CONYERS Statement For The Hearing On "Net Neutrality Ant The Role Of Antitrust" Before Teh Subcommittee On Regulatory Refore, Commercial And Antitrust Law

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

The Judiciary Committee has a central role in studying the issue of net neutrality and, more generally, competition on the Internet.

As the Committee considers today the specific question of whether antitrust law would be a better tool than regulation to ensure Internet competition and innovation, we should keep several factors in mind.

To begin with, failure to guarantee net neutrality is not an option.

As I have previously observed at prior hearings on this topic in 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2015, there are many areas in the United States where consumers have the choice of only one or two broadband Internet service providers. 

As a result, these broadband providers effectively function as monopolies or duopolies. 

Their control over the broadband access market gives them the incentive and ability to provide differential treatment of content, depending on factors like how much a content provider pays or whether the broadband provider also offers competing content.

Such discrimination can lead to less consumer choice, less innovation, higher costs, and more power to control the flow of information and ideas in the hands of fewer broadband providers.

Enforcement of existing antitrust law as the exclusive or primary means of ensuring an open Internet, however, would be insufficient.

Under current antitrust law, there is relatively little that regulators can do outside the merger review context to address the conduct of a regulated industry, such as broadband Internet service with respect to enforcing net neutrality principles.

Through a series of decisions, the Supreme Court has limited the potential to successfully pursue claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act with respect to net neutrality.

In addition, antitrust enforcement alone would be a cumbersome, more limited, more resource-intensive, and after-the-fact way than regulation to develop a regulatory regime for net neutrality.

Moreover, antitrust law is not sufficiently broad in scope as it fails to address the non-economic goals of net neutrality, including the promotion of innovation and the protection of free speech and political debate.

While I welcome the recent efforts of some progressives to restore the original understanding and purpose of antitrust law to better account for the political implications of the excessive concentration of corporate power, antitrust law nonetheless will remain a necessary, but insufficient tool with respect to ensuring net neutrality.

           

In light of the foregoing, the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 Open Internet Order provides a strong and vital set of rules for ensuring an open Internet, and the Commission should not rescind it.

Rules to address net neutrality have the benefit of addressing potential threats to an open Internet before they fully materialize.

Additionally, having a set of best practices enshrined in rules would provide certainty for industry.

I am particularly pleased that the Open Internet Order contains key provisions that I and many others long called for, including:

●          a rule preventing broadband providers from blocking or throttling Internet access or from imposing paid prioritization of Internet traffic; and

●          a prohibition on any other practices that unreasonably interfere with or disadvantage users’ ability to access broadband service or lawful content applications, or services.

These measures are the best way to protect the virtuous cycle of innovation – which net neutrality fosters, and which ensures both competition and innovation among broadband and content providers – to the ultimate benefit of consumers.

I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and I look forward to our witnesses’ testimony.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement for the Hearing on “Recent Trends in International Antitrust Enforcement” Before the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) today delivered the following remarks during the Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law Subcommittee hearing on “Recent Trends in International Antitrust Enforcement.”

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Today’s hearing presents an important opportunity to consider international antitrust enforcement. 

Given the increasingly interconnected economic relationships among nations, American firms depend on the fair enforcement of antitrust and competition laws by other countries as a critical factor with respect to their ability to do business abroad.

Yet some American firms believe that certain countries do not consistently apply their competition laws in a sound, non-discriminatory manner.

They allege a lack of due process and transparency when these firms have become the target of antitrust investigations by competition authorities in those countries.

Accordingly, we should keep the following points in mind as we discuss foreign antitrust enforcement practices.

My greatest concern is whether and to what degree these problematic foreign antitrust enforcement practices impact American jobs.

To the extent that foreign antitrust enforcement actions unfairly disadvantage American firms, and to the extent this results in American companies going out of business and American workers losing their jobs, I am deeply concerned.

           

The witnesses should provide us guidance on just how real and extensive a problem this is.

