ensures that our antitrust 
agencies have the resources they need to effectively combat the growing 
concentration and monopolization of our economy in the hands of the 
largest corporations.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up to Big Tech and our largest 
corporations and to vote for this bill.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Buck), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I want to use my time to quote other 
conservative voices.
  The Heritage Foundation just issued a report:
  This package equips the American people's Representatives with 
targeted, commonsense tools to constrain Big Tech companies' abuse of 
power. These bills represent an important step towards restoring self-
governance, shoring up our national security, and enforcing current 
antitrust laws to promote competitiveness without expanding or unduly 
empowering the Federal bureaucracy.
  Senators Lee, Grassley, and Cotton issued a statement on September 
26: `` . . . these bills improve antitrust enforcement without 
appropriating any more funds to President Biden's out-of-control FTC. 
We call on all of our colleagues in the House of Representatives to 
strongly support this package.''
  The American Mind on September 28 issued a story, ``While GOP views 
on antitrust have evolved, one thing has remained constant: `antitrust 
enforcement is law enforcement.' You can't provide `legal amnesty' to 
Big Tech companies that flout antitrust laws. Defunding the antitrust 
police will have the same result as defunding the municipal police: 
enabling bad actors to harm the public.''
  Finally, The American Conservative on September 29, I guess today, 
issued this story, ``While Buck is pushing restrained, politically 
viable legislation that would strengthen the average American's 
position in the cultural battle against Silicon Valley, some of his 
colleagues seem to be sticking to an overcooked theory derived from a 
notion of corporate personhood.''
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following articles:
  ``Heritage Tech Policy Experts Applaud House Antitrust Package'';
  ``Republican Senators Urge House Republicans to Support Antitrust 
Reform Package'';
  The American Conservative: ``Tech Hawks Meet Resistance to a `Modest 
Proposal''';
  The American Mind: ``Don't Defund the (Antitrust) Police''.

             [From the Heritage Foundation, Sept. 29, 2022]

      Heritage Tech Policy Experts Applaud House Antitrust Package

       Washington.--This week, the House of Representatives is 
     expected to vote on a package of three antitrust bills that 
     would begin the important work of reining in Big Tech: the 
     State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act, Merger Filing Fee 
     Modernization Act, and Foreign Merger Subsidy Disclosure Act. 
     Experts from Heritage's Tech Policy Center--Kara Frederick, 
     director of the center; Will Thibeau, policy analyst; and 
     Jake Denton, research associate--released the following 
     statement ahead of the scheduled vote:
       Heritage Tech Policy Experts Applaud House Antitrust 
     Package I The Heritage Foundation
       ``Big Tech companies should not have outsized authority to 
     shape and control society. However, we have all watched these 
     companies take an increasingly troubling share of control 
     over our politics and culture in recent years. Conservatives 
     should champion targeted, commonsense policies that constrain 
     Big Tech companies' abuse of power. This package equips the 
     American people's representatives with tools to do so. These 
     bills represent an important step toward restoring self-
     governance, shoring up our national security, and enforcing 
     current antitrust laws to promote competitiveness--without 
     expanding or unduly empowering the federal bureaucracy.
       ``From providing state attorneys general with a more level 
     playing field in critical litigation against Big Tech to 
     exposing Big Tech's cozy relationship with U.S. adversaries 
     like the Chinese Communist Party, this package is a requisite 
     starting point to rebalance the relationship between American 
     citizens and the Big Tech companies that abuse them.''
                                  ____

                                                September 26, 2022

Republican Senators Urge House Republicans to Support Antitrust Reform 
                                Package

       Washington, D.C.--Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), joined by Sens. Tom 
     Cotton (R-AR), and Chuck Grassley (R-IA), urged their 
     colleagues in the House to support passage of an antitrust 
     reform package consisting of the State Antitrust Enforcement 
     Venue Act, the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act, and the 
     Foreign Merger Subsidy Disclosure Act. The bills would 
     protect antitrust enforcement by state attorneys general, 
     modernize the Hart-Scott-Rodino merger filing fees, and 
     require merging parties to disclose subsidies from certain 
     foreign governments, respectively.
       The Senators issued the following joint statement:
       This package represents a strong, bipartisan consensus 
     approach to strengthening enforcement of the federal 
     antitrust laws, against both Big Tech and other bad actors. 
     Importantly, these bills improve antitrust enforcement 
     without appropriating any more funds to President Biden's 
     out-of-control FTC. We call on all of our colleagues in the 
     House of Representatives to strongly support this package.

[[Page H8259]]

     
                                  ____
                   [From theamericanconservative.com]

   Tech Hawks Meet-Resistance to a ``Modest Proposal''--The American 
                              Conservative

                           (By Harry Scherer)

