Stockyards Act, 1921 (Public Law 67–51, 42 Stat. 159, 7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) (Packers and Stockyards Act), the Celler-Kefauver Antimerger Act (Public Law 81–899, 64 Stat. 1125), the Bank Merger Act (Public Law 86–463, 74 Stat. 129, 12 U.S.C. 1828), and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–104, 110 Stat. 56), among others.
Sec. 2. The Statutory Basis of a Whole-of-Government Competition Policy. (a) The antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act (Public Law 63–203, 38 Stat. 717, 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.), are a first line of defense against the monopolization of the American economy.
(b) The antitrust laws reflect an underlying policy favoring competition that transcends those particular enactments. As the Supreme Court has stated, for instance, the Sherman Act “rests on the premise that the unrestrained interaction of competitive forces will yield the best allocation of our economic resources, the lowest prices, the highest quality and the greatest material progress, while at the same time providing an environment conducive to the preservation of our democratic political and social institutions.” Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 4 (1958).
(c) Consistent with these broader policies, and in addition to the traditional antitrust laws, the Congress has also enacted industry-specific fair competition and anti-monopolization laws that often provide additional protections. Such enactments include the Packers and Stockyards Act, the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (Public Law 74–401, 49 Stat. 977, 27 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), the Bank Merger Act, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98–417, 98 Stat. 1585), the Shipping Act of 1984 (Public Law 98–237, 98 Stat. 67, 46 U.S.C. 40101 et seq.) (Shipping Act), the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–88, 109 Stat. 803), the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act (Public Law 108–164, 117 Stat. 2024, 15 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376) (Dodd-Frank Act).
(d) These statutes independently charge a number of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to protect conditions of fair competition in one or more ways, including by:
- (i) policing unfair, deceptive, and abusive business practices;
- (ii) resisting consolidation and promoting competition within industries through the independent oversight of mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures;
- (iii) promulgating rules that promote competition, including the market entry of new competitors; and
- (iv) promoting market transparency through compelled disclosure of information.
(e) The agencies that administer such or similar authorities include the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Surface Transportation Board.
(f) Agencies can influence the conditions of competition through their exercise of regulatory authority or through the procurement process. See 41 U.S.C. 1705.
(g) This order recognizes that a whole-of-government approach is necessary to address overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition in the American economy. Such an approach is supported by existing statutory mandates. Agencies can and should further the polices set forth in section