That being said, however, there are and should be limits to what we can insist on from other countries.

When it comes to antitrust and competition policy, divergences in outlook and philosophy are not always rooted in a desire to protect national champions or to discriminate against American firms.

Various countries may be at different stages of development, with laws shaped by cultures and historical circumstances that differ from ours.

Where complaints about other countries’ laws simply reflect such differences -- rather than concerns about discrimination, due process or transparency -- we should be careful about overstating our criticism and reaction.

Finally, we must be careful not to provoke retaliation against American businesses with any effort to penalize or pressure other countries to change their enforcement practices.

Many helpful recommendations have been made regarding how to address the concerns of American businesses about foreign antitrust enforcement practices.

The best ones emphasize dialogue, multilateral standards and agreements on best practices, and the promotion of cooperation among international antitrust enforcement agencies.

 An excessively punitive approach, however, may ultimately prove counterproductive and be harmful to American interests in the long run.

I thank the witnesses and look forward to their discussion.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & CICILLINE: The Right Approach to Promoting Competition in the Health Care Marketplace

UPDATE:  President Trump just pull the Bill form the vote.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Healthy competition in the health insurance marketplace is one of the most critical elements in ensuring that Americans can access quality, affordable health care. When insurance companies are forced to compete, the American people win.

Unfortunately, too many families are still paying higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs today because of anti-competitive practices that health insurance giants are allowed to engage in under the law.

One of the reasons? It’s a law few Americans have ever heard of—the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945.

Under this law, insurers can engage in egregious actions like price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation with total impunity. These practices allow insurers to inflate their costs and impose burdens on middle class families all across our nation.

That’s why House Democrats have supported the full repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act since 1988, and passed legislation to end this antitrust exemption for health insurers in 2010 by a vote of 406-19.

This week, we worked with the same Republicans that opposed this measure in 2010 to pass H.R. 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act, legislation that repeals the antitrust exemption that has shielded health insurers for more than 70 years.

As the Council of Economic Advisors put it last year, robust enforcement of antitrust laws is “an important way in which the government makes sure the market provides the best outcomes for society with respect to choice, innovation, and price as well as fair labor and business markets.”

But make no mistake: while promoting competition in state markets will benefit consumers, the benefits will be lost if Republicans are able to repeal the strong consumer protections that exist as part of the Affordable Care Act.

These protections, which the American people overwhelmingly support, ensure that health insurance markets operate efficiently, lift limits on lifetime coverage amounts, and protect millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions from discrimination.

Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act dramatically increased the number of health insurers operating in local marketplaces, which has helped slow the growth rate in premium costs to their lowest level in 50 years.

In order to protect the progress we have made over the last seven years, it is critical that we work to strengthen the Affordable Care Act.

Yet, since Election Day, Republicans and President Trump have been squarely focused on repealing the law in its entirety and replacing it with a proposal they claim will establish a national marketplace for health insurance.

In fact, the same architects of the Majority’s “repeal and replace” effort—including Speaker Paul Ryan, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady—voted against repealing health insurer’s antitrust immunity in 2010.

They now claim that simply allowing the sale of insurance across state lines will serve as a magical elixir that brings down health care costs for good.

There’s only one problem with this claim: it’s already permitted under ObamaCare.

Section 1333 of the Affordable Care Act already allows states to establish “health care choice compacts” to allow out-of-state health insurers to sell health insurance products in-state.

Several states have already enacted statutes to provide for healthcare choice compacts. The National Conference of State Legislature reports that five states have passed out-of-state purchasing laws since 2008.

The fact is that promoting health insurance competition across state lines, as opposed to cracking down on anti-competitive practices, does little to lower costs for consumers. In fact, despite the existing law, few health insurers choose to engage in cross-state sales because there is little economic incentive for them to do so.

President Trump’s repeal and replace proposal will not change this underlying reality.

