MADAM PRESIDENT, I COME TO THE SENATE FLOOR TODAY TO DISCUSS WHAT I CONSIDER AND OFTEN OVERLOOKED ISSUE, AND THAT IS THE CENTRAL IMPORTANCE OF THE WELL-BEING OF AMERICAN CONSUMERS TO OUR NATION'S ECONOMIC STRENGTH, AND THAT ISSUE IS ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT. BEFORE I WAS A SENATOR, I WAS A PROSECUTOR FOR EIGHT YEARS, AND BEFORE THAT, I WAS A LAWYER IN PRIVATE PRACTICE. AND EARLY IN MY LEGAL CAREER MY MAIN CLIENT THAT I ACTUALLY TOOK OVER WHEN I WAS REALLY A BRAND-NEW LAWYER WAS M.C.I. AT THE TIME THEY WERE A YOUNG, INNOVATIVE TELECOMMUNICATION COMMUNITY, WHICH WAS COMPETING WITH LONG DISTANCE CARRIERS AND THEN OTHER COMPANIES. THEY HAD A LOT OF SCRAPPY LAWYERS. THEY VIEWED THEMSELVES, AS THEY WERE, FIGHTING FOR CONSUMERS TO GIVE THEM SOME ALTERNATIVES AND LOWER PRICES. I REMEMBER AT ONE OF MY REGULATORY HEARINGS, I QUOTED THE FIRST WORDS THAT ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL SAID OVER THE TELEPHONE, WHICH, OF COURSE, WAS COME HERE WATSON, I NEED YOU. IN THE WORLD OF M.C.I. WHEN THEY RELAYED THE FIRST-EVER COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ST. LOUIS AND CHICAGO, THIS ALL SEEMS ADD TO SOME OF THE YOUNGER PAGES HERE, BUT AT THE TIME THE BELL COMPANIES DOMINATED ALL TELEPHONES AND YOU ONLY HAD THOSE OLD DIAL TELEPHONES AND YOU ONLY HAD ONE COMPANY IN YOUR AREA THAT OFFERED YOU SERVICE SO M.C.I. CAME IN THERE TO COMPETE BY BUILDING THEIR OWN LINE BETWEEN ST. LOUIS AND CHICAGO. AND ONE OF THEIR INVESTORS,ER WITHIN HER -- ERWIN SP HERSCH SAID, I'LL BE DAMN, IT ACTUALLY WORKS. IF IT WASN'T FOR ANTITRUST LAW, M.C.I. NEVER WOULD HAVE WORKED. WE WOULD HAVE NO COMPETITORS, WE WOULD BE STUCK IN THE OLD BELL COMPANY WORLD. M. CLMPLET I. TOOK ON AT&T AND BROKE UP THAT MONOPOLY. IT LOWERED LONG DISTANCE PRICES FOR CONSUMERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND USHERED IN AN ERA OF INNOVATION AND REVOLUTIONIZED THE TELECOMMUNICATION INDUSTRY AND BROUGHT THE LONG-DISTANCE PRICES DOWN. ANTITRUST MAY NOT ALWAYS MAKE HEADLINES THESE DAYS, BUT ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT IS AS IMPORTANT NOW AS IT HAS EVER BEEN. IT REMAINS VITAL TO THE WELFARE OF OUR COUNTRY AND WE IGNORE IT AT OUR OWN PERIL. PEOPLE OFTEN ASK ME, WHAT DOES ANTITRUST LAW HAVE TO DO WITH OUR ECONOMY? AND THE ANSWER I ALWAYS GIVE IS, EVERYTHING. LET ME REPEAT THAT. ANTITRUST HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH OUR BROADER ECONOMY. THAT IS BECOMING CLEARER TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. PEOPLE INTUITIVELY UNDERSTAND THERE IS TOO MUCH INDUSTRY CONSOLIDATION IN THIS COUNTRY. THEY UNDERSTAND IT IS NOT NECESSARILY GOOD FOR THEM WHETHER THEY ARE A DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, OR INDEPENDENT. THEY UNDERSTAND THAT IT GOES TO THE LARGE COMPANIES AND INVESTORS AND NOT TO THE PUBLIC. THIS HIGHLIGHTS THE FACT THAT ANTITRUST IS NOT