Washington, D.C. — During a Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing today on the nominations of Michael Kratsios to be Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Mark Meador to be a Federal Trade Commissioner, U.S. Senator John Curtis (R-UT) raised issues essential to Utah’s economy, energy development, and national security. During the exchange, Curtis secured a commitment from Mr. Meador to give full and fair consideration to the concerns of Utah’s robust direct selling industry. He also engaged Mr. Kratsios on expanding American leadership in emerging energy and technology sectors, highlighting Utah’s role as a hub of energy innovation.
A transcript of the exchange between Senator Curtis and the nominees can be found below and video can be found here.
Senator Curtis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Meador, In the waning days of the Biden Administration, the FTC noticed two proposed rulemakings regarding earnings claims. These rules unfairly targeted the direct selling industry, which is a large industry in Utah. It represents 38,000 jobs, $2.7 billion of statewide earnings. But more important, an industry that I know from firsthand observation works diligently to obey all the laws to stay within all the parameters and yet frequently finds themselves attacked by bureaucrats. So, my question for you is, can you commit to voting against implementing the two proposed rules?
Mark Meador: Thank you, Senator. While I can’t commit to any specific vote, should I be confirmed, I can tell you that, if I am confirmed, I will work with staff to get up to speed on that issue and approach it with an open mind.
Curtis: Good. And I appreciate and understand that. So, I’m going to rephrase what you said with a little more emphasis and see if you can say yes to this. Can you commit to giving full and fair consideration to the concerns of the direct selling industry and what they have about these two proposed rulings?
Meador: Absolutely.
Curtis: Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And it’s very important to these companies to get it right and to be able to also just to have that audience, to be able to explain their perspective. Thank you.
Mr. Kratsios, if I pronounce that wrong, you’re probably used to that. I’m sorry. Thank you for coming by my office. The Director of Office of Science and Technology Policy will have a seat on President Trump’s National Energy Dominance Council. We talked about that. What do you see as OSTP’s role on this council, and how will you leverage that role to push forward new energy technologies?
Michael Kratsios: I think on that council, one of our primary missions, I guess, first and foremost, is to provide important technological and scientific advice to the rest of the council members.
I think what OSTP can also advocate for are new and emerging technologies that can be used in energy and achieving energy dominance, things like small modular reactors. And it’s something that I look forward to, if confirmed, building out a team to help support.
Curtis: Excellent. And I would love you to come see in person Utah’s innovation in this field. And I think they’re doing some amazing things. If you get a chance, come see us in Utah.
Kratsios: Thank you. I’d love to.
Curtis: Yeah, a second question. When we met, we talked about you’re interest in this intersection between national security and technology. Unsurprisingly, our greatest rival is China. What would be the national security implications of China leading in emerging technologies? And how would you advise the President on the best policy approach to ensure U.S. leadership in these technologies?
Kratsios: I think first and foremost, we have to make a priority to drive U.S. leadership in these critical fields, which I think the President has done. The next step is actually being able to execute and bring to bear the totality of the American innovation ecosystem, which is the federal government, the private sector, and academia working together to develop these new technologies, both sort of from discovery all the way to fielding them.
I think one area that is also very important is taking technologies that have proven very successful and sort of represent American dominance in the field. Take, for example, large language models, and actually making the step to apply those to the critical national security missions that we have at the DoD and in the IC. It would be a shame if we’re able to lead in these technologies, but we’re not actually feeling them in support of the warfighter.
So, I think there is a lot of work to be done, both in maintaining our leadership in things like AI, but also fielding those technologies in government itself as well.
Curtis: I appreciate that. Appreciate both of your answers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.