The president would be wise to withdraw his proposal and instead focus on joining our bipartisan effort to work across the aisle to improve and strengthen the Affordable Care Act.

Today, thanks to ObamaCare, the uninsured rate is at an all-time low, seniors are paying less for their prescription drugs, millions have received coverage under Medicaid expansion, and the number of competitors in local markets is growing.

The Affordable Care Act is improving Americans’ health care coverage and choice. President Trump owes it to the American people to build on this success rather than tear it down.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Floor Statement for H.R. 372, the “Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017"

Dean of the U.S, House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Although I rise in qualified support of H.R. 372, the “Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017,” I do not endorse the Majority’s exaggerated claims regarding the bill’s impact on the affordability and availability of health insurance.

H.R. 372 would partially repeal the limited Federal antitrust exemption for the business of insurance established by the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945. 

Specifically, the bill only permits Federal antitrust enforcement with regard to the business of health insurance.

House Democrats have long supported a full repeal of McCarran-Ferguson’s antitrust exemption for all insurers, not just for health insurers.

And, in 2010, under a Democratic House Majority, we passed legislation to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson exemption for health insurers by a vote of 406 to 19, even though House Republicans had not previously supported moving any version of a McCarran-Ferguson repeal bill.

But let me be clear.  Enacting H.R. 372 would in no way be a substitute for the many health insurance guarantees of the Affordable Care Act.

To begin with, enacting H.R. 372 would not significantly improve health care affordability or coverage.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 372’s effect on health insurance premiums “would probably be quite small,” and enacting the bill will have “no significant net effect on the premiums that private insurers would charge for health or dental insurance.”

And, Consumers Union observes that the application of the antitrust laws to some health insurance activity, by itself, is simply not enough to create a vibrant insurance market because our “long experience shows you can’t expect a health care system to run effectively on competition alone.”

Likewise, the Majority’s claim that enacting H.R. 372 would create major new competition by allowing cross-state insurance sales is unavailing.

Current law, including the Affordable Care Act, already allows states to agree with each other to allow cross-state insurance sales.

Enabling Federal antitrust agencies to police certain forms of anticompetitive conduct will not, in and of itself, incentivize health insurers to offer products across state lines beyond the incentives that already exist for offering such products.

Whatever the incentives for health insurers to offer such products, they have little to do with Federal antitrust law or enforcement.

Finally, enacting H.R. 372 would not ensure that the Affordable Care Act’s prohibitions against discrimination and limits on premium growth would remain in place.

H.R. 372 only applies to certain anticompetitive conduct and does not preserve or enhance existing protections for consumers of health insurance.

For instance, it does not prohibit discrimination by health insurers on the basis of preexisting conditions.  Nor does it reduce premium growth or require health insurers to be accountable for price increases.

Repeal of the antitrust exemption for health insurance is a complement to, not a replacement for, the Affordable Care Act’s many consumer protections.

This is not an “either/or” situation.  We need H.R. 372 and the Affordable Care Act to be in place to maximize benefits, improve quality, and lower costs for consumers.

While I support the bill, I take issue with the Majority’s rhetoric.  It is important that we set the record straight here.

I reserve the balance of my time.

______________________________________

CLOSING REMARKS

In closing, I want to reiterate my support for H.R. 372. 

As I have already mentioned, House Democrats have long supported legislation to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act’s exemption for the business of insurance.

Repealing the antitrust exemption for health insurers, as H.R. 372 does, will make the Affordable Care Act even more effective.

I disagree, however, with the Majority’s attempt to use this legislation as a fig leaf for replacing the Affordable Care Act. 

Indeed, the same architects of the Majority’s “repeal and replace” effort—including Speaker Paul Ryan, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady—voted against a substantively identical version of this bill in 2010. 

           

Let us not be fooled. I yield back.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Statement for the Markup of H.R. 372, the “Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017”

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

I support H.R. 372, the “Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017,” which repeals the antitrust exemption in the McCarran-Ferguson Act for the health insurance business. 

