Confirmation of Mark Meador

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Mark Meador as a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). I respect Mr. Meador's qualifications and his prior experiences. In fact, I voted to advance his nomination out of the Commerce Committee because he has expressed support for strong antitrust enforcement that benefits consumers and small business, lowers prices, and spurs innovation, including continuing many cases currently ongoing at the Commission to free markets from the stranglehold of entrenched monopolies and stop anticompetitive mergers.

But I cannot support the confirmation of any additional members to the FTC until Commissioner Slaughter and Commissioner Bedoya are reinstated. President Trump's dismissal of Commissioners Slaughter and Bedoya is not only illegal; it hurts consumers and small businesses by undermining the independence of the Agency that Congress established to protect consumers from fraud, scams, and monopoly power. An independent FTC is critical for protecting consumers and has done so in a bipartisan manner for over 110 years.

Just last year, the FTC returned more than $330 million to consumers who lost money from scams and deceptive business practices; it blocked a merger of two large grocery chains that would have raised food prices; it worked to cap the cost of inhalers to $35 by challenging anticompetitive patent practices; it took on hidden fees in the ticketing and lodging markets; it unveiled rules to make it as easy to stop a subscription as it was to start it; and it has worked to rein in the monopoly power of Big Tech companies to ensure small businesses and innovators can thrive online.

The President's attempt to remove independent Commissioners violates Congress's long-held power to establish bipartisan, multimember, expert commissions and to shield those commissions from political pressure with commonsense limits on the President's removal powers. The structure of the FTC has been upheld by the Supreme Court for 90 years, holding that Congress's power ``cannot well be doubted.'' While the Supreme Court recently struck down restrictions on the President's authority to remove Agencies led by a single individual, the Supreme Court declined to revisit precedent about independent Agencies run by bipartisan, multimember commissions, like the FTC. Now-Justice Kavanaugh, while serving on the DC Circuit, wrote that multimember independent Agencies like the FTC are part of a ``deeply rooted tradition'' that ``has been widely recognized by leading judges, congressional committees, and academics.''

This is because bipartisan commissions allow Presidents to shape the direction of a commission while protecting the independent Agency from political meddling. For example, each President can influence the makeup of the FTC by nominating new members--as President Trump has done by nominating Mr. Meador--and appointing the Chair--as President Trump did by selecting Mr. Ferguson--and even appointing a new Chair if the President is displeased with his initial selection.

Had the President not taken this illegal action, Republican Commissioners would have secured the majority on the Commission with the confirmation of Mr. Meador, with two Democratic Commissioners serving in the minority as required by law. While the minority Commissioners may not have had the power to stop the Republican majority from implementing its agenda, they would have served as a critical check on the Agency, as minority Republican Commissioners have in the past. They could have used their dissenting voices to hold the Agency accountable for any action that didn't serve to lower prices, protect consumers, or even the playing field for small, innovative businesses. If necessary, they could have pointed out corruption or backroom dealings. And they would have been able to change the Commission's course on specific actions by persuading a Republican Commissioner to join them. But if the President is allowed to unilaterally dismiss Commissioners, even Republican Commissioners would be powerless to stand up to the White House if ordered to take an illegal action at the expense of consumers because the President could fire them as well. Ultimately, removing the FTC's mandate to act independent of political pressure to protect consumers serves to harm those most in need. Only those who have political influence with the White House stand to gain.

We have already seen some of the ramifications of the chaos wrought by these illegal firings. In a case about insulin pricing, there were no remaining Commissioners to hear the case because the two Republicans were both recused. This led Chair Ferguson to ``unrecuse'' himself, making him the sole decisionmaker in a matter in which he has a known conflict of interest. And last week, it was reported that multiple members of DOGE are now embedded in the Chair's office, raising the specter that the FTC may face cuts just as it is gearing up to take Meta--one of the world's richest companies--to trial this upcoming Monday for buying up competitors to dominate social media markets. None of this helps consumers. None of this helps small businesses. None of this lowers prices or spurs innovation. Until these illegal firings are reversed, I cannot support Mr. Meador's nomination to the FTC.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source