       Intramural fights are causing a dustup in the House 
     Judiciary Committee this week as Colorado Republican Ken Buck 
     looks to push a legislative package that seeks to empower 
     state attorneys general with the authority to try antitrust 
     cases on their home turf, rein in monopolistic tech mergers 
     among large companies, and check China's financial 
     interference in domestic mergers. The bipartisan Merger 
     Filing Fee Authorization Act, which has reconciled the 
     priorities of GOP tech hawks and the aggressive antitrust 
     commissioners on the FTC, is being criticized by Ohio 
     Republican Jim Jordan, ranking member of the Judiciary 
     Committee.
       On Tuesday morning, Jordan tweeted: ``Do you think we 
     should give the Biden DOJ and FTC more money? Do you trust 
     they won't use the money to target conservatives? Do you 
     think Joe Biden, Merrick Garland, and Lina Khan have your 
     best interests at heart? No, No, No.''
       Buck, ranking member of the Antitrust, Commercial and 
     Administrative Law Subcommittee, is not swayed by those 
     critiques. In fact, the bills that he brought to the House on 
     Wednesday night seem to have been drafted to encourage state 
     governments to curb Big Tech mergers that allow the merged 
     entities to more comfortably ``target conservatives.''
       Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project, told 
     Steve Bannon on Tuesday: ``This is a modest proposal. This is 
     time for Republicans who pretend they want to hold Big Tech 
     accountable. This is time for them to put up or shut up.''
       Jordan might be one of those Republicans Davis was talking 
     about. When the Facebook Oversight Board upheld the company's 
     decision to ban President Trump from Facebook and Instagram 
     in May of last year, Jordan tweeted, ``Break them up.''
       So which one will it be? Catchy, far-reaching political 
     slogans or common-sense policy? Jordan's position is 
     difficult to follow. One of the bills in the package, Buck's 
     State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act, passed the Judiciary 
     Committee in June of last year by a vote of 34-7 with a `yea' 
     vote from Jordan. The second, Colorado Democrat Joe Neguse's 
     Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act, passed the same 
     committee by a vote of 29-12 with a `no' vote from Jordan. 
     The third, the Foreign Merger Subsidy Disclosure Act, has yet 
     to get a committee vote.
       That second bill, though, is what distinguishes those who 
     really care about discouraging anticompetitive behavior. 
     Right now, the FTC imposes fees when corporate entities file 
     for a merger, the values of which are determined by the total 
     amount of voting securities, assets, or non-corporate 
     interests being acquired through the merger. Neguse's bill 
     actually proposes to decrease filing fees for mergers under 
     $1 billion valuations, but increase fees for mergers in 
     excess of $1 billion. The bill also directs the FTC to 
     increase filing fees each year according to the percentage 
     change in the Consumer Price Index, a metric that measures 
     the prices paid by U.S. consumers for goods and services.
       One group of GOP senators expressed support for those in 
     favor of the package. Utah's Mike Lee, Arizona's Tom Cotton, 
     and Iowa's Chuck Grassley urged their colleagues in the House 
     to pass the package, saying, ``This package represents a 
     strong, bipartisan consensus approach to strengthening 
     enforcement of the federal antitrust laws, against both Big 
     Tech and other bad actors. Importantly, these bills improve 
     antitrust enforcement without appropriating any more funds to 
     President Biden's out-of-control FTC.''
       While Buck is pushing restrained, politically viable 
     legislation that would strengthen the average American's 
     position in the cultural battle against Silicon Valley, some 
     of his colleagues seem to be sticking to an overcooked theory 
     derived from a notion of corporate personhood. History will 
     be on Buck's side.
                                  ____


                        [From americanmind.org]

                  Don't Defund the (Antitrust) Police

                            (By Mike Wacker)

       As the House gets ready to vote on a bipartisan package of 
     antitrust bills that would target Big Tech, Congressman Jim 
     Jordan--who would set the antitrust agenda if the GOP wins 
     the House this November-slammed his foot on the brakes. ``Do 
     you think,'' he asked, ``we should give the Biden DOJ and FTC 
     more money?'' This package, in fact, does not give them more 
     money, but given Jordan's emphasis, and his fiscally 
     conservative bent, one has to wonder if he plans to defund 
     the (antitrust) police.
       Jordan has been an ardent critic of Federal Trade 
     Commission Chair Lina Khan, describing her as a woke, far-
     left radical. These criticisms are fair and are shared by 
     other Republicans. During a Senate oversight hearing, Senator 
     Grassley-who previously voted to confirm Khan-decried the 
     agency's ``low morale, management and partisanship problems'' 
     and its ``push for radical antitrust policies.''
       Tweeting about how Lina Khan is evil, however, is not the 
     same as setting a robust antitrust agenda. And while 
     Republican senators Lee, Cotton, and Grassley have been 
     critical of Khan, they have also thrown their support behind 
     the antitrust package; if it passes the House, it can easily 
     pass the Senate and become law.
       While GOP views on antitrust have evolved, one thing has 
     remained constant: ``antitrust enforcement is law 
     enforcement.'' You can't provide ``legal amnesty'' to Big 
     Tech companies that flout antitrust laws. Defunding the 
     antitrust police will have the same result as defunding the 
     municipal police: enabling bad actors to harm the public.
       Nonetheless, given the increased politicization of the FTC-
     and the broader politicization of federal law enforcement-- 
     you shouldn't give antitrust enforcers a blank check. While 
     an earlier version of this package did assign $418 million to 
     the FTC, the latest version removed that appropriation in 
     order to win over GOP support. As Lee, Cotton, and Grassley 
     noted, ``Importantly, these bills improve antitrust 
     enforcement without appropriating any more funds to President 
     Biden's out-of-control FTC.''
       In an ideal world, you would find ways to both increase 
     funding to law enforcement while also establishing guardrails 
     on that funding. While the FBI, for example, needs more 
     resources to investigate child sexual abuse, they also need 
     safeguards that prevent the agency from redirecting that 
     funding to pursue political investigations--an issue which is 
     not a hypothetical problem. But whether it's the FBI or FTC, 
     those guardrails can't be built overnight, so what can be 
     done now to improve antitrust enforcement?
       Big Tech, not taxpayers or small and mid-sized businesses, 
     must foot more of the bill for antitrust enforcement. Title I 
     of the antitrust package adjusts the fees for mergers, 
     charging more for transactions over one billion dollars, 
     while also charging less for mergers under that threshold. 
     Moreover, these fee hikes would not give more money to the 
     FTC and DOJ; instead, they would offset taxpayer funding of 
     these agencies. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
     estimates that these ``discretionary offsetting collections'' 
     would reduce federal spending by $1.4 billion dollars.
       The FTC and DOJ must be diverted from fake problems to real 
     problems. Title II of the antitrust package does exactly 
     that. Especially given the willingness of Big Tech to 
     capitulate to China, both the FTC and DOJ need to focus on 
     foreign influence from, for instance, the Chinese Communist 
     Party when it comes to ruling on mergers. Here, Title II 
     would amend the premerger notification process, requiring 
     companies to disclose if they received ``a subsidy from a 
     foreign entity of concern.''
       Finally, if you don't want to empower the FTC and DOJ, then 
     empower the states instead. When the federal government files 
     an antitrust lawsuit, it picks a venue for that lawsuit. 
     However, state governments--which already have to pool 
     resources to fund antitrust lawsuits against Big Tech--don't 
     have this same privilege. Before they can even debate the 
     merits of their lawsuit, Big Tech will make them debate where 
     they, should have a debate, burning time and money. Title III 
     would let states choose their own venue.
       Voters are angry at Big Tech, but they are also asking 
     legislators, ``What are you going to do about it?'' Jim 
     Jordan and Tucker Carlson may share the same talking points 
     on Big Tech, but as Tucker himself once pointed out when 
     Jordan was on his show, his job as a talk show host is to 
     talk; Jordan's job as a legislator is to legislate.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, Americans are tired of monopolies that 
saddle them with less choices and higher prices.
  The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice must have 
the resources that they need to aggressively combat anticompetitive 
mergers.
  This commonsense, bipartisan legislation that we are considering 
today is absolutely needed right now in order to protect consumers. It 
makes giant companies pay their fair share, improves transparency, and 
streamlines litigation.
  This should not be--and it isn't--a partisan piece of legislation. At 
a hearing I was chairing as the chair of the Subcommittee on Consumer 
Protection and Commerce, we had testimony last year from a Bush-
appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission, Bill Kovacic, who 
called for a tripling in the FTC budget. He recognized that this agency 
should play a leading role in enforcing our laws that protect 
consumers, workers, and innovation.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a very compelling statement made 
by both Senator Klobuchar and Senator Durbin in favor of the 
legislation.

