(a) CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSES—
(1) FINDINGS—
Congress finds that—
(A) the purpose of the Tunney Act was to ensure that the entry of antitrust consent judgments is in the public interest; and
(B) it would misconstrue the meaning and Congressional intent in enacting the Tunney Act to limit the discretion of district courts to review antitrust consent judgments solely to determining whether entry of those consent judgments would make a ``mockery of the judicial function´´.
(2) PURPOSES—
The purpose of this section is to effectuate the original Congressional intent in enacting the Tunney Act and to ensure that United States settlements of civil antitrust suits are in the public interest.
(b) PUBLIC INTEREST DETERMINATION—
Section 5 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 16) is amended—
(1) in subsection (d), by inserting at the end the following: ``Upon application by the United States, the district court may, for good cause (based on a finding that the expense of publication in the Federal Register exceeds the public interest benefits to be gained from such publication), authorize an alternative method of public dissemination of the public comments received and the response to those comments.´´;
(2) in subsection (e)—
(A) in the matter before paragraph (1), by—
(i) striking ``court may´´ and inserting ``court shall´´; and
(ii) inserting ``(1)´´ before ``Before´´; and
(B) striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the following:
``(A) the competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and
``(B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.
``(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.´´; and
(3) in subsection (g), by inserting ``by any officer, director, employee, or agent of such defendant´´ before ``, or other person´´.
