[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3386-3388]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION COMMISSION EXTENSION ACT OF 2007

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 742) to amend the Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 
2002, to extend the term of the Antitrust Modernization Commission and 
to make a technical correction.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 742

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Antitrust Modernization 
     Commission Extension Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TERMINATION.

       Section 11059 of the Antitrust Modernization Commission Act 
     of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 1 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``30 days'' and inserting ``60 days''; and
       (2) by striking ``section 8'' and inserting ``section 
     11058''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure cosponsored with me by 
the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Lamar 
Smith, to extend the Antitrust Modernization Commission by 30 days so 
that it may have time to wrap up and finalize its report and shut down 
its operations.
  This modernization commission dealing with antitrust has been in 
existence since 2002 and was created with the purpose of examining 
whether the need exists to modernize the antitrust laws. It began 
meeting in 2004 and for the past 3 years has been studying many aspects 
of antitrust law, including how these laws operate in a modern, 
information-driven economy.
  Also, they were charged with examining the intersection between 
antitrust law and intellectual property law; about immunities and 
exemptions that are enjoyed under our current antitrust law; the 
relationship between the Federal and State antitrust law enforcement; 
the application of antitrust laws in regulated industries; and the 
merger review process. I look forward to reviewing the commission's 
final report, which is due in April of this year.
  I anticipate that the Judiciary Committee will take a close look at 
the recommendations contained in the report and will continue to work 
with the commissioners even after the report is completed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 742, the Antitrust Modernization 
Commission Extension Act of 2007.
  Our Nation's first antitrust laws were enacted at the turn of the 
20th century. The Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002 
created a commission to examine how to update our antitrust laws in 
light of the new technologies that have developed in recent years.
  The Antitrust Modernization Commission, or AMC, was required to 
produce a report 3 years after the date of its first meeting on April 
2, 2004.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that the AMC will submit its 
recommendations to Congress and the President by the statutory deadline 
of April 2, 2007.
  The AMC is required to terminate 30 days after submitting its report. 
However, the commission has requested an extension of its authorization 
by an additional 30 days so that it can effectively conclude its 
operations. This additional 30 days will allow the AMC to properly 
archive its records and transfer property to other agencies.
  Pursuant to that request, H.R. 742 extends the authorization of the 
AMC by 30 days and also makes a small technical correction to the 
original authorization statute. This bill will not delay the submission 
of the AMC's report to Congress nor will it require the appropriation 
of any additional funds.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to cosponsor this bill, along with the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to allow the AMC to wrap up its 
important work without imposing any additional cost on the American 
taxpayer.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have any others who want to comment 
on this legislation, and so, because of that, I will yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to yield myself as much time as 
I may consume.
  The reason we have this commission is because there are acknowledged 
to be some serious considerations, some problems that we need to 
examine in the area of antitrust law.

                              {time}  1245

  The antitrust laws were derived from the Sherman Act of over a 
century ago, and they are very important, and they have helped us in 
terms of developing an economy that is in some respects the envy of the 
entire planet.
  But there has been so much activity in the antitrust area that there 
has been some concern whether or not we have gone overboard. This past 
year is the fourth largest in the history for mergers. Since the Oracle 
merger, which the Department of Justice sued

[[Page 3387]]

