Floor Statements

Mr. President, with the time I have remaining, I wish to address an issue that remains critically important as well--overcriminalization and the need to reform criminal intent requirements in our Federal criminal code.

Like many of my colleagues, I believe Congress has criminalized far too much conduct and has mandated overly harsh penalties for too many crimes. A number of my colleagues have sought to address these problems by cutting prison sentences, altering statutory minimums, or releasing prisoners early for good behavior. But as we seek to reform the criminal justice system, we must be careful not to overlook one of the major roots of the problem: the lack of adequate criminal intent requirements in Federal statutes.

``Mens rea'' is a Latin phrase meaning guilty mind. One of the time- honored, fundamental features of our criminal law is that for a person to be found guilty of a crime, he or she must have committed the act with criminal intent or mens rea. In the English common law, this principle was summarized in the idea that the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty. Mens rea requirements protect individuals who commit an illegal act without knowing that their action was wrong or unlawful.

To give an example, a person who mistakenly retrieves the wrong coat from a coatroom does not become a thief merely because he took something that wasn't his but looked like his. Only if he knows that the coat belongs to someone else does he commit a criminal act.

Unfortunately, many of our current criminal laws and regulations contain inadequate mens rea requirements, and some contain no mens rea requirement at all. This leaves individuals--innocent individuals-- subject and vulnerable to prosecution for conduct they believed to be lawful at the time.

In recent years, as Congress and Federal agencies have criminalized more behavior, they have often been vague about mens rea requirements or even silent about mens rea altogether.

In a 2014 Tennessee Law Review article, Michael Cottone investigated how many Federal criminal statutes there are in the U.S. code. Mr. Cottone explained that ``tellingly, no exact count of the number of federal statutes that impose criminal sanctions has ever been given.'' Most scholars agree that there are approximately 5,000 Federal statutes that impose criminal sanctions, but those criminal statutes do not include the nearly 300,000 Federal regulations that also carry criminal penalties.

With so many criminal laws on the books, it is far too easy for Americans to break Federal laws unwittingly, with no understanding whatsoever that their behavior happens to be illegal. For example, did you know it is a Federal crime to write a check for an amount of less than $1 or that it is a Federal crime to allow a pet to make a noise that frightens wildlife on Federal land? Even more incredibly, did you know it is a Federal crime to keep a pet on a leash that exceeds 6 feet in length on Federal land?

These are only a few examples of unlawful activities that reasonable people could not reasonably be expected to know. What is worse, many of these unlawful activities are punishable by time in prison. This is not only ridiculous, but it is immoral. The lack of adequate mens rea requirements in our Federal criminal code subjects innocent people to unjustified punishment.

To address this issue, I reintroduced the Mens Rea Reform Act of 2017. Today I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society for highlighting the need for mens rea reform

and for supporting my efforts to protect innocent people. They are not the only ones. Anybody who looks at this has to say: Are we going to send people to jail when they didn't know what they were doing was wrong? It makes anybody stop and think: Is that right? Should we do that? Is that fair?

Likewise, I wish to thank Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and David Perdue for joining me as cosponsors on this bill. Our bill sets a default intent requirement of willfulness for all Federal criminal offenses that lack an intent requirement. Additionally, the bill defines willfulness to mean that a person acted with knowledge that his or her conduct was unlawful.

Naturally, our bill does not apply to any offenses that Congress clearly intended to be strict liability offenses. Our proposal has garnered widespread support from a variety of organizations, including the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Koch Industries, the Federal Defenders, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Heritage Foundation--just to name a few.

Importantly, our bill does not remove any crimes from the books, nor does it override any existing mens rea standards written in statute. Moreover, it does not limit Congress's authority to create new criminal offenses, including strict liability offenses.

Mens rea really is a simple issue. Individuals should not be threatened with prison time for accidentally committing a crime or for engaging in an activity they did not know was wrong. If Congress wants to criminalize an activity and does not want to include any sort of criminal intent requirement, Congress should have to specify in statute that it is creating a strict liability offense.

I believe this simple legislative solution will go a long way in reducing harsh sentences for morally innocent offenders. It will also push back against the overcriminalization of innocent behavior. As I have said many times, any consideration of criminal justice reform or sentencing reform is incomplete without reforms to mens rea requirements.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the confirmation of Makan Delrahim has been a top priority of mine. I know the man. He worked with us. He headed our Judiciary Committee staff. Amidst the rising controversy over antitrust law in the 21st century, he is precisely who we need in that position. I commend the President for having picked him.

All of us, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, are going to make sure that our markets remain free and competitive. Cheap talking points are not going to cut it; only serious debate will.

I am pleased that recent efforts to rise above the partisan fray and treat this subject with the seriousness it deserves have paid off today.

I expect our colleagues to vote for Makan because of the high-quality lawyer he really is.

I thank my colleagues for joining me in this debate. I congratulate Makan, who is sure to make us all very pleased with the way he can run things and the way he can begin this important work that he knows is important. We know it is important; I particularly know it is important.

Makan has been an honest, decent, wonderful man. He is a good father. He has been a terrific staffer here on Capitol Hill. He has worked with both Democrats and Republicans in good faith. I think almost all of them, if they are honest, will say he was a very, very good person to work with and a wonderful person to fill this position.

It is a blessing that someone like Makan, who comes from a very humble family, could rise to the top in this particular position in antitrust, and I am sure he will do an honest, decent job within the antitrust laws as they are configured and written.

I am proud of him. I think the world of him. I hope everybody will vote for him. But if not, I will commend him, and I know he will do a good job in this particular position.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I yield back all time on both sides, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to return to the topic of antitrust. When I last spoke on this matter, the debate was already simmering, albeit mostly on the left. In the time since, controversy in both our markets and our politics has kept it at the fore.

Handled prudently, that can be a good thing. I say we have this discussion. I think it is important. Heavens, I will even try to do my part to make it a little more fun. But I do have my concerns that the topic of antitrust policy is still more enthusiastically invoked than deliberately considered.

I am concerned that it is still undermined by the same old easy retreats to the right and to the left. That may be typical of issues here in Washington, but on no issue can we afford it less. You see, especially in antitrust policy, it is critical that the center hold. It is critical that we secure that delicate middle ground--hard won over the years and easily lost in a moment of fervor--whereon economic liberty thrives.

I have come to the floor, once again, to speak and, to the growing discussion, to contribute.

