[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 191 (Thursday, December 8, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7050-S7052]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Agreement Request--H.R. 3843
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3843. This
bipartisan package of commonsense antitrust reforms would bring a whole
lot of much-needed improvements to the administration of our Federal
antitrust laws.
First, it would update our merger filing fees to reduce the financial
burden on the vast majority of filers. Second, it would implement the
State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act to allow State attorneys general
to benefit from the same protection as Federal antitrust enforcers so
that their enforcement actions cannot just be transferred out of their
State to more defendant-friendly jurisdictions. And, third, this
legislation would require companies that submit premerger filings with
the FTC and Department of Justice to notify the Agencies of any
subsidies or support that they receive from foreign countries of
concern such as China, Russia, and Iran. This will allow our antitrust
enforcers to ensure that American markets are not being manipulated by
hostile States.
Finally, in addition to simply being good policy, these reforms are
the product of bipartisan cooperation, exemplifying the model for
future bipartisan cooperation on antitrust legislation.
I, therefore, stand in strong support of this legislation and in
support of this request.
I would like to yield my time to the distinguished Senator from
Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Lee and
Senator Cotton.
We are united on this, as is Senator Grassley, the ranking member of
the Judiciary Committee, as is Senator Durbin, the chair of the
Judiciary Committee. These proposals got through our committee
unanimously. We were able to pass them in different forms through this
Senate on parts of different bills. And now this combined grouping of
bills that the three of us have led have now passed the House of
Representatives.
If you look at what is going on in our country right now, we have a
competition problem in over 75 percent of our industries, ranging from
ag to pharma to tech. A small number of large companies, more and more,
are controlling more of the business than they did decades ago. Look at
what just happened with Ticketmaster. The lack of competition is
estimated to cost the median American household $5,000 per year.
We all believe--we agree on some things, and we disagree on some
things--but we all agree that we need to update our laws in some way.
One of the ways you do this is to make sure that our enforcers can take
on the cases against the biggest companies the world has ever known.
The Agencies are now shells of their former selves. In 1980, when the
Antitrust Division was working to break up AT&T, it had 453 lawyers. As
of April of 2021, that number had fallen to 299. The FTC had 1,719
employees in 1980. Now it is down to 1,100. We cannot take on the
biggest companies the world has ever known or put fair rules of the
road in place if we expect the enforcers to use bandaids and duct tape.
Not only that, they bring in money when they bring these cases.
So I am proud of the work Senator Lee and I have done together. I
would note the leaders of both parties support
[[Page S7051]]
these concepts, including the former Assistant Attorney General in
charge of Antitrust, Makan Delrahim, as well as the current
administration, including the former Republican FTC Chair, Joe Simons,
in addition to the current leadership in this administration.
Capitalism is built on the foundation of competition and open
markets. To quote Adam Smith, the so-called godfather of our capitalist
system, the invisible hand of competitive entrepreneurship is key, but
he also said that we must watch out for the overgrown standing army of
monopolies.
There is an old cartoon with a bunch of monopolies, sitting up there
where our guests are, looking down. It used to be railroads. It used to
be all kinds of other trusts. Now there are new guys in town, and it is
equally as dangerous to capitalism.
I appreciate the work of Senator Lee and Senator Cotton.
I yield to Senator Cotton.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, part of China's strategy to defeat the
United States includes unfairly helping corporations buy out American
companies. We can prevent these propped-up companies from gobbling up
American businesses, but we don't always know which companies China
subsidizes or by how much.
A bill I introduced with Congressman Fitzgerald, the Foreign Merger
Subsidy Disclosure Act, would require companies to disclose any
subsidies they receive from foreign adversaries before a merger. If a
company has received subsidies from a nation like Russia or China, U.S.
antitrust regulators can use that information to determine whether or
not the merger is fair. This bill has support from Republicans and
Democrats, the administration, and the House of Representatives.
We should pass this package of bills today to protect American
businesses and consumers and to stop China's economic war against the
United States.
I yield to the Senator from Utah.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous
consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R.
3843, which was received from the House and is at the desk; further,
that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, the
proponents of antitrust laws are famously zealous in their desire to
eradicate the curse of bigness. To them, big is always bad except, of
course, when it comes to the size and scope of government. The same
people who supposedly fear the concentration of power in the
marketplace celebrate the concentration of power in the State--a State
that asserts itself into and nullifies private contracts, breaks up
companies it deems too large, and inflicts punishment on those who
succeed in the competition for customers. In short, antitrust seeks to
cap the amount of success any company or business can enjoy and the
benefits reaped by customers.
