I want to thank our witnesses. I hope you understand that the passion of this subcommittee and these questions are because these are issues we care deeply about, and we're reflecting the concerns of our constituents on all of these issues…

My question was a simple one. You are seeing in your work that, in fact, user privacy has been harmed as a result of this market consolidation in the digital marketplace.

The critical challenge now for the committee is to ensure that the Federal Trade Commission fulfills its mission and safeguards these interests.

You can understand why this would be of concern to the public, that we would have traded away the right to question the decisionmaker at Facebook in a piece of litigation that you are trying to determine if they violated a consent decree.

Your staff has been terrific in providing technical assistance on our drug pricing effort to reduce prescription drug prices.

As we consider ways to protect America's privacy, particularly in light of how these protections may reinforce market power, shouldn't we think about addressing this underlying business model on behavioral advertising?

But do you view that there is, in the consideration of competition and the effectiveness of the market, whether there's competition, that the impact on privacy is a factor?

the hubris of the executive team to pursue an acquisition of this size, a proposed $2.1 billion, while under Federal and State antitrust investigations is astonishing.

So I take it from that, you do agree with the last statement that I made, that market consolidation in digital markets is, in fact, coming at the expense of strong user privacy.

So how about a qualified moratorium, a moratorium unless it was demonstrated that it was procompetitive?

The concentration of power in the digital marketplace is something that should concern every American.

On opening day, we take an oath of office. We take an oath not to a king, not to a President, but to protect and defend the Constitution. It is our solemn duty. In fact, this resolution sets forth the procedures for the next phase of our…

Since January, House Democrats have gotten to work, passing legislation that brings down healthcare costs and protects the benefits of the Affordable Care Act. We have gone to court to fight against the Trump administration's efforts to…

I think it is fair to say that California has been a hub of innovation.

Thank you very much.

Are there other ways that you think that Congress should think about addressing this issue, whether through legislation or oversight?

Today's hearing is an opportunity to examine the state of competition in labor markets, as well as ways to promote the economic opportunity of hardworking Americans through the robust enforcement of our antitrust laws.

Not all monopsony can be addressed by antitrust.

my opinion based on what I said about vertical restraints, is that vertical restraints should be regulated much more stringently than horizontal restraints, because they often embody top down control by a more powerful firm, which is…

I thank the gentlelady for yielding back.

I can't--I'm trying to understand why the Department of Justice would engage in this kind of anti-worker advocacy.

It seemed like that enforcement action, this notion of its necessity for business purposes has been completely refuted by subsequent events.

for those of us who consider these no-poach agreements to be a substantial violation of law but also a very powerful force in keeping workers in place and stagnating their wages, the promise to be rigorous in their enforcement and not in 3…

That doesn't sound like a per se Rule then, to me.

I think this is one problem. If antitrust law is saying it's going look at workers and labor markets as well, we can't use consumer--speculative consumer benefits to justify harms to workers.