    (By Amy Klobuchar, U.S. Senator from Minnesota, Sept. 29, 2022)

   Klobuchar, Durbin Issue Statement Urging House to Pass Bipartisan 
            Legislation to Strengthen Antitrust Enforcement

       Washington.--U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Chairwoman 
     of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition

[[Page H8260]]

     Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights, and Dick Durbin (D-
     IL), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the 
     statement below urging the House of Representatives to pass--
     H.R. 3843, the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act.
       ``The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act is the product of 
     years of bipartisan work in both the House and Senate to 
     improve the enforcement of our antitrust laws and protect 
     competition and consumers. This package of bills will update 
     merger filing fees and help ensure that the federal antitrust 
     agencies can be properly funded, that information on foreign 
     subsidies is made available to federal enforcers, and that 
     state antitrust enforcement can proceed more efficiently and 
     without needless delays. We call on all House Members to 
     support this important bipartisan legislation.''
       The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act includes the House 
     companion to Klobuchar's merger filing fees reform bill with 
     Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Senator Durbin to help 
     ensure antitrust enforcers have sufficient resources to 
     protect consumers by updating merger filing fees and lowering 
     the burden on small and medium-sized businesses. It also 
     includes the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act, 
     Klobuchar's legislation with Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) to 
     empower state antitrust enforcement by allowing state 
     attorneys general litigating antitrust cases to remain in 
     their selected courts. H.R. 3843 has been endorsed by a 
     coalition of State Attorney Generals:

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record Mr. 
Kovacic's testimony.
                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

  Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce

 Safeguarding American Consumers: Fighting Frauds and Scams During the 
                                Pandemic