For many years, I have advocated for such a repeal and so I am pleased to see bipartisan support for this position. 

My own bill, H.R. 143, the “Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2017,” would similarly repeal the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption for the health insurance business.

It does so for price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market allocation, the most egregious kinds of anticompetitive conduct.  Additionally, my legislation would repeal the exemption for the business of medical malpractice insurance, as this would be another key component of ensuring competition in health care markets.

There are several important reasons why Congress should repeal this antitrust exemption.

To begin with, there is no justification for such a broad antitrust exemption for the business of health insurance.

Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act in response to a 1944 Supreme Court decision finding that the antitrust laws applied to the business of insurance.

Both insurance companies and the states expressed concern about that decision. Insurance companies worried that it could jeopardize certain collective practices like joint rate-setting and the pooling of historical data.  And, the states were concerned about losing their authority to regulate and tax the business of insurance.

To address these issues, McCarran-Ferguson provides that federal antitrust laws apply to the business of insurance only to the extent that it is not regulated by state law which has resulted in a broad antitrust exemption. 

Industry and state revenue concerns, rather than the key goals of protecting competition and consumers, were the primary drivers of the Act.

In passing McCarran-Ferguson, however, Congress initially intended to provide only a temporary exemption and unfortunately gave little consideration to ensuring competition. 

Not surprisingly, 3 Commissioners observed in the 2007 Antitrust Modernization Commission Report that McCarran-Ferguson should be repealed because it has “outlived any utility [it] may have had and should be repealed.” And, another Commissioner stated that the Act is “among the most ill-conceived and egregious examples” of antitrust exemptions and that its repeal “should not be delayed.”

Given the foregoing, I would encourage the Committee to consider a full repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption in the future.

Antitrust exemptions should be exceedingly rare and should be enacted only where strong policy reasons support such exemptions.

It is far from clear that the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption was ever fully justified, and while I support repealing that exemption for health insurance, it would be worth the Committee’s time to look beyond the health insurance sector.

For example, my bill would have also repealed the Act’s antitrust exemption for medical malpractice insurers, given that a lack of competition among such insurers is one of the reasons for high medical malpractice premiums.

Finally, repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption for the business of health insurance is a complement, not an alternative, to the Affordable Care Act.

Repealing McCarran-Ferguson, alone, will be insufficient to help patients and other health care consumers obtain affordable health insurance.

We should remember that the House included language almost identical to H.R. 372 in its version of the Affordable Care Act.

This is not an “either/or” situation.  We need both measures to be in place to maximize benefits, improve quality, and lower prices for consumers.

Nonetheless, I support this legislation and urge the Committee to report it favorably.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Hearing on “International Antitrust Enforcement: China and Beyond”

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Today’s hearing promises to be not only informative, but timely given the various issues presented by international antitrust enforcement, particularly with respect to China’s enforcement of its Anti-Monopoly Law. 

In just the last two days, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew was in China for the latest round of talks in the ongoing U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue. 

It was through this very mechanism that concerns about China’s antitrust enforcement practices had been raised previously.

Given the increasingly interconnected economic relationships among nations – and in particular between the United States and China – it is crucial that we educate ourselves about foreign antitrust regimes and their impact on American businesses and our economy as a whole.

As we hear from our witnesses, I would like them to address several questions.

To begin with, what impact will China’s alleged discriminatory enforcement practices have on American jobs?

The potential for hurting American jobs governs how I view this matter as well as many other issues concerning the global economy and trade.

To the extent that Chinese antitrust enforcement actions unfairly advantage Chinese firms over American ones – and to the extent that such unfair competition results in American companies going out of business and American workers losing their jobs – I would be deeply concerned.

For instance, discriminatory enforcement may allow Chinese firms to collude with each other and with the Chinese government to sell products below cost and drive American competitors out of business, costing American jobs.