Permit me to say a few words about holding the center. When I took to this floor last month, I argued that on the fundamental question of economic management, America has courageously defied the historical norm. Rather than acquiescing to the central planning, we fully embraced free enterprise. Thus, ours is a market economy and the most prosperous one of our times.

Markets are messy. They are chaotic and, from the individual perspective, impossibly complex. Perhaps, most counterintuitively, they are, in a sense, disorganized.

For all their productivity, for all the wonders they work, there is no single actor or entity in control. The miracle arises all on its own, through an order

spontaneously coordinated by price and balanced by the efforts of millions. Little surprise then that in America's free enterprise tradition, no less than in its larger political tradition, we deeply distrust concentrated power. We distrust the intervention of the State, to be sure.

Our system is largely defined by limited government but so, too, do we cast a wary eye upon powerful private entities. We have little tolerance for the monopolist which secures its market position anticompetitively, and we offer no quarter to the naked cartel. In other words, we no sooner trust concentrated private power than concentrated public power to dictate the direction of our economy.

That, right there, is why we turn to antitrust. That is the middle ground--between intrusive public management and corrosive private conduct, which antitrust is charged with seizing and protecting, for we know our markets will never fulfill their promise unless they remain free and competitive, and we know they will not long remain free or competitive without a sound competition policy holding that center ground.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, events of late seem determined to keep antitrust at the forefront of the public debate. We are witnessing innovation and disruption at a dizzying pace. Markets are concentrating, powerful players are staking out valuable ground, and accusations of anticompetitive behavior--some bona fide and many not-- are mounting. Across the board, an anxiety seems to be settling in.

Therefore, I want to be very clear, especially to my friends on the left: I see it. I understand it. That the challenges here are real, there can be no real doubt. That an update in the doctrine may well be necessary, there should be no dispute. Where, perhaps, I differ is that I don't quite see the need for the panic. I think American antitrust is up to this challenge.

The story of capitalism has always been a story of change, and if we are doing things right, that change does not come according to anyone's plan or script. Just when society grows comfortable in habits of law and commerce--just as each part of the economy learns to play its part--the ground again shifts beneath our feet. It can be a bit disorienting but not to worry. That is where our old, trusted friend, the consumer welfare standard, comes back in.

As I emphasized in my last address on the floor and as I will continue to emphasize here, it is a proven way of directing us aright. As new innovation fundamentally alters the landscape, as entrepreneurs press beyond current frontiers and into the unknown, the consumer welfare standard is like a compass with a bearing set toward that critical middle ground which antitrust is charged with protecting. True north is not what is best for market competitors, not what is most convenient for market regulators, but what most furthers market competition itself, the better to ward off the dangers of collectivism, the surer to escape the stagnation of monopoly.

Now, I know--I understand--that this hardly settles things. Identifying the principle by which we orient ourselves is the start of the discussion, not the conclusion. The consumer welfare standard is, like I have said, a compass; it is not a map. It guides our journey without fixing a precise course through the changing terrain. Adjustments are to be expected. After all, much of antitrust doctrine, as it is received today, was built upon the familiar economic process of resource extraction, manufacture, distribution, and retail.

That the digital age would present commercial arrangements to defy those traditional classifications is not, altogether, surprising. Fortunately, antitrust is a common law exercise and leaves plenty of room for improvement. Our conventional categories of anticompetitive conduct can be tweaked, refashioned, or even expanded in light of technological advancement and market evolution. That process will become all the easier as our tools for taking the measure of the land improve.

Current analysis does well in taking account of price. It may do better still in taking account of quality. Reams of data never before thought obtainable and new econometric methods only recently deemed practical entice us with a chance to plot curves, which until recently were confined to the theoretical. Our basic and time-honored foundational models are increasingly nudged and bounded by contributions from the behavioral sciences, and game theory is continuously opening new horizons in market analysis.

I am happy to have that discussion. Again, we keep our markets fresh by keeping our doctrine current, but I would--as an old Republican must--urge caution, especially to some of the more zealous advocates for reform, hipster or otherwise. I will gladly sample the avocado toast--I really will--but nobody should get the idea that we have moved on from the meat and potatoes. It is easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to critique past precedent formed in the familiar image of the mass industrial process. It is far more difficult to refashion doctrine for a new age that is still evolving in surprising ways.

As we trek into the unknown, let's take note of where we have been and appreciate the hazards of the route. Let's recall that whatever the changes at the surface of the market, basic economic principles persist through the ages. Network effects in our digital infrastructure may feel very new today, but as I emphasized in my last address, the concept is actually very old. It structured the telephone market long before we could even conceive of an online search market. Let's recall also that the foresight of regulators and thus the wisdom of their regulation is inevitably limited.

We talk a lot about platform economics today and worry about the bottlenecks of digital traffic as if the future has finally and permanently arrived, but with the rate of innovation these days, there is no telling whether the essential facilities of today will prove all that essential tomorrow. We can do little more than guess at what form exclusive dealing or foreclosure may take in markets yet unseen. Let's recall that markets often correct themselves. As more than a few formally invincible corporate titans can attest, free enterprise offers few opportunities for eternal life, and when regulators do step in, doctrine still tends to lag behind the market. Thus, the powers we grant government now will likely survive into a future that is not yet defined.

Finally, before we rush to grant enforcement officials a broad mandate with an ill-defined objective to do something, let's recall that regulation can hurt as much as it can help. As we have seen in some attempts at rate regulation, a regime meant to restrain the biggest players may very well, with the passage of time, become the preferred tool for excluding new entrants. Merger analysis sometimes does more for rivals than for consumers, and as we have learned in nearly every form of intervention, a medicine which creates too much unpredictability and upsets too many investment-backed expectations may well prove worse than the disease itself.

In the end, like I said, I think we are up to this challenge. With compassion in hand, an open mind, and appreciation for what our journey thus far has taught, antitrust will continue the work of securing that middle ground whereon markets thrive. When all is said and done--after all of the controversy and high emotion have subsided--we may just find that all we needed was a small course adjustment. Perhaps this needn't be a reckoning when just a little reform will do. We can set about correcting market failures and readjusting system incentives without going after some industry or bringing this or that firm to heel.

When I first sounded the alarm on Microsoft--years ago really--it was not merely because it was deemed too powerful or because a new class of high-tech barons risked undermining democratic norms; it was because of well-founded concerns of concrete, competitive harm to developing markets.

The question in antitrust was not then--and we must not allow it to become today--whether any of our companies are too big or too profitable or too dominant; the question is whether they engage in identifiable anticompetitive conduct or if a merger is likely to facilitate it.