on and lost, the Department of Justice itself hasn't gone to trial to 
block a proposed merger in memory.
  And we are having larger and larger mergers and acquisitions. They 
are troubling: SBC and AT&T, a $16 billion-valued merger; AT&T and 
BellSouth, an $86 billion merger; Verizon and MCI, an $8.5 billion 
merger; Sprint and Nextel, $36 billion; Cingular and AT&T Wireless, 
about $47 billion worth of coming together; Kmart with Sears, Roebuck; 
Hewlett-Packard and Compaq; NBC Universal and NBC and Vivendi; Morgan 
Chase and Bank One; Procter & Gamble buys $54 billion in new 
acquisition; the Bank of America with FleetBoston. We have got 
something that needs far more consideration.
  And I want to praise the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin, who helped us create the special outside 
committee to aid us, and we look forward to their reports. And I join 
the gentleman from Texas in helping to develop the time needed for us 
to get the report.
  We on the Judiciary Committee feel this is a hugely important 
subject. And we want to particularly praise the vice chairman of the 
commission, Attorney Jon Yarowsky, who himself was a former member of 
the House Judiciary staff for a considerable number of years.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering today is a modest one, but I 
want to emphasize that the issue it relates to is of utmost importance.
  For over a century, the antitrust laws have provided the ground rules 
for fair competition. They are our economic bill of rights. Antitrust 
principles are necessary to preserve competition and to prevent 
monopolies from stifling innovation. Competition produces better 
products, lower prices, and wider choices--all to the benefit of 
consumers.
  The cornerstone premise of our antitrust laws is essentially a 
conservative notion: that free and unfettered competition will produce 
the best results for consumers. To the extent that anticompetitive 
conduct or conditions have hindered this healthy process, the antitrust 
laws are there to arrest those violations and remedy the competitive 
harms.
  In the Sherman Act, we prohibit contracts or conspiracies that 
restrain trade, and exclusionary or predatory conduct that sabotages 
the efforts of rivals. For egregious violations, there are high fines 
and prison terms. There are also treble damages for victims.
  And we have supplemented those protections in the Clayton Act, by 
giving the antitrust enforcement agencies the power to challenge 
anticompetitive mergers in their incipiency, to prevent their harmful 
effects from ever taking place.
  The competitive landscape in the United States has been undergoing 
dramatic change in recent years. Technological and market innovation 
has come at us at breakneck speed. We have witnessed a wave of 
consolidation in some of our key industries. According to Thomson 
Financial, this past year was the fourth largest in history for mergers 
and acquisitions.
  At the same time, we have also seen familiar and novel forms of 
exclusionary conduct that interferes with the enterprising efforts of 
competitive businesses to cultivate and serve customers.
  The telecommunications industry is one key industry that has 
experienced significant consolidation. This year, AT&T acquired 
BellSouth Corp.--after just last year acquiring SBC--in a deal that 
creates a telecom behemoth with $117 billion in revenue.
  This has particular consequences in the area of net neutrality. For 
people who innovate in the area of technology, and for those who enjoy 
those innovations, this free and open access to the Internet has been a 
boon. New applications are being developed every hour and are able to 
be instantly distributed on the Web. These new applications--coupled 
with new content, such as broadband television--have the potential to 
offer a new array of choices to consumers.
  Unfortunately, some telecommunications companies have a different 
vision for the Internet. They have floated the idea of charging 
websites for access. Those who pay will get faster and more reliable 
delivery of their content to web surfers. Those who do not will see the 
delivery of their content degraded.
  The antitrust laws can help ensure that network neutrality, the 
bedrock of the growth of the Internet, remains in place.
  In the media, the FCC's relaxed cap on ownership in national and 
local broadcast markets, and relaxed cross-ownership restrictions 
between broadcasters and newspapers, has enabled concentrated wealthy 
interests to control a large portion of the media in some areas. 
Consumers are thereby often deprived of a diversity of viewpoints and 
voices in news and entertainment.
  Imagine a world where you wake up, read the local newspaper, turn on 
the television to watch the news, drive to work and listen to the 
radio, pass a few billboards containing advertisements, return home 
later at night and turn on your cable to watch a movie or some sports--
only to find that each of those media outlets is owned by the same 
company. It may sound farfetched, but it is not. This is the world we 
are evolving into. In this world, instead of ten voices with ten 
different viewpoints, there may only be three. The antitrust laws may 
be our only hope of preventing this.
  The story is even bleaker for independent broadcasters, and for 
minority participation in the media industry. As of 2001, minorities 
owned only 3.8 percent of the full-power commercial radio and 
television stations in the nation, and only 1.9 percent of TV stations. 
If ownership of the media is controlled by four or five conglomerates, 
minority-owned stations and programming that appeals to minority 
interests could become a thing of the past.
  In the home appliance industry, Whirlpool Corp., the largest maker of 
home appliances, merged with Maytag Inc., the third largest. The deal 
cost $1.8 billion and produced a company that manufactures much of 
Sears' Kenmore line as well as the brands Jenn Air, KitchenAid, Amana, 
and Magic Chef, and controls as much as 70 percent of the U.S. market 
for large home appliances such as washers and dryers.
  In the oil industry, we've seen massive increases in gasoline prices. 
After Hurricane Katrina, the Washington Post reported price increases 
of as much as 88 cents per gallon in a single day. Some stations in 
Georgia were reported to be charging as much as $6 a gallon. In 
Illinois, prices reportedly shot up 50 cents per gallon overnight, and 
the state attorney general received more than 500 reports of price 
gouging. At first blush, it would seem that these increases go far 
beyond anything justified or relating to the market disruptions caused 
by Hurricane Katrina. The FTC's report on this phenomenon was less than 
satisfactory.
  We have also seen significant consolidation in the health insurance 
industry. In recent years, Aetna agreed to acquire Prudential Health 
Care, the fifth largest for-profit health care company, at the same 
time it was in the midst of completing its purchase of New York Life. 
In 1996 Aetna was also permitted to acquire U.S. Health Care. As a 
result of these acquisitions, Aetna became the largest health care 
provider in the nation.
  Recent years have seen more than a dozen health insurance competitors 
eliminated through mergers and acquisitions. A study of market 
concentration by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that ``both 
the group and individual [health insurance] markets are heavily 
dominated by a relatively few large insurers.'' Business consumers of 
health care have become increasingly alarmed by this concentration, 
with Charles Blankenstein, a health expert at William Mercer 
Consulting, warning that employers are ``bear[ing] the cost of these 
acquisitions'' as ``choice in the marketplace is rapidly diminishing.''
  In the airline industry, lagging profits have led to a marked trend 
toward further consolidation. Because air travel is a vital portion of 
the nation's transportation infrastructure, we can't simply turn a 
blind eye and chalk this up to economic bad times. Often these mergers 
have the potential to reduce the flight options available to consumers, 
and ultimately may lead to higher ticket prices.
  In this environment, vigorous antitrust enforcement is particularly 
important. We need to be able to rely on the federal antitrust 
enforcement agencies--the Antitrust Division in the Department of 
Justice, and the Federal Trade Commission. We need to be able to have 
confidence that they are doing everything they should to protect 
competition in our economy and the benefits it brings to us all.
  That is why active oversight of antitrust must and will be an 
important part of the work of the Judiciary Committee. We will ask 
these agencies about merger enforcement, and why they do not seem to be 
challenging an mergers. We will ask them about their policy on civil 
non-merger enforcement against monopolization and other anticompetitive 
business arrangements. And we will ask them about their commitment to 
prosecute criminal antitrust violations.
  The Committee will also create a task force, as we did in the last 
Congress, so that we can more closely examine competitive developments 
in important industries, including telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, 
and insurance, as well as topics such as interoperability

[[Page 3388]]

of new technologies, credit card interchange fees, and transparency in 
standard setting.
  As we prepare for the work ahead in this vital area, we will look 
forward to reading the Antitrust Modernization Commission's final 
report, and reviewing its assessment of the state of health of the laws 
we rely upon to preserve our economic liberty.
  I thank the Antitrust Modernization Commission for all its work over 
the past few years. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 742.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________