           Testimony of William E. Kovacic, February 4, 2021


 Federal Trade Commission Budget and Compensation Levels for Employees

       There is a grave mismatch between the duties Congress has 
     assigned the FTC and the resources it has given the agency to 
     carry out its mandate. There is a serious need to raise the 
     FTC's budget, but not simply to build a larger staff by 
     hiring more people. Reforms to the federal compensation 
     system are necessary to attract and retain a larger number of 
     elite personnel. I do not see how the FTC or many other 
     public agencies can recruit and retain necessary personnel 
     without a significant increase in the salaries paid to 
     managers and staff.
       Consider two possibilities for compensation reform. The 
     first is to align FTC salaries with the highest scale paid to 
     the various US financial service regulators. One model would 
     be the compensation scale used to pay employees of the 
     banking regulatory agencies; the salary scale for these 
     bodies exceeds the General Schedule (GS) federal civil 
     service wage scale by roughly twenty percent. In adopting the 
     Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 
     2010, Congress concluded that the importance of the mission 
     of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 
     warranted higher salaries for the agency's personnel. If the 
     higher salary scale made sense for the CFPB, I see no good 
     reason why a more generous compensation schedule is not 
     appropriate for what is the nation's leading consumer 
     protection agency (and its leading federal data protection 
     authority.
       A second, more ambitious alternative would be to triple the 
     FTC's existing budget of about $330 million per year and use 
     the increase mainly to raise salaries and partly to add more 
     employees. This experiment might be carried out for a decade 
     to test whether a major hike in pay would increase the 
     agency's ability to recruit the best talent, retain the 
     talent for a significant time, and apply that talent with 
     greater success in a program that involves prosecuting 
     numerous ambitious cases and devising other significant 
     policy initiatives.
       A major increase in compensation, either by adopting the 
     CFPB model or trying our my more ambitious proposal, is a 
     crucial test of our national commitment to improve the 
     foundations for effective consumer protection enforcement. 
     The nation should spend what it takes to get the best 
     possible personnel to run the difficult cases (and carry out 
     other measures, such as the promulgation of trade regulation 
     rules) that will be the pillars of a new, expanded 
     enforcement program. Such steps will become even more 
     important if new political leadership seeks to close the 
     revolving door, which has operated as a mechanism to 
     encourage attorneys and economists to accept lower salaries 
     in federal service in the expectation of receiving much 
     higher compensation in the private sector at a later time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to comments made by my friend from Colorado. He used the term 
``overcooked theory.'' Let me tell you what is not theory.
  The Department of Justice's raid on a former President's home. Not 
theory.
  The Department of Justice taking the phone of a sitting Member of 
this body. Not theory.
  Fourteen whistleblowers coming to our office talking about the 
political nature of the Justice Department. Not theory.
  Those are facts. That is scary stuff.
  Now this bill, if passed, will give that agency $140 million each 
year for the next 5 years.
  That is what we want to do? For that reason alone, we should be 
against this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Issa), my good friend, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, 5 minutes is not enough to go through each and every 
item that is wrong with this bill, so I am going to try to summarize, 
and some of it may be redundant.
  The authors of this bill are the authors of at least three bills. 
They are the authors of very different bills, and, ultimately, we 
should be having a vote on three or more bills, as we did in committee.
  You might ask, well, why aren't we? Usually, I don't want to talk 
about procedure, but there is a reason. They are trying to cram this 
thing and get a few more votes by putting a bill that is not 
objectionable with bills that are very objectionable.
  A bill that doesn't grab more power with one that empowers two 
agencies that are under review for good cause. One of them has been 
trying to seize this very power. As we speak, the Federal Trade 
Commission has done virtually nothing to protect consumers in the areas 
it has jurisdiction on. They constantly say we don't have enough money 
for the job we already have. But they want to be able to control both 
before, during, and after mergers and acquisitions. They actually want 
to be able to and are trying to undo mergers that already have 
occurred.
  So yes, there is an agency that is power hungry. Predominantly, my 
friends on the other side of the aisle want to give them money. Maybe 
not money in this bill because we are not appropriators, but it is 
still $140 million, and it will keep coming, and it will grow that 
agency.
  I am going to ask the American people something here today, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Have you received a call about your extended warranty?
  Have you received a robocall from somebody you don't know, and it 
gets through on your personal phone or your cell phone?
  Of course, you have. So has every American.
  The Federal Trade Commission has an absolute obligation to seek that 
out and to prosecute that. And they are funded to do it, and they 
haven't done it. But, no, they want to get into mergers.
  And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and some on my side 
of the aisle, hate a couple of Big Tech companies for their leftist 
leanings or whatever, on my side. And on the other side, I guess, 
because they are profitable. They hate them so much that they look past 
two truths.
  One of them is--big tech, medium tech, small tech--they have made us 
the envy of the world, and we have delivered to the rest of the world a 
better set of economies when they adopt those very technologies.
  And you ask, why do those technologies get adopted? Well, one of the 
reasons is a startup can be funded because they know they may have an 
exit that isn't even a normal one. It is going to be an exit by having 
one of these big companies buy them. Many companies' actual plan is to 
build something that is going to be bought by some large tech. And yet, 
we are considering changing the basis for mergers and acquisitions so 
that might no longer be possible.
  Innovation could dry up. I was an innovator; I know what it is like 
as a small startup company to try to get those funds. And you know 
what, those funds come if they believe not that you might make a living 
and be around, but that your company might become valuable, that your 
idea might explode into the marketplace.

[[Page H8261]]

  The American people see through this. Big tech, medium tech, and 
small tech. By the way, most of the Big Tech companies, none of them 
were around 50 years ago, and most of them weren't around 25 years ago. 
The fact is this is new tech that they are attacking. These are new 
technologies, and they are playing into the very hands of the people 
they claim to defend.
  If you want to stifle innovation, vote for this. And by the way, 
going back to that first one, Mr. Speaker, why are we voting on three 
bills? The reason is they are trying to trick Members of Congress into 
voting. Please, vote ``no.'' Vote ``no'' because this is a bad set of 
multiple bills, and I intend on making sure it never gets through the 
Senate.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I agree with Mr. Issa. We should never have 
passed the Sherman Act to deal with those newfangled railroads.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Buck).
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard the arguments against this Big Tech bill by 
my Republican colleagues.
  My Republican friends ask why would we give President Biden a win 
within 41 days before an election?
  Let me be clear. This is not a Democrat bill, and this is not a 
Republican bill.
  Mr. Speaker, holding Big Tech accountable is an American bill. It is 
American legislation. We are United States Congressmen. We are serving 
in the United States Congress. We serve United States citizens. It is 
never the wrong time to do the right thing.

  My friends say this Big Tech bill doesn't prevent discrimination and 
censorship. Competition is the solution for viewpoint censorship. MSNBC 
may not support my views, but Newsmax and FOX will listen to me.
  The New York Times and The Washington Post may disagree with me, but 
The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times will hear me out.
  Google controls 94 percent of online searches, and when it changes 
its algorithm to discriminate against one side, there is no 
alternative. The same goes for Facebook, Amazon, and Apple.
  The real threat is that when a monopoly controls information in a 
democracy, it controls the results of elections. That is the threat 
that Big Tech poses to America. I am afraid that America may not be 
able to withstand that threat.
  Finally, my friends ask, Why give money to the Biden FTC and DOJ?
  America is about to give Republicans control of the oversight and 
appropriations process. Americans expect us to use those levers of 
power responsibly and effectively. It is not too much to ask for 
Congress to walk and chew gum at the same time? We can create 
competition for Big Tech and level the playing field and at the same 
time make sure our government treats everyone in this country fairly.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Bentz), a distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article titled, 
``Lina Khan's Unfair and Deceptive Approach to Antitrust.''