The question is whether it can be shown, as far as the imperfect tools of economics allow and an evolving doctrine can bear, that the conduct at issue or the merger proposed does more to fortify the firm than serve the consumers of America.

Of course, that kind of analysis may not make headlines, and it may not satisfy our deep-seated yearning to identify heroes and villains, but it is the best way to handle antitrust. If we are going to get this right, we are going to need to keep cool heads.

Antitrust already asked some of the hardest questions, like why we allow the market to put scarce resources to their highest uses when our social and political valuations do not match that of prevailing prices. Antitrust already forces some of the hardest choices, like how to trade the losses of some industries and some actors for the gains of the economy as a whole.

There is no need to make things harder still by turning antitrust into a political cudgel, as the left is wont to do, or by dismissing it as yet another example of government overreach, as the right is often guilty.

So let us let all of us on all sides tone down the political rhetoric. Should this debate do no more than feed our appetite for political gamesmanship, antitrust will not be the better for having it. Do you know what? I do not think I am alone here. My colleagues in the Senate seem to be rising to the occasion. My friends on the other side of the aisle introduced legislation that, however flawed in my view, reflects the seriousness with which they take these issues.

I am happy to see there is finally movement again on the nomination of Makan Delrahim. He is an exceptional antitrust attorney and just the person we are going to need as we sort this thing all out. I will not shy from discussing his qualifications here, and I would not fault my colleagues for using his nomination as an opportunity for a wider discussion on antitrust, but now it is time to put him to work. I am pleased to see we are almost there.

At the same time, this debate is not going to be confined to the floor of the Senate. At the agencies, in the courtroom, from the lecture hall to the opinion pages, there are going to be a lot of voices weighing in. Most, we can hope, will be helpful. All, we can resolve, will be heard, I hope.

I want to applaud those on the left for jumping into this debate, and I wish the best of luck to the new Open Markets Institute. I had a little fun with the hipsters the last time around, and they took it in good stride. I am now told some prefer the title New Brandeis School. I think that is fitting. Justice Brandeis was a bit of a hipster in his time. I should know, as I was basically a contemporary of his.

Further, I acknowledge the efforts of private litigants and policy advocates pressing their cases in courts here and in Europe. They have been working tirelessly to make a data-driven case that speaks directly to consumer harm. They play an important role, and the doctrine is better for their efforts, however their cases turn out.

Finally, I want to implore my fellow conservatives, continue joining in on this debate, keep investing in antitrust, embrace it as an area of the law in which we speak to the power of the markets by speaking to the importance of sound regulation. Make the case that, like property or contract or commercial law, antitrust is that rare species of government regulation which opens doors rather than slamming them shut.

As I have been arguing for decades now, should our doctrine grow stagnant, markets may well concentrate beyond what is politically acceptable, calls for excessive government intervention will only increase, and the yoke of the regulator could soon be our portion.

With that, Mr. President, I will close right where I began. As this debate proceeds, it falls to all of us to do our part in getting this right. The challenges presented by our evolving markets are real, but we are not the first to break new ground, and will we be the last to worry that the new ground broken sits far removed from the competition's precious center? One way or another, we have made it before. I trust we can make it again.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have 1 request for committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, it is with great reverence that I rise today to pay tribute to one of Utah's great soldiers, SSG Aaron Butler, who was tragically killed on August 16, 2017, by an improvised explosive device in Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan. On that fateful day, Butler was searching for Islamic State loyalists in a booby- trapped building and was caught in an explosion that took his life and injured 11 of his comrades.

Staff Sergeant Butler was a member of the Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group of the Utah National Guard. Butler's desire to serve in our Nation's military started at a young age when, as a first-grader, he told his family he would grow up to be a soldier. His actual military service began in high school when he enlisted in the Utah National Guard. Staff Sergeant Butler continued to look for opportunities to make a difference, and a few years later, he began the very difficult Special Forces training. He graduated from this program with honors on January 14, 2016. He deemed it a tremendous honor to don the Green Beret.

Butler has been described as a natural leader, an accomplished athlete, and an adventurous soul. As a young man, he excelled in football and wrestling. In fact, through talent and sheer determination, Butler became a four-time State wrestling champion, only the 17th wrestler in Utah history to accomplish such a feat. He loved the outdoors and embraced the scouting program, earning the rank of Eagle Scout.

Butler loved to serve his fellow men and women and did it in variety of ways including, as a full-time missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Ghana Cape Coast Mission in Africa. During this time, he spent months improving the infrastructure and daily lives of those living there. He also brought a message of peace and testified of the love our Savior, Jesus Christ, has for all his children.

I have been deeply touched by the many tributes and words of honor offered on behalf of this courageous soldier since this tragedy occurred. He was a truly remarkable young man and a seasoned soldier who possessed an unwavering commitment to what is right and good.

Butler also had a great love for our Nation's military. His Special Forces teammates described him as a ``warrior,'' an ``incredible man, teammate, and friend,'' and someone who ``fought with everything he had to the very end,'' but perhaps the greatest tribute paid to this brave soldier was simply stated by his brother, Shane Butler, who said, ``[Aaron] showed us how to live.''

Butler leaves behind his loving parents, Randy and Laura Butler of Monticello, UT; six brothers and one sister; his fiancee, Alexandra Seagrove, and many neighbors, fellow soldiers, and friends.

The men and women of our Nation's military are my heroes. I honor them for their courage, their service, and their sacrifice. I am deeply humbled by this young man's life and his willingness to pay the ultimate sacrifice. May God bless the friends and family of Staff Sergeant Butler with peace and comfort at this difficult time. I am certain Aaron's life will have a lasting impact on his family, his community, and the country he loved.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes amidst the Senate's business to memorialize my good friend, fellow colleague, and long-serving Senator of New Mexico, Pete Domenici. It is altogether fitting that we may offer tribute right in the middle of a busy day. Pete was a true legislator, the kind we just don't see all that often any longer. He was at his best when we were here getting things done-- and often we were getting things done because of his efforts. He will be sorely missed by those of us who had the distinct privilege of serving alongside him.

Pete's life was a testament to the American Dream; born to immigrant parents, Pete grew up working in his father's store before going on to earn his degree in education. Later, he would teach math at a local junior high school, before making his way into city politics and, from there, join the Senate in 1972. Some will no doubt recall that he was the first Republican elected as Senator of New Mexico in nearly 40 years, but most will remember that he always put the people of his State and his Nation ahead of partisan interests.