JUST A SUBJECT FOR COMPETITION POLICY CIRCLES OR LAW SCHOOL CLASSROOM DISCUSSIONS OR THE BUSINESS SECTION OF THE NEWSPAPER. ANTITRUST POLICY TOUCHES PEOPLE ACROSS OUR COUNTRY, AND THEY ARE BEGINNING TO SEE HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO THEIR LIVES. TWO-THIRDS OF AMERICANS HAVE COME TO BELIEVE THAT THE ECONOMY UNFAIRLY FAVORS POWERFUL INTERESTS, EVEN AS OUR ECONOMY STABILIZES AND GROWS STRONGER, IT'S EASY TO SEE WHY PEOPLE FEEL THAT WAY. EVERY YEAR I GO TO ALL 87 COUNTIES IN MY STATE, AND EVERYWHERE I GO PEOPLE TELL ME THAT WHILE THE JOB SITUATION HAS IMPROVED SINCE THE DOWNTURN OVER THE LAST DECADE, AND, IN FACT, WE NEED WORKERS FOR A LOT OF THE JOBS OPEN IN OUR ECONOMY, THEY ARE STILL STRUGGLING WITH THE COST OF LIVING. WE ARE FORTUNATE IN MY STATE TO HAVE THAT STRONG ECONOMY BUT THE COST OF LIVING IS BY NO MEANS LOW, AND THAT IS TRUE ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES. FOR SOME IT'S RENT PAYMENTS, FOR OTHERS IT'S MORTGAGES, FOR OTHERS IT'S PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. WELL, THAT'S ACTUALLY FOR ALMOST EVERYONE. MOBILE PHONE SERVICE, TO MANY PEOPLE WHO DREAM OF STARTING THEIR OWN BUSINESS, THAT'S HARD TO DO WHEN THOSE COSTS ARE SO HIGH. ANTICOMPETITIVE MERGERS AND EXCESSIVE CONCENTRATION CAN INCREASE THESE COST BURDENS. THEY MAY LEAD TO THESE COST BURDENS. WHETHER IT'S IN THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY OR THE CABLE INDUSTRY OR CERTAINLY THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY WHERE WE SEE MONOPOLY POWER OVER CERTAIN KINDS OF DRUGS, WHERE WE SEE PHARMACEUTICALS BASICALLY, IN THE WORDS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHILE HE WAS CAMPAIGNING, ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER. AGAIN, WHAT ARE WE DOING ABOUT IT? WELL, THE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE US TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. THEY ARE INCREASINGLY REALIZING THAT ANTITRUST HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE PRICES THEY PAY FOR GOODS AND SERVICES AND WITH THE HELP OF OUR BROADER ECONOMY. THESE ARE NOT NOVEL IDEAS. THINK BACK TO TRUST BUSTING, THINK BACK TO TEDDY ROOSEVELT, THINK BACK TO THE AMERICAN ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT OF SMALL COMPANIES AND INDIVIDUALS BEING ABLE TO COMPETE AGAINST EACH OTHER. THAT'S WHAT OUR ECONOMY IS ALL ABOUT IN AMERICA. WHEN COMPANIES ARE ALLOWED TO COMPETE AND PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO GET INTO A BUSINESS, BUSINESSES CAN OFFER THE HIGHER-QUALITY GOOD FOR THE LOWEST POSSIBLE PRICE. BUT THE POINT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE IS THIS, TALKING ABOUT ANTITRUST IN A NARROW WAY IS OUTDATED AND OVERSIMPLIFIED. ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AFFECTS MORE THAN PRICE AND OUTPUT. WE NOW HAVE EVIDENCE THAT COMPETITION FOSTERS SMALL BUSINESS GROWTH, REDUCES INEQUALITY, AND INCREASES INNOVATION. IN SHORT, TACKLING CONCENTRATIONS OF POWER IS A LINCHPIN TO A HEALTHY ECONOMY AND A CIVIL SOUTHEAST. WITH RESPECT TO BUSINESS GROWTH, EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR NEW FIRMS TO PENETRATE HIGHLY CONCENTRATED MARKETS. SO ENSURING COMPETITIVE MARKETS IS ONE CLEAR WAY TO HELP ENTREPRENEURS AND SMALL BUSINESSES SUCCEED, AND WE ALL KNOW HOW IMPORTANT SMALL BUSINESS GROWTH IS TO OUR ECONOMY. RESEARCH ALSO SUGGESTS THAT CONCENTRATION INCREASES INCOME INEQUALITY. FIRMS WITH MARKET POWER RAISE PRICES WHICH TAKES MONEY FROM CONSUMERS AND PUTS IT IN THE POCKETS OF THE FEW. CONCENTRATION ALSO BLUNTS INCENTIVES TO INNOVATE. WHY WOULD YOU INNOVATE IF YOU KNOW YOU CAN JUST KEEP THE PRODUCT YOU HAVE, NOT INVEST IN R AND T, -- R&D AND NOT INVEST IN INNOVATIONS BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE ONLY PRODUCT ON THE MARKET AND NO ONE IS COMPETING WITH YOU FOR SOMETHING BETTER. WHEN THERE ARE EIGHT OR TEN COMPETITORS, THEY WILL TRY EVERYTHING TO GET A LEG UP ON THEIR PRODUCT. BY LOWING PRODUCTS, WHEN THERE IS ONE OR TWO FIRMS, THERE IS LITTLE INCENTIVE TO MAKE PRODUCT IMTHE PROAVMENT, DEVELOP NEW PRODUCTS OR BRING THE PRICES DOWN. WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THE BROADER BENEFITS OF THIS. SINCE 2008, AMERICAN FIRMS HAVE ENGAGED IN MORE THAN $10 TRILLION IN ACQUISITIONS. THE LAST FEW YEARS HAVE SEEN A STEADY INCREASE IN MERGERS REVIEWED BY THE TRADE COMMISSION AND ANTITRUST DEPARTMENT TRADE DECISION DIVISION. IT IS NOT JUST THE NUMBER OF DEALS. I CALLED BILL BAYER, WHO SAID THAT HIS AGENCY WAS REVIEWING DEALS THAT RAISED SUCH SERIOUS ANTITRUST CONCERNS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE NEVER MADE IT OUT OF THE BOARDROOM. AS FORMER CHAIR AND RANKING MEMBER NOW OF THE ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE, I HAVE RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT SEVERAL MEGA MERGER PROPOSALS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. LOOK AT THE COME CAST-TIME WARNER PROPOSED MERGER. AS I POINTED OUT THE AT A HEARING IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, IF THE MERGER HAD BEEN APPROVED, THE COMBINED COMPANY WOULD HAVE CONTROLLED 60% OF THE COUNTRY'S HIGH-SPEED, BROADBAND CUSTOMERS, OR THE FAILED MERGER BETWEEN NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY AND CANADIAN PACIFIC, SOMETHING I TOOK ON IMMEDIATELY AFTER IT WAS ANNOUNCED. EVEN AFTER THE MERGER, 90% OF FREIGHT TRAFFIC IS HANDLED BY ONLY FOUR RAILROADS. THIS IS THE SAME NUMBER OF RAILROADS ON THE MONOPOLY BOARD, FOUR, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOWN TO AFTER HAVING 63 OF THESE MAJOR RAILROADS YEARS AND YEARS AGO, AND THEN DOWN TO NINE, AND THEN DOWN TO FOUR. AND IF YOU'RE IN A STATE THAT HAS A LOT OF AGRICULTURE, MY STATE IS FIFTH IN THE COUNTRY FOR AGRICULTURE, YOU HAVE FARMERS, AND SMALL BUSINESSES