            [From U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Sept. 20, 2022]

         Lina Khan's Unfair and Deceptive Approach to Antitrust

                           (By Sean Heather)

       In a recent speech at Fordham University, Federal Trade 
     Commissioner (FTC) Chair Lina Khan outlined an aggressive new 
     approach to the agency's competition policy. Under her 
     leadership, she explained, the FTC will interpret ``unfair 
     methods of competition'' broadly, block mergers that could 
     reflect an ``incipient'' trend toward monopoly, reject 
     efficiency defenses, and contend that ``conglomerates'' harm 
     consumers, irrespective of economic evidence. In Khan's view, 
     her agenda is ``fundamentally conservative'' because it shows 
     ``respect for the rule of law'' as reflected in congressional 
     intent.
       Khan's speech hearkens back to George Orwell's Ministry of 
     Truth, where words apparently lose all meaning. Khan's agenda 
     rejects the rule of law in favor of a progressive policy 
     agenda that grants the government total discretion to 
     challenge any merger for any reason whatsoever, ignoring 
     basic economics, history, and decades of precedent from the 
     Supreme Court.
       Most troubling is the fact that Khan's agenda would allow 
     the agency to challenge any private conduct that conflicts 
     with progressive notions of fairness. Section 5 of the FTC 
     Act directs the agency to combat ``unfair methods of 
     competition.'' Historically, the agency has tied this 
     authority to what's in the consumers' economic interest, 
     which hews closely to the other main antitrust statutes, 
     namely the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. As a result, the FTC 
     provided Section 5 with context, guardrails, and 
     predictability, which are all integral to the rule of law.
       Under the FTC's new leadership, however, anything goes. The 
     FTC's new strategic plan condemns ``unwarranted health, 
     safety, and privacy risks'' and seeks ``equity for 
     historically underserved communities.'' These issues, while 
     important, lie far outside the FTC's statutory authority or 
     competence. Yet under Chair Khan's reading of Section 5, the 
     FTC can do whatever it pleases. Without guardrails, for 
     example, the FTC could condemn as ``unfair'' a merger that 
     would result in job losses even if that merger would lower 
     costs and lead to lower prices for consumers. Congress never 
     envisioned the FTC to serve as the morality police over the 
     market.


                         Cherry-picking History

       In fact, the last time the FTC embarked on a path of 
     overreach of this scope was the 1970s. As a result, the 
     Washington Post editorial board labeled the agency the 
     ``National Nanny'' and Congress nearly eliminated the agency 
     altogether. Similarly, Chair Khan's approach conveniently 
     sidesteps this period of tremendous overreach and willfully 
     ignores the succeeding decades of precedent and economic 
     learning. According to her, the amendments to Section 7 of 
     the Clayton Act show that Congress was concerned with any 
     trend toward mergers and that, therefore, the agencies and 
     courts erred in accounting for the possibility that a merger 
     might increase efficiency. Khan points to Supreme Court cases 
     from the 1960s to support her position and, in fairness, she 
     is correct that in an earlier time in our history mergers 
     were reflexively viewed more skeptically--but that was prior 
     to now decades of reliance on sound economic analysis that 
     accompanies merger review.
       Chair Khan, however, seeks to divorce economic analysis 
     from antitrust law. In those intervening decades, economists 
     came to understand that relatively few mergers actually 
     threaten competition, whereas most mergers, particularly 
     vertical mergers, have pro-competitive benefits such as 
     improved capital flows and greater efficiency. Across 
     political administrations, the antitrust agencies tailored 
     their enforcement activities to target those mergers that 
     posed a genuine risk to competition. Consistent with economic 
     learning and experience, the Supreme Court interpreted the 
     antitrust laws more permissively to allow the private sector 
     more freedom to operate.
       By returning to the worldview prevalent in the 1960s, Chair 
     Khan's FTC would seriously damage the economy's dynamism. By 
     blocking mergers that increase concentration only slightly, 
     the FTC would prevent startups from obtaining the capital and 
     technical expertise that they need to grow and thrive. By 
     replacing Section 5's guardrails with amorphous standards 
     subject to the shifting winds of politics, the FTC would 
     eliminate the certainty and predictability that businesses 
     need to plan and invest. And by barring use of the efficiency 
     defense, the FTC would force companies to incur more costs to 
     produce the same products--costs that would be passed along 
     to consumers.

  Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I support title II of this bill, and, 
actually, I would vote for it if it was set up as a separate bill as it 
once was.
  I would not support title III.
  The real issue is title I and the $1.4 billion that it would provide 
to the Department of Justice and the FTC.
  The assertion is that it would not or is not supported by the record. 
Let me explain, however, what has not happened that should have in 
order to make this $1.5 billion supportable. And what hasn't happened 
is we have not had Chairwoman Lina Khan appear before us in our 
Committee on the Judiciary. It seems odd that we wouldn't find out how 
this money is going to be spent before we allocate it to the purposes 
reflected in the Record.
  Let me just read from a recent speech at Fordham University:
  ``Chair Lina Khan outlined an aggressive new approach to the agency's 
competition policy. Under her leadership, she explained, the FTC will 
interpret `unfair methods of competition' broadly, block mergers that 
could reflect an `incipient' trend toward monopoly, reject efficiency 
defenses, and contend that `conglomerates' harm consumers, irrespective 
of economic evidence. In Khan's view, her agenda is `fundamentally 
conservative' because it shows respect for the rule of law as reflected 
in congressional intent.''
  To quote the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: ``Khan's speech hearkens back 
to George Orwell's `Ministry of Truth,' where words apparently lose all 
meaning. Khan's agenda rejects the rule of law in favor of a 
progressive policy agenda that grants the government total discretion 
to challenge any merger for any reason whatsoever, ignoring

