 I'm going to turn to an area that Senator Lee and I, we both shared the subcommittee on antitrust, and so it's near and dear to my heart, so I thought it would spend a little time. It usually gets relegated to the second round, but I'm putting it up on the docket here. U.S. antitrust law has been described as a comprehensive charter of economic liberty, and I agree. And effective antitrust enforcement plays a critical role, as you know, in protecting consumers and workers, promoting innovation, ensuring new businesses have an opportunity to compete. It actually, from really early on in our country's history, has been a very important part of assuring that capitalism works. And in January, for the first time, since the dawn of the Internet, the Senate passed a tech competition bill out of the Judiciary Committee. It's a bill that Senator Grassley and I lead, many of the members of this committee supported the bill, 16-to-6 vote. It's called the American Innovation and Choice Online Act. It's now headed to the Senate floor. I'm not going to ask you about that bill, obviously, but I want to put this in some context. While tech monopolies have seized from 50 to 90 percent market share in major parts of their business lines, it is clear to me, when you look at the plain language of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, laws that are in place, that these monopolies are not okay. However, court rulings for decades in antitrust have created some major obstacles to taking on these cases. And it's not just court rulings. It is on us with, as I said, the dawn of the Internet, decades having passed. It is on us, the Senate and the House, to update our laws this year to give enforcers the resources to do their jobs, something you, if confirmed, would not have a role in. But the role of the courts is also very critical. You have been nominated to replace Justice Breyer, who came to the court with a strong background in antitrust law. I know you handled a case, you and I discussed it in my office. I think it got decided the merger was abandoned, so you didn't have to rule on the merits of it. It was back in 2017, a FTC challenge. But I'll just quote something that Justice Breyer once said. He told this committee, if you're going to have a free enterprise economy, then you must have a strong and effective antitrust law. Do you agree with Justice Breyer's statement, and how would you characterize the goals of our antitrust laws? Well, thank you, Senator. The antitrust laws protect competition and, as you said, therefore protect consumers and competitors and the economy as a whole. And the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act are broad in their statements and their protections, and there's a lot of precedent in this area. If I were confirmed, I would use my methodology to look at the precedents in these areas to ensure that any legislation that I was considering is interpreted according to the text, consistent with Congress' intent, and in the area of antitrust that is ensuring that there is consumer protections. Very good. And just to play it out a little bit, since the 1980s, the court in cases like Trinco and Credit Suisse, Ohio v. American Express, has really made it increasingly difficult to enforce the antitrust laws and protect competition. And during that same time, and I know many of my colleagues know this, we have seen a rise in industry consolidation, market power, not only in tech with companies like Google and Amazon and Facebook and Apple, but also across our economy, really in everything from pharma to cat food to caskets. Do you, what role do you think that congressional intent should play in the court's interpretation of the antitrust laws? And I say that because I think that we're dealing with some cases where justices have actually substituted their own ideologies for the intent of Congress in originally passing the laws. And I think it was Justice Souter who once said before this committee, when we are dealing with antitrust laws, we are dealing with one of the most spectacular examples of delegation to the judiciary that our legal system knows. But he added this, certainly a respect for legislative intent has got to be our anchor for interpretation. So what role do you think congressional intent should play in the court's interpretation of the antitrust laws? Thank you, Senator. So I've interpreted a number of statutes in my near decade on the bench. And in every case, the text of a statute is what the court looks at in order to ascertain what the legislature intended. And that is important because, as I've said, courts are not policymakers and judges should not be importing their own policy preferences. Judges are restrained in our constitutional scheme in order to affect the will of Congress in terms of their interpretation of the laws. Okay. Thank you.