WHO ARE AT THE END OF THE FREIGHT RAIL GROWTH LINE, THEY ARE CAPTIVE CUSTOMERS BECAUSE THEY ARE SERVED BY ONLY ONE RAIL AND THEY SEE THEIR RATES GO UP AND THEY HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE. SO THE MORE YOU REDUCE THE NUMBERS, THE MORE DIFFICULT IT BECOMES FOR PEOPLE TO GET GOOD RATES TO GET THEIR GOODS TO MARKET. IT'S EASILY IF YOU'RE IN A HIGHLY CONCENTRATED MARKET, IT'S VERY HARD WHEN YOU'RE NOT. THESE EXAMPLES ARE A LARGER PATTERN OF HORIZONTAL INTEGRATION. THAT IS SOMETHING YOU HEAR IN LAW SCHOOL CLASSES OR BUSINESS SECTION OF THE PAPERS. BUT THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING. WE YOU A KNOW ABOUT AT&T'S BID TO BUY TIME WARNER AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LAWSUIT TO BLOCK THE DEAL. THAT'S NOT ALL. SINCLAIR BROADCAST IS TRYING TO BUY A COMPANY, C.V.S. IS TRYING TO ACQUIRE AETNA AND THE LIST GOES ON. T-MOBILE SIGNED AN AGREEMENT TO BUY SPRINT WHICH WOULD COMBINE TWO OF FOUR MAJOR CELLPHONE CARRIERS IN THE UNITED STATES. AGAIN, I NOTE THAT NUMBER FOUR, THE NUMBER ON THE MONOPOLY BOARD. THIS WOULD GO EVEN TO LESS. THAT WOULD GO DOWN TO THREE. T-MOBILE HAS BEEN PLAYING A MAJOR DISRUPTING ROLE IN A GOOD WAY -- I MEAN DISRUPTING IS GOOD IN TERMS OF BRINGING PRICES DOWN. AND YOU HAVE ALL SEEN THE ADS WITH WHAT THEY ARE OFFERING. THIS WOULD MERGE TWO OF THOSE FOUR COMPANIES AND WE WOULD BE DOWN TO THREE. MORE THAN THREE-QUARTERS OF AMERICAN ADULTS NOW OWN SMART PHONES, INCLUDING MANY WHO DEPEND ON THESE DEVICES FOR THEIR PRIMARY CONNECTION TO THE INTERNET AND MANY DON'T HAVE LOCAL PHONE SERVICE AND NOW WE'RE BRINGING THEIR CHOICES DOWN FROM MAJOR CARRIERS TO THREE IF THIS DEAL WERE TO GO THROUGH. LAST OCTOBER IN ANTICIPATION OF THIS TRANSACTION, I SENT LETTERS WITH A NUMBER OF MY COLLEAGUES RAISING ANTITRUST CONCERNS AND URGING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE THIS POTENTIAL TRANSACTION. AND TODAY SENATOR LEE AND I ARE ANNOUNCING THAT WE ARE GOING TO HOLD A HEARING TO LOOK AT THESE ISSUES VERY CAREFULLY AND VERY SERIOUSLY IN A BIPARTISAN WAY IN THE ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE NEXT MONTH. OFTEN IN CONNECTION WITH LARGE MERGERS, THE MERGING PARTIES AND THE INVESTMENT COMMUNITY PROMISE MILLIONS, SOMETIMES BMS OF DOLLARS IN EFFICIENCIES AND COST SAVINGS. BUT AFTER CLOSING, DO CONSUMERS ACTUALLY SEE THE PROMISED LOWER PRICES OR THE IMPROVED QUALITY? I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES WE NEED AGGRESSIVE ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT. UNFORTUNATELY CURRENT LEVELS OF ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY ARE NOT WHERE THEY NEED TO BE. I TAKE MY RESPONSIBILITIES ON THE ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE SERIOUSLY AND SENATOR LEE AND I HAVE DONE A LOT OF IMPORTANT WORK TOGETHER ON THE ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE OVER THE YEARS. WE