While serving in the Senate, Pete fulfilled his charge with diligence, passion, and decorum. His time here still serves as an example to many of us. Pete was regularly willing to reach across the aisle, always willing to take the first step, and never one to shrink from an opportunity presented, whether difficult or not. Pete's efforts to bring the Federal budget under control were especially admirable, and his leadership was crucial in achieving the balanced budget of 1997. That has proven a rare accomplishment. His work as an advocate for the mentally ill showed

his deep levels of compassion, and his efforts helped create a more just and equitable society for all.

Even after he retired, Pete, as was his way, refused to rest. He continued to promote bipartisan solutions in Washington and continued to remind each of us of our duties to the American people. My prayers and condolences go out to his wife, Nancy, and all of his family. Amidst their grief, I take heart they may know that his legacy outlives his days and that this body will be forever better for his service.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing a proposal that could substantially improve America's healthcare. Despite what some of my colleagues believe, it does not take a sweeping overhaul of ObamaCare to do this. Sometimes, even small changes can have a huge impact on people's lives.

That is why, throughout my four decades of public service, I have worked to shine a light on the need for innovative treatments to help those who suffer from debilitating illness and rare diseases. In that same spirit, I am joining Senator Schatz today to introduce the Marijuana Effective Drug Studies Act, or MEDS Act, which has the potential to benefit millions of Americans who are suffering from a wide range of conditions, including cancer, severe epilepsy, post- traumatic stress disorder, residual effects after a stroke, or chronic pain.

It is high time to address research into medical marijuana. Our country has experimented with a variety of State solutions without properly delving into the weeds on the effectiveness, safety, dosing, administration, and quality of medical marijuana.

Now, all puns aside, it will surprise no one that I am strongly against the use of recreational marijuana. I worry, however, that in our zeal to enforce the law, we too often blind ourselves to the medicinal benefits of natural substances, like cannabis. While I certainly do not support the use of marijuana for recreational purposes, the evidence shows that cannabis possesses medicinal properties that can truly change people's lives for the better, and I believe we would be remiss if we threw out the baby with the bath water.

In many cases, the compounds found in cannabis are the only hope for Americans who suffer from chronic medical conditions, such as severe epilepsy. Take the difficult case of a young man from Eagle Mountain, UT, who suffers from a number of different epileptic disorders and developmental ailments. My friend regularly takes 17 pills on a daily basis. Yet he continues to have seizures regularly. The current treatment for his condition, with no guarantee of success, would be invasive brain surgery.

This poor family is seeking help, yearning for a way for their child to live a safe and healthy life. Compounds found in marijuana could significantly mitigate the severity of my friend's seizures and even help him lead a normal life, but current regulations prevent the development of any such treatment from going forward. So this young man is left to suffer. Luckily,

the MEDS Act changes that. It updates the law for the 21st century, allowing for groundbreaking research on the potentially lifesaving benefits of medical marijuana.

Compounds found in marijuana have shown promise for treating a wide range of diseases and disorders, but because of bureaucratic redtape and fear, there is a lack of sufficient evidence about the safety and efficacy of these compounds. As a result, millions of Americans are using marijuana for medicinal purposes without there being the rigorous scientific evidence that we require all medications to have before we allow them to be prescribed in this country. There are currently no Federal quality control measures for marijuana grown for medicinal purposes, nor is there any quality control for the marijuana-based medications that patients eventually use.

Prescribers do not have guidance on appropriate doses, routes of administration, or even the safety of this medication for populations such as children or the elderly. This lack of oversight creates a dangerous environment that puts American lives at risk. As we continue to encourage the development of new therapies for those with severe medical problems, we must be unrelenting in our insistence on scientific rigor. Using only anecdotal information poses a significant public health risk.

We lack the science to support the use of medical marijuana products like CBD oils, not because researchers are unwilling to do the work but because of bureaucratic redtape and overregulation. Under current law, those who want to complete research on the benefits of medical marijuana must engage in a complex application process and interact with several Federal agencies. These regulatory acrobatics can take researchers over a year, if not more, to complete, and the longer researchers have to wait, the longer patients have to suffer.

Currently, the FDA estimates that a drug takes a minimum of 7 years to move from initial studies to FDA approval. The regulatory hoops that researchers have to jump through significantly delay the production of potentially life-changing medications that Americans need.

To develop more information about marijuana's therapeutic potential, we need robust basic and clinical research. The MEDS Act would encourage this research through reduced regulatory interference, and it would expand sources of research-grade marijuana with the assurance of a quality-controlled product. My proposal would also allow for the commercial production of drugs developed from marijuana once they have been approved by the FDA.

I am pleased with the legislation that Senator Schatz and I have been able to craft surrounding CBO oil and medical research. We are committed to seeing that this bill becomes law.

Before I yield the floor, I would like to take a moment to share my perspective on the broader discussion of medical marijuana and its implications in my home State of Utah. In Utah and across the Nation, opioid abuse continues to ravage good, hard-working families who have fallen captive to the tyranny of addiction. While some people are using these prescription drugs appropriately, others are abusing them at alarming rates. Because Utahns have watched their family members, friends, and neighbors grapple with this epidemic, many are seeking nonnarcotic alternatives that can help with pain. Medical marijuana is just one such alternative, and after careful, deliberative thought, I have concluded that it is an alternative worth pursuing.

Now let me be clear. My support for medical marijuana research does not mean that I believe that marijuana is a harmless substance. Much to the contrary, I continue to believe that marijuana can lead to broader drug abuse, and I am deeply concerned by the cottage industries that are springing up in States in which marijuana has been legalized both for medical and recreational use.

So let me be clear. I am still very much opposed to the legalization of recreational marijuana, but I strongly support research into the medicinal benefits of marijuana, and I remain committed to helping patients find the help they need, whether they suffer from cancer, severe seizures, or any other chronic disorder.

In crafting a new regulatory framework to harvest the medicinal benefits of marijuana while also mitigating its harmful effects, we must ensure that any marijuana-derived medications are prescribed by qualified physicians or other healthcare providers. Also, if we make medical marijuana accessible to those who really need it, we should not increase access to recreational marijuana, nor should we do anything to promote the industry that has developed around marijuana dispensaries.

The recreational marijuana industry has its fair share of budding entrepreneurs, but these men and women are in no way qualified to issue prescriptions or give any medical advice whatsoever to people who are suffering from chronic conditions. Only experienced medical professionals who have undergone years of education and formal training are qualified to consult patients who are seeking a marijuana-derived treatment. Only licensed professionals know how to accurately diagnose illnesses and use approved medical treatments to safely treat disease.

