Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2022
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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. ____ [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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source