ARE ALSO COMMITTED TO THE PROFESSIONALISM AND THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND THE ANTI-FRUS DIVISION. ANTI- -- ANTITRUST DIVISION. ANTITRUST IS NOT DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN ISSUES. THEY ARE CONSUMER ISSUES. WE CAN AGREE ROBUST -- IN LIGHT OF THE CONSENSUS THE ENORMOUS CONSEQUENCE OF LAX ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AND THE CURRENT MERGER WAVE, THESE ISSUES REQUIRE OUR URGENT ATTENTION. OUR ECONOMY IN TERMS OF NOMINAL G.D.P. HAS INCREASED BETWEEN 2010 AND 2017. FILINGS HAVE ALMOST DOUBLED DURING THAT TIME. AT THE SAME TIME OUR ANTITRUST AGENCY BUDGETS HAVE BEEN HELD FLAT. AS A RESULT, AGENCIES ARE ONLY ABLE TO TAKE ON SERIOUSLY CASES INVOLVING THE MOST HIGHLY CONCENTRATED MARKETS. THIS LIMITS THE ATTENTION THAT THEY PAY TO CLOSER OR MORE DIFFICULT CASES. DESPITE THESE CONSTRAINTS, AGENCIES ARE DOING WHAT THEY CAN BUT WE NEED TO DO MORE. GIVING AGENCIES THE RESOURCES TO PURSUE THE HARDER CASES WILL PAY REAL DIVIDENDS ON OUR ECONOMY. WHEN I SAY RESOURCES, I ALSO MEAN LEGAL TOOLS NECESSARY TO PROTECT COMPETITION. WHEN IT COMES TO MERGERS, THE PROTECTIONS IN THE CLAYTON ACT, THE ANTITRUST LAW, HAVE SLOWLY BEEN ERODED. OVER TIME WE HAVE SEEN A SYSTEMATIC UNDERENFORCEMENT OF OUR COMPETITION LAWS. THE RESULT HAS BEEN EVEN LARGER MERGERS AND MORE CONCENTRATED INDUSTRIES. AND AMERICAN CONSUMERS ARE TAKING NOTICE. WE NEED TO GIVE OUR AGENCIES THE LEGAL TOOLS TO PUSH BACK. THAT'S WHY I HAVE INTRODUCED TWO MAJOR ANTITRUST BILLS OVER THE LAST YEAR. THE FIRST WILL GIVE OUR ANTITRUST AGENCIES THE RESOURCES THEY NEED TO PROTECT COMPETITION NOW, THIS IS NOT COMING OFF THE BACKS OF TAXPAYERS BECAUSE AS I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED, THEY'RE ALREADY HAVING TO FOOT THE BILL FOR A LOT OF THESE MERGERS IN TERMS OF HIGHER PRICES. THIS BILL WOULD IN FACT UPDATE MERGER FILING FEES FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 2001. THINK OF HOW MANY YEARS THAT IS AND HOW THE COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE AND THE MERGER LANDSCAPE HAS CHANGED DURING THOSE 17 YEARS. IT WOULD LOWER THE BURDEN, THIS BILL, ON SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZE BUSINESSES FOR THEIR FILING FEES AND ENSURE LARGER DEALS WHERE WE'RE SEEING ALL OF THESE ACTIVITIES, THESE BILLION DOLLAR DEALS WHERE THEY HIRE SO MANY LAWYERS, THERE ARE MORE LAWYERS ON THOSE DEALS THAN THERE ARE SENATORS' DESKS IN THIS ROOM. THESE FEES ON BUSINESSES WOULD RAISE ENOUGH REVENUE SO TAXPAYERS COULD FOOT LESS OF THE BILL FOR MERGER REVIEW. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ACROSS-THE-BOARD BUSINESS TAX. I'M TALKING ABOUT HIGHER FEES ON THOSE BUSINESSES, MAJOR BUSINESSES, HUGE BUSINESSES WHO ARE SEEKING TO MERGE AND REAP THE BENEFITS. IF THEIR LAWYERS CAN GET ALL KINDS OF BONUSES FOR GETTING THE DEALS THROUGH, AT LEAST THE TAXPAYERS SHOULD BE GETTING THE BONUS OF BEING ABLE TO KNOW THAT SOMEONE IS LOOKING OUT FOR THEM IN REVIEWING THESE DEALS. EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT ALSO DEPENDS ON FEEDBACK. AS THE SIZE OF MERGERS HAVE GROWN, SO HAVE THE COMPLEXITIES OF MERGER SETTLEMENTS. A QUESTION FOR MODERN ENFORCEMENT IS WHETHER SOME MERGERS, PROPOSED MERGERS ARE SIMPLY TOO BIG TO FIX. AGENCIES CAN MAKE BETTER ENFORCEMENT DECISIONS IF THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS WORKED IN THE PAST. SO MY BILL GIVES THE AGENCIES THE TOOLS TO ASSESS WHETHER MERGER CONSENT DECREES HAVE IN FACT BEEN SUCCESSFUL. HAVE ALL THOSE PROMISES WE HEAR AT THE HEARINGS OR WE HEAR IN WRITING OR READ ABOUT IN THE BUSINESS PAGES, HAVE THEY REALLY COME TO FRUITION? IN ADDITION, WE NEED A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE EFFECTS OF MARKET CONSOLIDATION ON OUR ECONOMY. THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO STUDY THE EFFECTS OF MERGERS ON WAGES, EMPLOYMENT, INNOVATION, AND NEW BUSINESS FORMATION. AND WE ALSO MUST GIVE OUR ANTITRUST AGENCIES AND COURTS THE LEGAL TOOLS NECESSARY TO PROTECT COMPETITION. THAT'S WHY MY SECOND BILL, THE CONSOLIDATION PREVENTION AND COMPETITION PROMOTION ACT, WOULD RESTORE THE CLAYTON ACT'S ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF PROMOTING COMPETITION BY UPDATING OUR LEGAL STANDARDS. SO OUR LEGAL STANDARDS AS OUR -- AS SOPHISTICATED AS THE COMPANIES THAT ARE PROPOSING THESE MERGERS AND THE KIND OF MERGERS THEY ARE PROPOSING. MY BILL CLARIFIES THAT WE CAN PREVENT MERGERS THAT REDUCE CHOICE FOR CLOSED COMPETITION THROUGH VERTICAL CONSOLIDATION, STIFLE INNOVATION, OR CREATE MONOPOLIES. THAT'S A GREAT WORD YOU WOULD HEAR IN LAW SCHOOL CLASSROOMS. WHAT DOES IT MEAN? IT MEANS WHERE A BUYER HAS THE POWER TO REDUCE WAGES OR PRICES. IT ALSO CREATES A MORE STRINGENT LEGAL STANDARD TO STOP HARMFUL CONSOLIDATION AND SHIFTS THE BURDEN FOR MEGA MERGERS. SO THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE DEAL HAVE TO PROVE THE MERGER DOES NOT HARM COMPETITION. SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS WHEN A BIG COMPANY BUYS ANOTHER AND THEN HAS THAT POWER TO DO SOMETHING TO MAKE IT SO THAT THE OTHER COMPETITORS AREN'T REALLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO COMPETE WITH THE COMPANY THAT THEY BOUGHT BECAUSE THIS HUGE COMPANY MIGHT HAVE THE ABILITY TO BRING DOWN PRICES, DO THINGS TEMPORARILY TO THE POINT THAT THEY GET OTHER PEOPLE OUT OF THE MARKET OR THEY HURT THE OTHERS TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU THEN DON'T HAVE REAL COMPETITION. AND THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE DOING. LET ME BE CLEAR. BIG BY ITSELF IS NOT NECESSARILY BAD AND LARGE MERGERS DO NOT ALWAYS HARM CONSUMERS. MY HOME STATE OF MINNESOTA NOW HAS 19 FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES AND WE ALL BENEFIT FROM THE FACT THAT THE LARGEST AND MOST SUCCESSFUL COMPANIES IN THE WORLD ARE AMERICAN COMPANIES. BUT IF WE WANT THAT SUCCESS TO CONTINUE, OUR NEW BUSINESSES MUST HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES TO GROW AS THE BUSINESSES THAT CAME BEFORE THEM. TARGET, ONE OF MY FAVORITE COMPANIES BASED IN MY STATE, STARTED AS A DRY GOODS -- DRY GOODS STORE AT A SMALL PEDESTRIAN MALL THAT IS NOW A BIG ONE IN MINNESOTA WAY, WAY BACK. THAT'S A TRUE STORY. 