Our purpose in advancing medical marijuana research should be to help doctors help patients, not to help dispensaries turn a profit. To that end, I also believe that treatment options should focus on noncombustive forms of marijuana. Our ability to isolate helpful compounds is advanced enough to make this plan a reality.

I understand that medical marijuana is a difficult issue. I understand that it is not an issue without controversy, but we cannot shrink from our duties simply because they require us to make hard choices. At present, we have a duty to help the thousands of Americans who are suffering from debilitating seizures and chronic pain, who desperately want help but do not know where to find it. Passing the MEDS Act is the first step in giving these men and women the reprieve they need.

I hope my colleagues will not shy away from making the hard choices that will improve people's lives. The bill Senator Schatz and I introduce today represents what our two parties can accomplish when we work together in good faith. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this commonsense proposal.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing a proposal that could substantially improve America's healthcare. Despite what some of my colleagues believe, it does not take a sweeping overhaul of ObamaCare to do this. Sometimes, even small changes can have a huge impact on people's lives.

That is why, throughout my four decades of public service, I have worked to shine a light on the need for innovative treatments to help those who suffer from debilitating illness and rare diseases. In that same spirit, I am joining Senator Schatz today to introduce the Marijuana Effective Drug Studies Act, or MEDS Act, which has the potential to benefit millions of Americans who are suffering from a wide range of conditions, including cancer, severe epilepsy, post- traumatic stress disorder, residual effects after a stroke, or chronic pain.

It is high time to address research into medical marijuana. Our country has experimented with a variety of State solutions without properly delving into the weeds on the effectiveness, safety, dosing, administration, and quality of medical marijuana.

Now, all puns aside, it will surprise no one that I am strongly against the use of recreational marijuana. I worry, however, that in our zeal to enforce the law, we too often blind ourselves to the medicinal benefits of natural substances, like cannabis. While I certainly do not support the use of marijuana for recreational purposes, the evidence shows that cannabis possesses medicinal properties that can truly change people's lives for the better, and I believe we would be remiss if we threw out the baby with the bath water.

In many cases, the compounds found in cannabis are the only hope for Americans who suffer from chronic medical conditions, such as severe epilepsy. Take the difficult case of a young man from Eagle Mountain, UT, who suffers from a number of different epileptic disorders and developmental ailments. My friend regularly takes 17 pills on a daily basis. Yet he continues to have seizures regularly. The current treatment for his condition, with no guarantee of success, would be invasive brain surgery.

This poor family is seeking help, yearning for a way for their child to live a safe and healthy life. Compounds found in marijuana could significantly mitigate the severity of my friend's seizures and even help him lead a normal life, but current regulations prevent the development of any such treatment from going forward. So this young man is left to suffer. Luckily,

the MEDS Act changes that. It updates the law for the 21st century, allowing for groundbreaking research on the potentially lifesaving benefits of medical marijuana.

Compounds found in marijuana have shown promise for treating a wide range of diseases and disorders, but because of bureaucratic redtape and fear, there is a lack of sufficient evidence about the safety and efficacy of these compounds. As a result, millions of Americans are using marijuana for medicinal purposes without there being the rigorous scientific evidence that we require all medications to have before we allow them to be prescribed in this country. There are currently no Federal quality control measures for marijuana grown for medicinal purposes, nor is there any quality control for the marijuana-based medications that patients eventually use.

Prescribers do not have guidance on appropriate doses, routes of administration, or even the safety of this medication for populations such as children or the elderly. This lack of oversight creates a dangerous environment that puts American lives at risk. As we continue to encourage the development of new therapies for those with severe medical problems, we must be unrelenting in our insistence on scientific rigor. Using only anecdotal information poses a significant public health risk.

We lack the science to support the use of medical marijuana products like CBD oils, not because researchers are unwilling to do the work but because of bureaucratic redtape and overregulation. Under current law, those who want to complete research on the benefits of medical marijuana must engage in a complex application process and interact with several Federal agencies. These regulatory acrobatics can take researchers over a year, if not more, to complete, and the longer researchers have to wait, the longer patients have to suffer.

Currently, the FDA estimates that a drug takes a minimum of 7 years to move from initial studies to FDA approval. The regulatory hoops that researchers have to jump through significantly delay the production of potentially life-changing medications that Americans need.

To develop more information about marijuana's therapeutic potential, we need robust basic and clinical research. The MEDS Act would encourage this research through reduced regulatory interference, and it would expand sources of research-grade marijuana with the assurance of a quality-controlled product. My proposal would also allow for the commercial production of drugs developed from marijuana once they have been approved by the FDA.

I am pleased with the legislation that Senator Schatz and I have been able to craft surrounding CBO oil and medical research. We are committed to seeing that this bill becomes law.

Before I yield the floor, I would like to take a moment to share my perspective on the broader discussion of medical marijuana and its implications in my home State of Utah. In Utah and across the Nation, opioid abuse continues to ravage good, hard-working families who have fallen captive to the tyranny of addiction. While some people are using these prescription drugs appropriately, others are abusing them at alarming rates. Because Utahns have watched their family members, friends, and neighbors grapple with this epidemic, many are seeking nonnarcotic alternatives that can help with pain. Medical marijuana is just one such alternative, and after careful, deliberative thought, I have concluded that it is an alternative worth pursuing.

Now let me be clear. My support for medical marijuana research does not mean that I believe that marijuana is a harmless substance. Much to the contrary, I continue to believe that marijuana can lead to broader drug abuse, and I am deeply concerned by the cottage industries that are springing up in States in which marijuana has been legalized both for medical and recreational use.

So let me be clear. I am still very much opposed to the legalization of recreational marijuana, but I strongly support research into the medicinal benefits of marijuana, and I remain committed to helping patients find the help they need, whether they suffer from cancer, severe seizures, or any other chronic disorder.

In crafting a new regulatory framework to harvest the medicinal benefits of marijuana while also mitigating its harmful effects, we must ensure that any marijuana-derived medications are prescribed by qualified physicians or other healthcare providers. Also, if we make medical marijuana accessible to those who really need it, we should not increase access to recreational marijuana, nor should we do anything to promote the industry that has developed around marijuana dispensaries.