In addition, what are the reasons behind China’s alleged discriminatory enforcement of its Anti-Monopoly Law?

Of course, the Anti-Monopoly Law explicitly includes policy goals such as the protection of “industries controlled by the state-owned economy and related to the lifeblood of the national economy and to national security . . .” and “to facilitate technology advancement.”
           
Other factors shaping enforcement may include the fact that the Anti-Monopoly Law has only been in effect less than 8 years and has yet to fully develop.  In addition, the enforcement agencies may lack sufficient staffing, resources, and experience.

I would like know to what degree each of these factors shapes Chinese enforcement behavior.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Markup of a Resolution Establishing the House Committee on the Judiciary Executive Overreach Task Force

    

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

   “Debates about the proper scope of executive power and its relationship to legislative authority are as old as the Nation itself.

       “As the Committee charged with examining issues arising under our Constitution, it is important that we regularly discuss such fundamental matters about our Nation’s basic governing framework.

       “Today’s resolution, which would establish an ‘Executive Overreach Task Force’ for the next 6 months, is ostensibly the latest effort to fulfill this important obligation.

       “As we move forward with the creation of this Task Force, however, we must keep several matters in mind.

       “To begin with, it is my fervent hope that this Task Force not devolve into a partisan political witch hunt."

       “Sadly, I have seen too many examples of task forces, select committees, and other bodies that have been set up merely to become venues for roving political attacks."

       “During the Obama Administration, we have seen the use of a select committee to question the Administration’s conduct concerning the attacks on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  After nearly 2 years and $5.8 million taxpayer dollars spent, that committee has yet to find evidence contradicting the key findings of the State Department’s Accountability Review Board or prior congressional investigations finding no wrongdoing."

       “There also appears to be a vigorous effort to undermine women’s health and equality through the establishment of a select committee that seeks to de-legitimize the work of Planned Parenthood."

       “These efforts seem to many to be nothing more than political fishing expeditions designed not to get to the truth but to energize the Republican Party’s base voters in preparation for this year’s elections."

       “Given the importance of the question of whether Executive authority has become too concentrated and too open to abuse, I hope that this will not be the case with the so-called ‘Executive Overreach Task Force.’"

       “Assuming for now that the Task Force represents a good faith effort to study executive power substantively, I would like to highlight several issues that I would recommend the Task Force consider.  These include:

●   Expansive and frequent assertions of the state secrets privilege, including efforts to potentially shield evidence of government wrongdoing;

●   The need to enact press shield legislation that would provide a qualified privilege that prevents a reporter’s source material from being revealed, with limited exceptions;

●   The need for enhanced and strengthened legal protections for whistleblowers, including for federal employees who report high-level governmental misconduct to Congress;

●   The need for legislation to strengthen Congress’s contempt power, including a clear and expeditious mechanism to enforce congressional subpoenas civilly against current and former Executive Branch officials;

●   The need for legislation to expand the Department of Justice Inspector General’s jurisdiction to allow investigation of misconduct by senior Department officials and United States Attorneys; and

●   The overuse of presidential signing statements to challenge legal provisions, not merely to explain the President’s legal interpretations."

       “These are among several areas that are ripe for finding common ground."

       “Indeed, our Committee has a long and distinguished history of task forces operating in a productive and non-partisan manner."

       “Task forces such as the Task Force on Over-criminalization and the Task Force on Antitrust and Competition Policy offer promising precedents for working cooperatively to consider important issues.  It is my hope that this latest effort will continue that tradition.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers: Health Insurance Mergers Must Be Questioned

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) today released the following statement after the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law concluded a hearing that examined proposed health insurance mergers and the possible consequential impact on marketplace competition:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

 “Currently, we already have highly concentrated health insurance markets as highlighted recently in an updated study by the American Medical Association (AMA).  Further consolidation of multi-billion dollar health insurance companies could result in higher premiums and reduced quality care.  Moreover, healthy competition in the marketplace also allows physicians to bargain for enhanced contract terms that relate to all angles of patient care and services. 