3M, A BIG COMPANY OUT OF MY STATE STARTED AS A SAND PAPER COMPANY, OKAY. SO WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE SMALL COMPANIES CONTINUE TO GROW AND BE ABLE TO COMPETE. BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IF WE SHUT THEM OUT. OUR NEW BUSINESSES MUST HAVE THOSE SAME OPPORTUNITIES. PROMOTING COMPETITION AND PREVENTING EXCESSIVE INDUSTRY CONSOLIDATION IS A WAY WE ENCOURAGE THIS COUNTRY'S NEXT BIG IDEA. TAKE TRADER JOE'S, JET BLUE, STARBUCKS, THESE COMPANIES STARTED SMALL. BUT THEY WERE ABLE TO GET A FOOTHOLD IN THE MARKET AND SUCCEED BECAUSE OUR ANTITRUST LAWS PREVENTED LARGE ESTABLISHED COMPETITORS FROM LIMITING THEIR GROWTH. AS A RESULT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GET BETTER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. THESE BILLS WILL SIMPLY ENSURE THAT THE NEXT AMERICAN BUSINESS SUCCESS STORY IS POSSIBLE. THEY WILL ALLOW ENTREPRENEURS AND INNOVATORS TO SUCCEED IN OPEN, COMPETITIVE MARKETS. WE CAN DO THIS AND WE SHOULD DO THIS. IT DOESN'T TAKE A MIRACLE. IT JUST TAKES PEOPLE ACKNOWLEDGING WHAT HAS MADE OUR ECONOMY STRONG IN AMERICA. ANTITRUST LAW AND POLICY ARE NOT ALWAYS FRONT AND CENTER IN OUR DEBATES, BUT THEY SHOULD BE. THE PROPOSALS IN THESE BILLS WILL IMPROVE THE LIVES OF BUSINESSES AND PEOPLE ACROSS THE COUNTRY. PROTECTING COMPETITION SPEAKS TO THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OPPORTUNITY AND FAIRNESS. IT SPEAKS TO THE SIMPLE NOTION THAT COMPANIES WITH THE BEST IDEAS, THE MOST INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO RISE TO THE TOP BASED ON THEIR OWN MERITS. AND THE REALITY IS THAT THESE PRINCIPLES ARE AT RISK. WE ARE CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING THIS DRAMATIC INCREASE IN BOTH THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF MERGERS. AND AS OUR MARKETS AND TECHNOLOGIES EVOLVE, OUR AGENCIES AND COURTS ARE LESS ABLE TO ADDRESS THIS INCREASED CONCENTRATION. AND THE REALLY BIG GUYS, THEY LIKE IT THAT WAY. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO STAND UP IN THIS CHAMBER FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WE CANNOT WAIT ANY LONGER. WE NEED VIGOROUS ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT. WE NEED TO IMPROVE THE TOOLS AND THE RESOURCES THAT THOSE -- THAT ARE TRYING AT LEAST TO PUT A MODICUM OF ENFORCEMENT IN PLACE ARE ABLE TO EXERCISE. OUR ECONOMY DEPENDS ON IT. THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I YIELD THE FLOOR.