The recreational marijuana industry has its fair share of budding entrepreneurs, but these men and women are in no way qualified to issue prescriptions or give any medical advice whatsoever to people who are suffering from chronic conditions. Only experienced medical professionals who have undergone years of education and formal training are qualified to consult patients who are seeking a marijuana-derived treatment. Only licensed professionals know how to accurately diagnose illnesses and use approved medical treatments to safely treat disease.

Our purpose in advancing medical marijuana research should be to help doctors help patients, not to help dispensaries turn a profit. To that end, I also believe that treatment options should focus on noncombustive forms of marijuana. Our ability to isolate helpful compounds is advanced enough to make this plan a reality.

I understand that medical marijuana is a difficult issue. I understand that it is not an issue without controversy, but we cannot shrink from our duties simply because they require us to make hard choices. At present, we have a duty to help the thousands of Americans who are suffering from debilitating seizures and chronic pain, who desperately want help but do not know where to find it. Passing the MEDS Act is the first step in giving these men and women the reprieve they need.

I hope my colleagues will not shy away from making the hard choices that will improve people's lives. The bill Senator Schatz and I introduce today represents what our two parties can accomplish when we work together in good faith. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this commonsense proposal.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to one of Utah's great public servants, a loving husband, father, and grandfather and a remarkable leader, David ``Ted'' Eyre. Sadly, Ted recently lost his battle with cancer. He leaves behind a grieving community that he served for many years as mayor of Murray City.

Ted had a strong, yet kind demeanor that inspired others to work hard and do what was best for their community. As mayor, he made a tremendous impact on the infrastructure and neighborhoods of Murray City, a thriving community tucked into the Salt Lake Valley.

Ted was able to accomplish many important things for the local community, including: improving Murray Park, the heart of the city; acquiring the historic Murray Theater, Murray Chapel, and Murray Mansion that will serve as gathering places for years to come; expanding Fashion Place Mall and the University of Utah Midvalley Health Center; acquiring properties in the downtown redevelopment area for a new city hall and fire station; and adopting a new general city plan.

Ted had two great passions--aviation and people. Both interests guided him in his decisions throughout his life. He received a degree in aviation science at San Bernardino Valley College. As a young man, he enlisted in the U.S. Army and served in the Vietnam war flying a U- 21 Ute transport aircraft in the aviation division of the signal corps. After his military service, he continued his love of flying and excelled as an airline pilot for 30 years for Western and later Delta Airlines, serving as captain for much of that time.

On January 7, 2014, Eyre was sworn in as the mayor of Murray City, quickly endearing himself as a capable leader who valued the input of all and who fought hard to prepare the community for the future. Mayor Eyre left an indelible imprint on the city he led and the citizens he served.

Throughout his life, Eyre not only distinguished himself as a talented pilot, courageous soldier, and devoted public servant, he also became a friend to all he came into contact with and was a beloved husband, father, and grandfather. I am grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to a great man, his life, and the example he leaves behind. His influence will be felt for generations to come.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, before we adjourned for the recess, I came to this lectern to issue a call for comity, cooperation, and compromise. My message that day was simple: If we are serious about legislating--if we are truly committed to doing the work the American people sent us here to do--then we must look beyond the horizon of our differences and find common ground.

Since January, this Congress has been its own worst enemy. It has been mired in the muck of its own making, bogged down by partisan squabbles and gripped by gridlock--the likes of which I have never seen in all my years of public service. I wish I could say the situation across the country is better, but sadly it isn't. The polarization we see in the Senate is only indicative of the division we see all around the Nation. The events of August threw that division into sharp relief, but it also showed us our ability to heal--our remarkable capacity to lay aside superficial differences in moments of crisis to come together as one.

In Charlottesville and Houston, August brought us a tale of two cities--one that showed us at once both the weaknesses and strengths of our great country.

In Charlottesville, we saw the worst of America on full display. In the violence, vitriol, and vulgar racism of Nazi demonstrators, we stared evil in the face, and in the terrorist attack that ensued, we saw the ideology of hatred brought to its logical endpoint. None of us will soon forget this attack on innocent civilians. I am sure, in the stagnant human air of that hot summer's day, we caught a glimpse of the darkness buried deep in the soul of America.

Charlottesville was more than a tragic event. It was a gut-check moment for all Americans. It was a national low point that demanded all of us to take stock of where we are as a society and where our rhetoric is taking us.

The men who perpetrated this horrific act of violence--whether by their words or by their actions--represent the dregs of a dying culture, but if the violence in Charlottesville showed America at its worst, then the rescue and recovery efforts in hurricane-ravaged Houston showed our country at its best.

Just 2 weeks after the brutality in Charlottesville, our Nation again watched in horror as Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Texas, unleashing a flood of biblical proportions. Relentless rainfall battered the coast for days, leaving in its wake a trail of destruction and shattered life.

Harvey left behind unprecedented devastation, but it also gave us countless stories of hope and heroism. On national TV, we saw a weatherman rushing to the aid of a stranded driver, pulling the man to safety before the current could take him away. We saw everyday Texans wade in the neck-deep waters to form a human chain, saving the life of a stranger trapped in his car. We watched as three teenage boys navigated the streets of Houston in a fishing boat, driving from house to house to rescue their neighbors as the floodwaters poured in.

These are just a few stories among thousands more. These stories remind us of the hope and humanity borne of tragedy. They bear testament to the innate goodness of the American people, and they show us that, in moments of crisis, our capacity to come together for the good of our communities is really unparalleled.

Tragedies like those in Houston strip us of all that is superfluous, leaving behind only our common humanity. In the moments of peril that moved tens of thousands of Texans to band together to save their city, considerations of race, religion, class, or creed fell into complete irrelevance. The first responders, volunteers, and Good Samaritans who put their own lives at risk to rescue others served indiscriminately. They took no thought for whom they were helping--what their background or beliefs were. Houston's heroes saw only lives that needed saving, and they went to work.

If there is any good that comes of tragedy, it is that for a brief but beautiful moment, we are able to see each other as we truly are-- not as Republicans or Democrats, rich or poor, Black or White, but as members of the same community, partakers of the same human condition and children of the same God. For a brief moment, we are able to see each other as Americans.

I pray that the hope of Houston may inspire all of us here in the Senate. I pray that we may look to the city's example in the work we have before us, setting aside our petty partisan differences to come together for the good of the Nation. I pray that, as Senators, we might see each other as friends and equals, partners and patriots, anxiously engaged in the important work of legislating. I pray that we can esteem each other by our mutual love for this great country, not by the R or D that follows our names.