“Currently, we already have highly concentrated health insurance markets as highlighted recently in an updated

“In 2010, in my home state of Michigan, the U.S. Department of Justice challenged a potential merger by Blue Cross Blue Shield with an in-state health insurer claiming that the deal would greatly reduce competition for the people of Michigan that would have increased premiums across the board.

“As we have always seen in our economy, healthy competition in the marketplace ensures lower premiums and provides incentives to insurers to increase the quality of service and care, and pay physicians on time.  I encourage the Department of Justice to scrutinize these potential mergers carefully.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

REP. CONYERS: JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MAJORITY ENGAGED IN WITCH-HUNT AS MILLIONS OF AMERICANS CONTINUE TO SUFFER THROUGH FORECLOSURE CRISIS

WASHINGTON – Today, during a House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law hearing consumer protection and mortgage lending settlements, Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. issued the following opening statement, as prepared for delivery:

“The stated purpose of today’s hearing is to determine whether there has been a misuse of mortgage settlement funds by the Administration for its so-called “pet projects.” 

“In truth, however, this hearing is really a misguided witch hunt that has absolutely nothing to do with helping the millions of hardworking Americans who were swindled by unscrupulous and predatory mortgage lenders and mortgage servicers.

“Nor does it have anything to do with addressing the massive fraud committed by the securities industry that nearly led to the financial collapse of our Nation’s economy. 

“Rather than focus on these critical issues, the Majority has cited so-called “activist” organizations and the Justice Department as the perpetrators worthy of this hearing. 

“And, who exactly are these entities?  They are housing counseling programs administered at the national, state and local level by service providers subject to a rigorous certification process by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.  They include such organizations as: 

•           the New York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities;

•           the Michigan State University Extension Service;

•           the New York City Commission on Human Rights; and

•           NeighborWorks America.

“So let us just take an in-depth look at one of these organizations.  NeighborWorks is chartered by Congress.  Its board of directors, whose membership is determined by statute, consists of the heads of the financial regulatory agencies, who are presidential appointees subject to Senate confirmation.

“In fact, Congress in 2007 designated  NeighborWorks America to administer the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling program pursuant to which this organization has helped more than 1.725 million homeowners.

“If the Majority really cared about the victims of the foreclosure crisis, it would hold a hearing on either the mortgage crisis that still grips many parts of our Nation or on how Congress could better assist those millions of Americans who still are at risk of losing their homes. 

“In stark contrast, when I was Chairman of this Committee, we held 9 hearings and 2 field briefings examining the causes and impact of the foreclosure crisis, as well as potential solutions. 

“Over the course of those hearings, the Committee heard from a U.S. Senator, various Members of the House, representatives from the Treasury Department, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, bankruptcy judges, nationally-recognized economists, leading academics, victims of predatory mortgage lending, and many, many more voices.

“Finally, I am particularly concerned that the Majority has unfairly singled out the National Council of La Raza, which is the Nation’s largest Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization. 

“The Chairman of this Committee and the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, in a letter to the Justice Department last November, characterized La Raza as an “activist” group that stands to benefit from the mortgage settlement agreements with Citigroup and the Bank of America.

“As detailed in a response from La Raza –  which I ask unanimous consent to include in today’s hearing record – there is absolutely no truth to this allegation.

“In fact, La Raza has not received a single penny from these settlements and it did not proactively seek to be designated as a recipient of these funds.

“La Raza is not even named specifically in either of these settlement agreements as a designated recipient. And, if it was to receive any monies under these agreements, La Raza has a fire-wall  between its housing counseling activities and its advocacy activities as well as accounting standards in place to ensure such separation.

“This information was readily available had the Majority simply reached out to La Raza to confirm its allegations before putting them in writing to the Justice Department.

“I thank the witnesses for joining us here today and I yield back the balance of my time.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©