[[Page H8262]]

basic economics, history, and decades of precedent from the Supreme 
Court. Most troubling is the fact that Khan's agenda would allow the 
agency to challenge any private conduct that conflicts with progressive 
notions of fairness. Section 5 of the FTC Act directs the agency to 
combat `unfair methods of competition.' Historically, the agency has 
tied this authority to what is in the consumers' economic interest, 
which hews closely to the other main antitrust statutes, namely the 
Sherman and Clayton Act. As a result, the FTC provided Section 5 with 
context, guardrails, and predictability, which are all integral to the 
rule of law.
  Why didn't we have Chairwoman Khan appear before us and explain why 
she wants to vary so dramatically from what has been the law for the 
past 30 years.
  ``Under the FTC's new leadership, however, anything goes. The FTC's 
new strategic plan condemns `unwarranted health, safety, and privacy 
risks,' and seeks `equity for historically underserved communities.' 
These issues, while important, lie far outside the FTC's statutory 
authority or competence. Yet under Chair Khan's reading of Section 5, 
the FTC can do whatever it pleases. Without guardrails, for example, 
the FTC could condemn as `unfair' a merger that would result in job 
losses even if that merger would lower costs and lead to lower prices 
for consumers.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bill whose time is not right. We don't know 
how the money is going to be spent, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we do know how the money is going to be 
spent. It is going to be spent on antitrust enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Stanton), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. STANTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time.
  Today, I rise in support of H.R. 3843, the Merger Filing Fee 
Modernization Act of 2022.
  This bipartisan legislation will strengthen antitrust enforcement and 
better protect U.S. consumers, workers, and businesses. I support the 
full slate of bills in this package, and I am pleased that it includes 
legislation that I introduced with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Fitzgerald).
  Our bill, the Foreign Merger Subsidy Disclosure Act, will create a 
more transparent picture for our antitrust enforcers by requiring 
merging companies to disclose foreign government subsidies. We know 
that China continues to use state-owned entities to acquire our 
emerging technologies and intellectual property in an attempt to 
surpass and suppress United States companies.
  Our bill provides an important guardrail so that China and other 
government-backed competitors can't discreetly buy up U.S. companies, 
unduly influence our free market economy, steal intellectual property, 
and stifle competition.
  Our bill will ensure that these investments are not undermined. This 
is good, commonsense policy. It is a step in the right direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote ``yes'' on this package, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that I find it 
interesting. First, we had Mr. Cicilline, the chair of the subcommittee 
say that DOJ and FTC don't get the money. It has to be appropriated 
next year. But then the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Nadler, 
said we know how the money is going to be spent. It is going to be 
spent on antitrust enforcement. It can't be both.

                              {time}  1315

  So it can't be both. We know what is going to happen. This money is 
going to wind up in DOJ and FTC, and we know their track record in how 
they have been treating the American citizen.
  But I find it interesting that the Democrats can't even get their 
argument straight which just reinforces why this bill should not pass, 
because in the end it is more money for the Department of Justice--the 
same Department of Justice that has done their egregious actions over 
the last several months.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) who is a former judge, a great member of the Judiciary 
Committee, and a friend of mine.
  Mr. GOHMERT. So, Mr. Speaker, we are hearing that we have got to give 
DOJ and FTC all this authority to supervise and make sure that Big Tech 
is properly investigated. But our committee has oversight over the 
Department of Justice, and we have not done oversight as a committee to 
stop what has been going on.
  I understand Heritage Foundation and some of these others, they 
haven't seen the whistleblower complaints that   Jim Jordan and I have 
been seeing. I have gotten double-digits now myself that were not 
counted in the 14 that the committee got.
  It sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah up there. We have gotten complaints 
this week about sexual harassment and about sexual improprieties on the 
top floor, the seventh floor--where the headquarters of the FBI is--and 
all the favors and all the intimidation that goes along with sexual 
improprieties.
  Then you want the DOJ--the people who told the Big Tech that story 
about Hunter's laptop, that is Russian disinformation, which they are 
good at saying because they passed that on about Russian collusion, and 
any time that President Trump or people in his administration said 
anything, here came the DOJ whispering in people's ears: That is 
Russian disinformation.
  These are the last people whom we need to trust with reining in the 
Big Tech because we have seen the techniques. I have got to give them 
credit. Although there is apparently a tremendous amount of corruption 
at the FBI and the DOJ that has not been reined in, I have to give them 
credit. When it comes to intimidation and manipulation, they are right 
there--and I don't say this lightly--they are right there with the 
gestapo.
  I have had FBI agents talk to me about, remember when we used to call 
the attorney of people whom we knew were not violent?
  Even though they committed very serious felonies, we would tell them 
when to report, and they reported.
  We didn't use the gestapo tactics of going in in the dark, beating 
down doors, and dragging them out in their underwear to parade in front 
of cameras that they inappropriately leaked information.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a different DOJ. They don't need more money. 
They need less, until they are made to and until they are helped to 
eliminate their corruption and they start cleaning up their own act 
which Christopher Wray and, unfortunately, Merrick Garland have not 
done.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, when I listen to Mr. Gohmert and Mr. Jordan, 
I am really amazed that every single Republican Senator voted for this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 10 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman again for yielding.
  I just want to make clear, once again, that this bill does not 
appropriate money to the FTC, and I think the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee and I will continue to advocate for more funding. But this is 
not an appropriations bill. The ultimate decision about whether money 
will be appropriated to the FTC or the Department of Justice will be 
made like every other appropriation: by the Members of the Congress of 
the United States after a robust debate, and the Congress will decide.
  This generates revenue and makes certain that big mergers are paid 
for by gigantic near monopolies of big corporations and not by our 
constituents, and it lowers the price for merger reviews on smaller 
transactions. So that is all it does.
  Secondly, it is important to remember that, as Mr. Buck said, this 
isn't a Republican or Democrat bill.
  I want to read to you a statement from Senator Klobuchar and Senator 
Durbin:
  ``The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act is the product of years of 
bipartisan work in both the House and

[[Page H8263]]