Now, more than ever, we need strength and unity here in the Senate. The challenges we have before us are enormous. In the next few weeks alone, we need to secure emergency relief funding for the victims of Hurricane Harvey, raise the debt ceiling, fix our broken Tax Code, and find a way forward on immigration reform. Our to-do list just keeps growing.

Each of these items taken on its own is challenging, but taken as a whole, our agenda is daunting. But I truly believe we are up to the task. I truly believe we can step up to the plate, just as the people of Texas did, to tackle the challenges before us.

As I said before we broke for recess, the Senate is capable of so much more. I know because I have seen the Senate at its best. I have seen the Senate when it truly lived up to its reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body. I believe we can again see this body at its best.

My central message today is simple. We can do hard things. I know because we have done them before. So let's make laws, not excuses. Let's move forward on an agenda that puts the needs of America's families front and center.

This is an important pivotal time in our Nation's history. It is up to us to

make that pivotal time an important time, a successful time, and one where we are brought together to work as colleagues, rather than as opponents, which it has been far too much, as far as I am concerned, over the last number of years.

I hope that we can all get together and do a better job for America.

I yield the floor

Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished Senator from Texas. I thought his remarks were very much on point and very good.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a policy matter that has been generating substantial attention recently, and that is modern antitrust law. This issue is critical. In the perennial debate over the proper role of government in economic affairs, it will grow all the more critical in the years to come.

New technologies, creating markets not even imaginable only a decade ago, are spurring fundamental shifts in the economic landscape. In the national news, mergers between corporate giants or new fines imposed by foreign regulators are becoming an acceptable thing almost every day. In the Senate, we increasingly see antitrust law dragged into larger economic arguments that are heavier in inflammatory rhetoric than in careful deliberation. Allow me, then, to offer a few thoughts on the matter, and to directly address the rising controversy.

America has always been--and, I haven't a doubt, will remain--the economic and technological marvel of the world. Cradled in the best traditions of the West and animated by a culture equal parts industrious, creative, and restless, our system has produced the most prosperous people in human history. It has shown its shortcomings, to be sure. But on the whole, the American economy is unrivaled by any other. Indeed, at times its blessings are so bountiful, its provisions for the creation of wealth so effective, that we tend to take it for granted in this country. We tend, at times, to forget what got us here.

A big part of what got us here is American antitrust law. You see, all throughout history, societies and governments have tended toward the central planning of economic activity.

America, however, chose a different path. We refused to yield to the false comforts of collectivism. We opted, instead, for an economy that was vibrant, tumultuous, competitive, and free. It is fortunate that we did, for we have found that in the impossible complexity and unsettling chaos of the market--wherein millions of consumers and producers make millions of individual and uncoordinated decisions each and every day-- a spontaneous order arises that serves all of us far better than any central authority ever could. Of course, our markets work toward those ends only when they are genuinely free, fair, and competitive. That is where antitrust comes in.

In a very real sense, antitrust is the capitalist's answer to the siren song of the central planner. When antitrust doctrine is referred to as the Magna Carta of the free enterprise system, I suspect this is what we mean.

Let me be clear: Antitrust doctrine in this country has not always gotten it right. As we all know, early antitrust policy tended to confuse protection of market participants for protection of the market itself; it was quick to micromanage particular industries, to choose ad hoc intervention over predictable systems of incentives, and to cast suspicion on any market too concentrated or business too big.

Fortunately, antitrust doctrine grows and adapts. It develops in the same wonderful tradition and manner as the common law. Just as the common law historically gave us property, contract, and commercial rights, so too upon their basis does antitrust seek, year by year, to give us markets that are competitive and free. Thus, the modern era of antitrust has produced a fundamental improvement in our competitive doctrine.

We have steadily adopted the consumer welfare standard, which judges the conduct of firms and the arrangement of markets by what will maximize efficiency and therein serve consumers most completely.

There will always be market failures to account for and noneconomic concerns to keep in mind. But when it comes to the core, basic functioning of the market--how to deliver the most

goods to the most people at the highest quality and lowest cost-- consumer welfare still works best.

In most industries, most of the time, we ought to think a little less about how best to regulate the market and a little more about how best to set the market upon regulating itself. The disciplining effects of competition and the limitless store of American ingenuity do far more for consumers than the well-intentioned intervention of government authorities.

The consumer welfare standard has, consistently over the years, proved an absolute boon to our economy and our society. Of course, a legal standard means little unless handled with care.

We have chosen the right standard; now we must keep choosing the right officials to implement it. You see, under the consumer welfare standard, good antitrust enforcement is a lot like good sports officiating. It harnesses, rather than stems, the flow of the action. It lays out limited, predictable, and reliably enforced rules. It gets the most out of the players and the competition itself, regardless of which team is in the lead. Most importantly, as any sports fan could tell you, when officiating is done right, we hardly notice the refs at all.

With the right antitrust officials cognizant of their role, we can expect a spirited contest in which American entrepreneurs keep putting points on the board and American consumers keep reaping the reward.

Federal judges, naturally, are critical. In disputes of consequence, they provide the ultimate backstop.

Also critical are our executive officials. Makan Delrahim, for instance, has been nominated to lead the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice. He is eminently qualified, enjoys broad, bipartisan support, and is at the ready to start as soon as he receives our consent. I will urge my colleagues in the Senate, once again, to take up his nomination and confirm him to this important post. He has both Democrat and Republican support. He is well known. He ran the Judiciary Committee under my jurisdiction.

On the other side of the enforcement equation, we are still waiting on nominations to the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC is an important agency that will play a central role in the years ahead. Whoever is put in charge will face the monumental task of setting the agency on the right track. I have supreme confidence that the President will make the right choice on this one, and I look forward to supporting his nominees.

As these vacancies linger, however, uncertainty lingers as well. Critical merger and acquisition activity remains sidelined as innovation is chilled and expansions are put on hold. All of this comes at an unnecessary cost to our businesses and consumers.

I want this whole body to hear me clearly: There is no need for the same old partisan food fight over our antitrust officials. Let's get Makan Delrahim to work. FTC nominations will likely include two Republicans and a Democrat. There is no reason they can't be swiftly confirmed as a package. If delay on these important confirmations persists, I will be back on the floor to make sure everyone--from consumers to industry--knows it.

As I mentioned earlier, antitrust has been increasingly drawn into the broader public debate on economic and innovation policy, and not for the better. With each passing day, it seems the consumer welfare standard finds itself besieged from the left. Their rhetoric may not yet have made its way into traditional precedent, but it certainly has made itself known.

