Conyers, Wilson, & Kaptur Host Brain Trust on Long-Term Unemployment As Congress Turns a Blind Eye

(WASHINGTON) – This afternoon, the Congressional Full Employment Caucus held a panel discussion on the ongoing employment crisis in America, entitled “Bipartisan Solutions to Long-Term Unemployment.” The event - moderated by Arthur Delaney with the Huffington Post - featured esteemed panelists including: Betsey Stevenson, a Member of the White House Council of Economic Advisors; Judy Conti, Federal Advocacy Coordinator with the National Employment Law Project; and Heidi Shierholz, an Economist at the Economic Policy Institute. During the course of the discussion, panelists identified proven bipartisan solutions - that Congress can consider and pass immediately - to combat the ongoing employment crisis in the United States and get Americans back to work.

At the conclusion of the panel discussion, Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Frederica S. Wilson (D-Fla.), and Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) issued the following statement:

U.S. Representarive
John Conyers, Jr.

Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.): “The unemployment rate has declined at an unacceptably slow pace in the half-decade since the financial crisis. More than 3.4 million currently-unemployed people have been out of work for 27 weeks or longer, excluding the untold number of individuals who have become discouraged and dropped out of the workforce. I co-founded the Congressional Full Employment Caucus this year so that Congress focuses on the widespread unemployment crisis. Having a job is not only essential for having a home and having healthcare. It is essential for enjoying a life of basic stability and dignity. The discussion today not only shed light on the plight of the long-term unemployed - and the discrimination that they face - but also on the actions Congress can take right away. The greatest danger is that Congress will forget this human tragedy. Today’s panel is the first of several efforts - spearheaded by the new Full Employment Caucus - to restore the focus on jobs and to identify and advocate for lasting solutions to the unemployment crisis.”

Representative Frederica S. Wilson (D-Fla.): “There’s a simple message I’ve been trying to get across since I arrived in Congress: Unemployment is our true deficit. People are suffering. Five years after the onset of the financial crisis, there are still more than eleven million people actively looking for jobs, more than four million who have been jobless for six months or longer, and seven million who have given up looking for work altogether. Nearly 3 million Americans, including more than 130,000 Floridians, have not received their unemployment insurance benefits since December 2013.  Now more than ever, it is important that we support a movement towards full employment by enacting policy that creates jobs and boost wages. The mantra of this Congress must be: Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!”

Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio): “Putting Americans back to work is priority number one.  Our unemployment crisis not only hurts those who cannot find work today, but future generations.  We must act now.  The solution could not be more clear.  If we want a strong future, we must invest in our crumbling infrastructure—supporting millions of good jobs modernizing our transportation, energy, and water sectors.  We have the tools to do great things for the American people.  We need the will to act.  I am excited to be leading that charge today.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Ranking Member Conyers Statement at Hearing on the Proposed Merger of AT&T and DIRECTV

(WASHINGTON) – This morning, the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law held a hearing on, “The Proposed Merger of AT&T and DIRECTV.” During his opening remarks, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) delivered the following statement:

U.S Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

“Today, we consider the proposed merger of AT&T, the Nation’s second-largest seller of high-speed Internet and wireless telephone services, with DirecTV, the Nation’s second-largest paid television provider. While neither we nor the competition enforcement agencies should pre-judge this deal, there are several concerns that I want the witnesses to address today.

“To begin with, this transaction raises the concern that there may be too much and too rapid consolidation in the telecommunications industry, especially when viewed in the light of other recently announced or rumored deals. I fear that the trend toward greater consolidation in this industry may ultimately benefit large corporations and their shareholders at the expense of consumers. While I fully appreciate that the goal of antitrust law is to protect competition and not competitors per se, this ongoing wave of consolidation will, without question, result in fewer firms and may harm consumers by limiting choices and raising prices. After all, it is the very threat of losing business in the face of high prices or low quality products and services that drives competitive business practices. The preeminent purpose of antitrust law is to protect consumers by ensuring that no one firm achieves market power such that it no longer risks losing business because it can force consumers to pay higher prices or accept lower quality goods and services in the absence of a competitive marketplace. I hope that the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission will carefully consider the overall impact of industry consolidation as they review the merits of this particular transaction.

“One rationale in favor of the merger - that it would create a stronger competitor to large cable companies - may, in fact, spur further consolidation in the telecommunications industry. I do not doubt that the merged AT&T-DirecTV entity could be large enough to effectively compete against large cable companies, but what is to stop competitors from using the same argument to justify further consolidation? After all, cable companies could point to the merged AT&T-DirecTV to justify further consolidation among themselves, which, in turn, could justify further consolidation by competitors to cable companies. As a result, we could have a ‘race to the bottom’ whereby large companies seek more and more mergers and acquisitions in response to mergers and acquisitions by other companies, ultimately leaving fewer choices for all consumers.

“Turning to the specifics of the proposed transaction, I am concerned about the loss of a competitor for paid television services in many of the largest markets. As a national satellite-television provider, DirecTV is a competitor to AT&T’s U-Verse video service in the 22 states where U-Verse is offered. And, U-Verse currently competes with DirecTV in 10 of the 20 largest metropolitan markets for paid television. The loss of a paid television competitor in those markets where AT&T and DirecTV directly compete with each other would reduce consumer choice and could have the potential to raise prices. Although AT&T has committed to continuing to offer DirecTV as a standalone option for three years after the acquisition, there are no guarantees that consumers will continue to have a such an option after that time. The burden remains on AT&T to show that this merger will not harm consumers.