Senate to improve the enforcement of our antitrust laws and protect 
competition and consumers. This package of bills will update merger 
filing fees and help ensure that the Federal antitrust agencies can be 
properly funded, that information on foreign subsidies is made 
available to Federal enforcers, and that State antitrust enforcement 
can proceed more efficiently and without needless delays.''
  I have a statement from Senator Lee, Senator Cotton, and Senator 
Grassley--Republicans in the Senate--who say: ``This package represents 
a strong, bipartisan consensus approach to strengthening enforcement of 
the Federal antitrust laws, against both Big Tech and other bad 
actors.''
  So this is widely supported by Republicans and Democrats in both 
Chambers, and I think it is an example of where we can work together 
collectively to respond to a serious problem: the consolidation of 
economic power. Antitrust is important because we know competition is 
the single greatest driver of innovation. Without competition you don't 
have innovation, and innovation produces more choices, better quality, 
and lower prices. It benefits consumers, small businesses, and workers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Luria). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Rhode Island an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I say again, this is about supporting competition with 
some very commonsense proposals that have strong bipartisan support in 
both Chambers.
  We can finally let Big Tech know that the time in which they can do 
whatever they want and continue to behave as monopolists is coming to 
an end.
  Overwhelmingly, the American people support reining in Big Tech--over 
70 percent in poll after poll.
  But one other thing I wanted to just mention is that with 
concentrated economic power often comes concentrated political power. 
That is one of the dangers of monopoly. They have too much political 
power. Let's prove them wrong and pass this bill.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, concentrated political power: that is what the 
Department of Justice is doing right now. They are weaponizing the 
Department of Justice against the American people.
  The most concentrated political power--awesome power--you can have is 
the Federal Government. And I would argue the agency within the Federal 
Government that is the most dangerous is the Department of Justice, and 
we are going to give them $140 million more over the next 5 years.
  It is amazing. Again, Mr. Cicilline can say what he wants, Madam 
Speaker, but that is not consistent with what the chairman said. The 
chairman said that this is going to give more resources to antitrust 
enforcement.
  Here is what the Democrats' own committee report says: ``The upgraded 
fee structure would provide the U.S. Department of Justice and the 
Federal Trade Commission with additional resources.''
  So either Mr. Cicilline is completely wrong, or the majority report 
is wrong, or the chairman is wrong. Somebody is wrong.
  We know what is going to happen. This is the same old game we hear 
all the time: Oh, it is not really appropriated, but we are charging 
more money.
  It will result in more money coming to the concentrated political 
power at the Justice Department, but it is really not going to go 
there.
  Give me break. We know where it is going. They have even said it in 
their own darn committee report.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I find it amazing that the gentleman from Ohio would 
argue we shouldn't give appropriations to the Department of Justice. 
Congress votes appropriations for every department, and if you think 
the Department of Justice is not being run properly, well, there is a 
Presidential election coming up. That is the purpose of elections.
  At the present time, the American people 2 years ago elected Joe 
Biden President and Kamala Harris Vice President, and the President 
appointed the Secretary of Justice and the chairman of the FTC, both of 
whom I think are doing an excellent job. But it is a matter of debate 
which can be decided in the next Presidential election.
  To argue that we should starve agencies of the United States 
Government so that they cannot do the job for which Congress passed 
statutes mandating them to do the job is absurd.
  All that the increase in fees does is update, because the last 
increase of fees was I don't know how many years ago, and there has 
been inflation. We need the enforcement against the large Big Tech 
companies because, as Mr. Jordan already earlier acknowledged, they 
represent a threat. I think he thinks they represent a different threat 
from the one I think they represent, but everybody agrees they 
represent a threat and that their power must be properly supervised by 
proper enforcement of the antitrust laws.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I just point out that I didn't say that Congress 
shouldn't appropriate dollars to Federal agencies. What I said is that 
we shouldn't give more money to the Department of Justice in light of 
what we have seen them do and in light of what 14 whistleblowers have 
told us over the last several months what they are up to. That is a 
completely different point.
  I am all for looking for ways to cut certain agencies and reduce 
Government and the power that they have, but I didn't say that. I just 
said that we shouldn't be giving them more money, for goodness' sake, 
in light of what they have been doing. I think that is a pretty 
reasonable position, and, frankly, I think it is the position the vast 
majority of the country would have when they look at the actions they 
have seen from their Department of Justice and the tax money that 
supports that agency.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), who is a member of the committee.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler for his leadership 
and for yielding the time. I also thank my good friend and colleague, 
Mr. Cicilline from Rhode Island, who chairs the Antitrust, Commercial, 
and Administrative Law Subcommittee in the House. I have had the 
privilege of serving with him in the last couple of years, including as 
vice chair of his subcommittee, during the course of the bipartisan 
antitrust investigation that we undertook in the 117th Congress.
  I am here today, Madam Speaker, to rise in support of my bill, the 
Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act.
  The current filing fee structure established in 2001 does not match 
ongoing merger activity by American businesses. That is why this bill 
is not a particularly complicated or complex bill. We know these 
mergers require thorough review by our antitrust enforcer agencies, 
because it has allowed larger businesses to avoid paying their fair 
share and hurting small, mid-sized, and medium-sized businesses.
  This bipartisan legislation adjusts that antiquated merger filing fee 
structure and fixes the filing fees to the Consumer Price Index. The 
bill includes a number of other provisions that I know have been 
discussed at great length today.
  Let me just say it is a commonsense policy that ensures Federal 
antitrust enforcers have the income to support, ultimately, this 
important work that they are doing.
  But I have to say I have been a bit shocked by the tenor of the 
debate on the House floor today.
  Just to reiterate something that I think the chairman articulated 
previously, this is a bipartisan bill. Every Senator voted for it. I 
imagine that the ranking member's objections come as some shock to 
Senator Cruz or Senator Lee or Senator Hawley. These are not Democratic 
Senators, they are Republican Senators, and they support this