As economist Yale Brozen wrote, antitrust law seems to say that firms
should compete but should not win; firms should be efficient enough to
survive but should not share the fruits of greater efficiency with
their customers.
And that is the fatal defect of antitrust policy.
Antitrust fails to accept the lessons of economic history that
voluntary exchange is a win-win proposition and that consumers are
incredibly powerful in a free market system. A company that continues
to reward its customers with superior products and innovations will, in
turn, be rewarded with greater market share--with more--and will do
better than their competitors and they will grow in size. Size is not
necessarily a bad thing. The size of a business reflects its ability to
please its consumers.
But no company can achieve a strong position in the market and rest
on its laurels. Consumers are too demanding, and competitors will arise
to steal customers away from any firm that ceases to treat its clients
well. Unlike players in the marketplace who must take note of consumer
trends to survive, antitrust enforcers often fail to see what it is
that is right in front of their faces.
Just take the issue of video services. In 2005, when Netflix was
already several years old and growing in popularity, the FTC--believe
it or not--busied itself in blocking a merger between Blockbuster and
Hollywood Video. So this is the inside of government. Netflix is
beginning to take off, and the antitrust busters--the trust busters--
are breaking up VCR companies and DVD companies. They are going after
Blockbuster. This is the incompetence of government, and we should not
encourage this. Blockbuster and Hollywood Video no longer exist. Even
now, Netflix is one they are worried about. So Netflix was the
competitor that put Blockbuster out of business. They wanted to get
Blockbuster in order to forbid them from merging. It makes no sense at
all.
No such fear exists today, though, that Netflix will be a monopoly
since they are competing with Hulu, Peacock, Amazon Prime Video,
Disney+, HBO Max, Apple TV, Paramount+, and others, but 5 or 6 years
ago, you might have thought: Netflix is going to take over the world,
that we have got to break them up. No. If companies please their
consumers, let them get bigger. Bigger means they are giving their
customers something they want.
We didn't need government to break up Netflix. We didn't need
government to interfere to ensure competition and innovation. All we
needed to do was to let the marketplace work, but standing in the way
of the benefits of the market are the antitrust zealots. The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce has pointed out that enacting this bill would
stymie legitimate business transactions between sectors and industries,
create needless new bureaucracy, and spur unwarranted litigation.
The package is even more nefarious than that. It will take money out
of the productive sector--the private sector--and give it to
bureaucrats in Washington. As Americans for Tax Reform correctly points
out, this legislation would give the Biden administration hundreds of
millions of dollars in new funds to pursue a progressive social agenda.
They are talking about critical race theory and all of this craziness
and injecting this into whether a company can merge or not. This is not
something we need to give them more money to do; we need to give them
less money.
The package of bills here is just the first step to reinvigorating
antitrust law. There is no lack of bills designed to empower government
control over the marketplace. Take just one bill called the Competition
and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act, which would presume that any
merger of a certain size violates the law and shifts the burden of
proof to the merging parties. The government doesn't have to prove that
your merging and becoming bigger is bad; you have to prove that your
merging is somehow a benefit. People merge--they get bigger--to provide
a lower cost and gain market share to gain profit for the consumers.
That is what capitalism is based on. That is what Adam Smith really
wrote about.
According to Robert Bork, Jr., the antitrust bill would enact so many
potential ways to prosecute, abuse, and torment companies that
government would, in essence, become the real board of directors, and
every major company would be ruled by the Federal Government.
That is what is coming. That is what they are proposing. This bill
today is a small step in that direction, but what they have in the
pipeline is more government control of business. The package today is a
mere precursor to designating the Department of Justice and the FTC as
the central planners of the American economy. This bill seeks to take
the power out of the hands of the consumers and hand it to the
antitrust bureaucrats.
Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that an objection has been
lodged. I think I disagree with every single assertion in there. It is
not what this bill does, not in the slightest. This bill does not take
the position that big is bad. I
[[Page S7052]]
am well familiar with the ``big is bad'' theory. That is not what this
is. The merger fees are being reduced for, like, 85 percent of all
filers. This simply allows them to do what they need to do and nothing
more. It is unfortunate.
I am thankful to my cosponsor, Senator Klobuchar, who is the lead
sponsor of this bill, for the bipartisan effort in which she has
managed this.