Some in academia insist that recent market concentration and technological progress compel a return to bold, persistent experimentation. Many in the media call for antitrust to pursue everything from industrial democracy to campaign finance reform to material leveling. Above all else, we hear again the old, lazy mantras that big is bad, disruption is suspect, and public utility designation is welcome.

Professor and former FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright has referred to this particular set of proposals as ``hipster antitrust.'' Well, as you might imagine, nobody would mistake me for a hipster. So for my part, and for ease, I will go ahead and call it the progressive standard. Truth be told, as a proposed replacement for the consumer welfare standard, the progressive standard leaves me deeply impressed. From what I can tell, it amounts to little more than pseudoeconomic demagoguery and anti-corporate paranoia. Nevertheless, it must not be dismissed out of hand.

Over the last 8 years, policymakers laid the groundwork for it by routinely disregarding some of the most basic elements of the consumer welfare standard. Now we see the same stirrings of this radical approach in many speeches on the other side of the aisle, as well as in the recently released platform curiously titled ``A Better Deal.''

As such, I believe a response is in order. In defense of the consumer welfare standard, we could, of course, run through the more technical deficiencies of the progressive standard. We can mention that as doctrine, it lacks manageable standards, dispensing with intellectual rigor and inviting political mischief. We can mention that as theory, it accounts for neither tradeoffs nor scarcity. We can mention that as aspiration, it subordinates the productive incentives of the entrepreneur to the fanciful designs of the bureaucrat.

Truth be told, the real trouble for the progressive standard is, it fails to grasp the bigger picture of our history, economy, and national character. It fails to appreciate that our time is not so distinct from times past and that our momentary insights are not so superior to the lessons learned over generations prior.

Of course, anyone can see that changes are afoot. As chairman of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force, I have seen it firsthand. The new technological age, having dawned in the late 20th century, continues to ripen into the 21st.

New innovation is relentlessly spurring transformation across the economy, and many markets are concentrating as a result. Yet supporters of the progressive standard seem to think this presents historically unique problems. They rely, as academics are wont to do, on sleek, new jargon to argue that today's antitrust challenges are not only tangibly but conceptually distinct of those of the past. They argue, in other words, that things really are different this time around. At the end of the day, terms like ``platform economics'' and ``network effects''-- commonly used to attack the consumer welfare standard--do less to define new economic concepts than to explain how old economic concepts are manifesting themselves in modern markets.

Through history, we have seen this time and time again. As the saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Markets concentrate and then disperse; dominant firms rise and then fall; with innovation comes creation in one sector and destruction in another. Anxiety over this evolution is very real, and the strident calls we hear to do something about it--whatever that may be--are on some level understandable, but this lurch toward the progressive standard is not.

Change, sometimes furious change, is a constant in our system. For all its rancor, for all its chaos and uncertainty, it is, alas, what propels us forward. We hope, not fear, that each age looks better than the last.

Now, in anticipation of an objection from my friends across the aisle, nobody is suggesting that no enforcement is necessary. Genuinely anti-competitive conduct must be stopped, and mergers prone to abet such conduct must be heavily scrutinized. That is all a part of keeping markets fair and free in the best tradition of American capitalism.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, we should aim to regulate markets such that in their basic core functioning they regulate themselves. Market discipline imposed by competition and driven by innovation should be our aim. To that end, nobody doubts that new developments in the market will require a fresh look at doctrine. Nobody questions that the consumer welfare standard will have to adapt. For example, categories of anti-competitive conduct may need to be tweaked, refastened or even expanded in light of technical advancement and market evolution. Merger review, never an exact science, will seize upon new econometric tools for measuring ancient

economic concepts like quality, preference, and efficiency. The rule of reason, I am sure, will continue to bedevil judges, practitioners, and law students alike, but that is just fine.

Antitrust, as I keep saying, is ultimately a common law exercise. I am here to argue merely that the consumer welfare standard, when handled prudently, is a far better steward of our economy than the progressive standard, which is deeply misguided and potentially quite destructive.

Take, for instance, the proposed Amazon-Whole Foods merger, which has generated so much interest lately. It would, of course, be inappropriate for me on the floor of the Senate to pass judgment. I would caution my colleagues the same. There is an established process for review, but the question should be asked: Upon what basis should antitrust authorities evaluate a proposed merger like this? What we need is the consumer welfare standard. It carefully examines the basic and critical question of whether such a deal helps consumers or whether it hurts consumers. It relies on a coherent doctrine to strike a balance. It is a balance between the merger's pro-competitive effects, such as integrative efficiencies and innovation, and the antitrust competitive potential, such as market domination by one firm or facilitated price coordination by the few that remain. What we absolutely do not need, on the other hand, is the progressive standard.

Under no doctrinal limitations to cabin discretion, antitrust officials would gladly follow vague institutions in shifting intuitions. With a broad mandate to pursue aims far grander than mere market efficiency, officials would be free to engage in ad hoc theorizing about whether corporate consolidation, writ large, can be squared with universal justice, common fairness, and community values, or of whatever else their creativity recommends. To take another example, across the Atlantic, our friends in the European Union have leveled a massive fine against Google for anti-competitive conduct. Again, it is not for me to say on the floor whether those fines are justified. I don't think they are, but it is not for me to say.

Once more, what we need is the framework provided by the consumer welfare standard. We must weigh the pro-competitive aspects of Google's conduct with its anti-competitive potential. The ultimate inquiry should be whether consumers are better off as a result of Google's actions. Under the progressive standard, however, instead of asking what lowers prices and increases quality--instead of considering actual proof of harm to consumers--we would be asking what best serves the social goals in vogue at the moment. The result would be an open invitation to market intervention that is more politically motivated than economically sound.

In conclusion, for all the past rhetoric, for all the claims that a new age requires a new doctrine, the ideas behind the progressive standard are not new. They are terribly old. They may be adorned with original terminology or aimed at novel markets, but it is the same old collectivist impulse it has always been. In that sense, these ideas are not unique to Americans. Every day we receive concerning reports from around the world that foreign governments are increasingly turning to antitrust for industrial policy. Whether domestically or abroad, the stakes are simply too high, the consequences too grievous for the consumer welfare standard to be swept away in an instant, merely because a new breed of central planners--falsely conceiving themselves different from their predecessors--imagine they know best.

In America, we have always opted for the invisible hand of the free market over the heavy hand of government intervention. Let's keep it that way.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.