[[Page H8264]]

bill. I am befuddled as to understanding why the ranking member 
doesn't.
  In any event, it is a good bill, it merits the support of Members on 
both sides of the aisle, and I am hoping that the ranking member may 
see the light when the vote comes up.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I would just add I have talked a lot about my concerns 
with the DOJ in light of what we have seen from that agency, and I 
think that is the main reason why this bill is so wrong and it should 
not be supported.
  But the FTC is also engaged in all kinds of things that I just think 
are interesting.
  One commissioner said that she supports prioritizing FTC 
investigations related to ``systemic racism and rulemaking for racist 
practices.'' A senior FTC adviser who called Kay James, the former head 
of the Heritage Foundation, she called her a bigot and criticized 
viewpoint diversity. She is the one who developed FTC policy on AI and 
discrimination.
  Republican Commissioner Wilson described Democrat goals as ``rooted 
in unified world view that draws heavily on Marxism.''
  This is an agency controlled by people who have a radical belief 
system, radical opinions, and radical political views. Again, not only 
is the Department of Justice getting $140 million more a year, so is 
the FTC which is run by people with those kinds of positions.
  So, again, I think we don't want to be giving more money to agencies 
with this kind of track record, particularly, I think, now when the 
American people are about to speak on whom they want to control their 
Congress. That is why I think we should vote ``no'' on this 
legislation, hopefully it goes down, and do the oversight that needs to 
be done of these two agencies so we can point out the facts and the 
truth and get that to the American people.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, this bicameral and bipartisan legislation 
is supported by a broad coalition of labor, consumer, and public 
interest groups.
  As the Biden-Harris administration noted in its Statement of 
Administration Policy on this bill, H.R. 3843 would advance its 
``critical mission'' to ``combat the excessive concentration of 
industry, the abuses of market power, and the harmful effects of 
monopoly and monopsony.''
  Every single United States Senator--every Democrat, every 
Republican--agrees with this. It is only in this House that there are 
some people who, for unfathomable reasons, disagree.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is squarely in the tradition of the Sherman 
Act, the Clayton Act, and the Celler-Kefauver Act, and it should be 
passed.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support this important 
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3843, the 
``Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2021,'' a bill to ensure fair 
treatment of small- and medium-sized businesses that are engaged in a 
merger.
  This bill enhances fairness by incentivizing mergers between small 
and medium-sized enterprises while simultaneously disincentivizing 
monopolization from larger corporations.
  Small and medium-sized enterprises, also known as SMEs, are integral 
to the U.S. economy. According to the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative, over the past decade, SMEs have created approximately 
two-thirds of new private sector jobs, greatly expanding the job market 
and providing new financial opportunities for hardworking families and 
individuals.
  However, current merger filing fees have impeded businesses that are 
looking to merge because steep fees may be unaffordable for these SMEs.
  Meanwhile, large corporations benefit from disproportionately smaller 
merging fees that enable them to dominate marketplaces by absorbing 
smaller companies.'
  This bill intends to modify and expand the schedule by establishing 
graduated merger filing fees and requiring that such fees are adjusted 
each year based on the Consumer Price Index.
  To ensure a fair market for the public, the Merger Filing Fee 
Modernization Act of 2021 adjusts the fees made during the merger 
process based on the aggregate total amount of the merger, considering 
the adjusted price at the beginning of the fiscal year.
  The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2021 intends to directly 
solve this issue by amending the aggregate total brackets utilized to 
determine the filing fee of the merger, where larger aggregate totals 
incur greater fees.
  This legislation would amend the merger fees by decreasing them from 
$45,000 to $30,000 for the first bracket. The criteria to qualify for 
this bracket are also adjusted. The bracket qualification has been 
increased to include aggregate total amounts of up to $161,500,000 from 
the previous value of $100,000,000.
  Similar adjustments are made to the next two brackets, decreasing the 
meger fee for companies in the second bracket from $125,000 to $100,000 
and decreasing the fee of the third, and formerly highest, bracket from 
$280,000 to $250,000.
  Finally, the bill will add a fourth, fifth, and sixth bracket for the 
largest companies which have aggregate total amounts that exceed 
$1,000,000,000, $2,000,000,000, and $5,000,000,000 respectively. In 
this way, larger mergers are less incentivized as they must pay a 
larger fee than before.
  According to Texas Economic Development, the state of Texas is home 
to 3 million small businesses. Texas is home to diverse and numerous 
small businesses committed to technological discovery and economic 
stimulation, ranging from scientific development to agriculture and 
forestry.
  Allowing SMEs to thrive without the extra pressures of merger fees is 
integral to safeguarding the economic freedoms these businesses need in 
order to grow and compete against large corporations who seek to 
dominate and monopolize the marketplace.
  Overall, these changes accomplish two goals in promoting a fair 
marketplace for small- and medium-sized companies.
  First, the adjusted merger fee has been decreased for smaller firms, 
and the qualifying aggregate total has been increased, which encourages 
mergers among medium-sized companies. By decreasing the fees required 
for mergers, medium-sized businesses will have more financial resources 
to reallocate towards developing their workforce, acquiring needed 
materials, and reinvesting.
  Second, this bill hopes to discourage mergers between larger 
businesses by establishing larger brackets such that businesses whose 
aggregate total accounting for more than $1,000,000,000, 
$2,000,000,000, and $5,000,000,000 will not be grouped together. These 
businesses will be required to pay a larger fee, ideally discouraging 
monopoly formations.
  Additionally, this bill seeks to provide oversight of foreign 
transactions that may potentially influence the U.S. market. Merging 
companies must disclose any subsidies received from foreign economic 
competitors.
  The Merger Filing Fee Act of 2021 promotes mergers between medium-
sized businesses by adjusting the fee for merging based on the 2022 
fiscal year, while also disincentivizing larger-sized businesses from 
forming monopolies by creating higher brackets with greater fees.
  A fair marketplace can be fostered through the implementation of this 
bill, encouraging small and medium-sized businesses to look for growth 
opportunities and mitigate extra pressures added by foreign economic 
imbalances.
  Madam{ Speaker, I urge my fellow Congressmembers to support this bill 
dedicated to ensuring a fair marketplace for ambitious and innovative 
American companies by eliminating cost hurdles and establishing 
fairness in relation to large corporations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to 
House Resolution 1396, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as 
amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________