-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I rise again today in support of the bipartisan State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act. This is an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill. In fact, 99 Senators support passing this bill. Only one--oddly, the lead cosponsor of this bill--has objected.

Now, the nature of the objection was that passing this bill would somehow reduce the chances of passing that Senator's own wholly unrelated bill, a different bill, a bill not touching the subject matter of this bill. But the idea that it must be all or nothing is silly, and it highlights one of the more vexing problems facing Congress. The idea that unless Congress will pass all of what a particular Senator wants, that no one else can pass anything is something that is a cause of great dismay and frustration.

Making it easier for State attorneys general to enforce the antitrust laws is good policy, but it is, of course, not a silver bullet. I agree we still need meaningful reform at the Federal level. Passing this bill would, in no way, shape, or form, set back that project. It would just allow State attorneys general to bring antitrust suits now rather than worrying that Big Tech companies will be able to slow them down by requesting that courts combine them with private litigation.

This UC is precisely what happened in the Texas v. Google case. In fact, unanimously passing this bill will only strengthen momentum in Congress for meaningful, much-needed antitrust reform. It will be a proof of concept of sorts, one that indicates that we can set aside our egos and partisan differences in order to achieve a shared goal--in this case, a goal that I believe is shared by all 100 Members of this body.

Standing in the way of that achievement accomplishes nothing. In fact, it only plays into the hands of Big Tech. Big Tech would love nothing more than to see antitrust reform suffocate and die on the Senate floor, yet another victim of this ``all or nothing'' mindset, of this mindset that would suggest unless we pass all of what I want now, you can't pass anything, even something that I support.

It is important that we pass this bill. All 100 Senators support it. There is only one who has been objecting, and the basis of that objection has nothing to do with the merits of the legislation; it has only to do with the misguided and, ultimately, incorrect assumption that this would somehow interfere with that Senator's wholly unrelated bill.

To that end, Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 261, S. 1787; I further ask that the Lee amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I appreciate the longstanding friendship I have with my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Illinois. In fact, it was after a long negotiation process culminating with an agreement between me and the Senator from Illinois that we made modifications to this legislation--modifications I didn't want to make but I made in order to get this passed.

It was represented to me in good faith by the Senator from Illinois that it would pass the hotline; it could pass by unanimous consent, if it happened. Had it all gone according to how we had every reason to believe and how the Senator from Illinois had every reason to believe at the time, this would have been passed by now.

What we didn't anticipate was that the lead cosponsor of this legislation who had herself been a part of these negotiations, been a part of the conversation about how we were going to get it passed, and been a part of the conversations about the very modification that might be necessary in order to get it passed by unanimous consent, would then suddenly decide to object.

Again, this is based not on a substantive objection to the bill, of which she is the lead cosponsor; it is based solely on her assessment that this might somehow jeopardize her chances of passing another antitrust bill, an antitrust bill that does not contain any provision like this one, an antitrust bill that does not preclude consideration of this one nor would this preclude consideration of that one. It is, in short, folly, to say the least, to object to this under these circumstances.

It is also bad faith, I believe, to object at the very last minute after many, many months of negotiation on this issue as the lead cosponsor of the legislation. It is unfortunate that she is unwilling to agree to that.

It is unfortunate, also, she is not willing to be here to raise the objection on her own but insisting on doing so through a third party-- through no fault of his own--who is here at her request, being a good colleague, as he is, doing as she had requested.

This is unnecessary. This is petty. We are better than this. We need to pass this bill. I will be back. I am not going to quit until this thing is passed, because the fact is, all 100 Senators agree that this is good legislation, including the objecting absent party.

We should never get to the point where egos get in the way. And egos, alone, prevent us from passing legislation that all 100 Senators agree would make things better. I can tell you, there is no one who would be happier about this than Big Tech. So if the objecting Senator, who is absent today, wishes to make sure that Big Tech is held accountable, then she should allow this to pass forthwith without her objection. If, on the other hand, she wants to make it easier for Big Tech, then this objection would be the way to go.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source