“We should also consider whether smaller video providers, in the aftermath of the sheer size of a combined AT&T-DirecTV, could face increased content prices, potentially driving some of them out of business. In addition to being a video distributor, DirecTV is a video programmer that owns three regional sports networks and has interests in some national networks. Small competing video distributors fear that the size of a combined AT&T-DirecTV – as both a seller and a buyer of programming – could harm smaller competitors in two ways. First, a vertically integrated AT&T-DirecTV could discriminate against rival distributors by withholding or charging higher prices for its own programming. Second, such a combined entity would be a large enough distributor to command discounts from other programmers, potentially forcing smaller distributors to pay higher prices for content to make up the difference.

“Finally, we must consider whether imposing behavioral remedies would, in practice,  be effective. As a condition for approval of the Comcast-NBC Universal transaction, the FCC and the Justice Department required Comcast-NBCU to take affirmative steps to foster competition – including voluntary compliance with net neutrality protections –  as well as steps to benefit the public interest. AT&T has indicated that it will voluntarily commit to similar types of commitments to its proposed acquisition of DirecTV. Some observers, however, are concerned that the behavioral remedies imposed in the Comcast-NBC transaction were ineffective and difficult to enforce. Accordingly, we should consider whether such commitments should be strengthened and made more enforceable to better protect the public interest in this case.

“I look forward to having a fruitful discussion of these issues so that all stakeholders, particularly consumers and the enforcement agencies, are better informed about this significant transaction.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers, Goodlatte, Coble, Nadler Applaud Senate Agreement on Cell Phone Unlocking Bill

(WASHINGTON) – Today, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Chairman Robert C. “Bob” Goodlatte (R-Va.), Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble (R-N.C.), and Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) applauded the announcement that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy (D-Vt.) and Ranking Member Grassley (R-Iowa) have reached an agreement on legislation to allow consumers to unlock their cell phones. After this announcement, Ranking Member Conyers, Chairman Goodlatte, Subcommittee Chairman Coble, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Nadler released the following statement:

“We are pleased that Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley have reached an agreement on legislation that permits consumers to unlock their cell phones and other mobile devices without the approval of their wireless provider. This is an issue of consumer choice and flexibility, plain and simple.  We look forward to working together with the Senate to ensure that legislation addressing this issue, which is of significant importance to most Americans, is signed into law.”

The bipartisan agreement, which mirrors the language included in the House-passed Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act (H.R. 1123), also expresses Congress’ intentional to resolve the bulk unlocking issue by moving it to report language accompanying the bill.  The House Judiciary Committee approved the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act on July 31, 2013 and the legislation passed the House with a bipartisan vote on February 25, 2014.

(WASHINGTON) – Today, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Chairman Robert C. “Bob” Goodlatte (R-Va.), Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble (R-N.C.), and Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) applauded the announcement that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy (D-Vt.) and Ranking Member Grassley (R-Iowa) have reached an agreement on legislation to allow consumers to unlock their cell phones. After this announcement, Ranking Member Conyers, Chairman Goodlatte, Subcommittee Chairman Coble, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Nadler released the following statement:

“We are pleased that Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley have reached an agreement on legislation that permits consumers to unlock their cell phones and other mobile devices without the approval of their wireless provider. This is an issue of consumer choice and flexibility, plain and simple.  We look forward to working together with the Senate to ensure that legislation addressing this issue, which is of significant importance to most Americans, is signed into law.”

The bipartisan agreement, which mirrors the language included in the House-passed Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act (H.R. 1123), also expresses Congress’ intentional to resolve the bulk unlocking issue by moving it to report language accompanying the bill.  The House Judiciary Committee approved the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act on July 31, 2013 and the legislation passed the House with a bipartisan vote on February 25, 2014.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Reps. Conyers, Wilson, & Kaptur to Host “Bipartisan Solutions to Long-Term Unemployment” Panel, June 24th at 1 PM

(WASHINGTON) – In the United States today, there are more than 3.4 million unemployed workers who have been searching for a job for longer than six months. While lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and across the political spectrum consistently rank addressing unemployment as a top priority, there has been little bipartisan action to spur job creation in recent years.

Tomorrow, the Congressional Full Employment Caucus – founded by Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and Congresswoman Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.) – will hold panel discussing this crisis, entitled “Bipartisan Solutions to Long-Term Unemployment,” at 1:00 pm in 2226 Rayburn House Office Building. This panel will bring together a diverse range of leading thinkers to identify proven bipartisan solutions - that Congress can pass immediately - to combat the ongoing employment crisis in the United States and get Americans back to work.

This event will be moderated by Arthur Delaney with the Huffington Post, and esteemed panelists include: Betsey Stevenson, a Member of the White House Council of Economic Advisors; Michael Strain, a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; Judy Conti, Federal Advocacy Coordinator with the National Employment Law Project; and Heidi Shierholz, an Economist at the Economic Policy Institute.

For further information about the panel discussion or the Congressional Full Employment Caucus, please contact Erik Sperling in the Office of Congressman John Conyers, Jr. at 202-225-5126 or Erik.Sperling@mail.house.gov.

What:	“Bipartisan Solutions to Long-Term Unemployment” Panel
Who:	Ø  Moderator – Arthur Delaney, Huffington Post Ø  Host – Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) Ø  Host – Congresswoman Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.) Ø  Host – Congresswoman Marcy Kaputer (D-Ohio) Ø  Betsey Stevenson – Member, White House Council of Economic Advisors Ø  Michael Strain – Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute Ø  Judy Conti – Federal Advocacy Coordinator, National Employment Law Project Ø  Heidi Shierholz – Economist, Economic Policy Institute
When:	Tuesday, June 24th, 1:00 pm
Where:	2226 Rayburn House Office Building

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

After Failing to Renew Unemployment Insurance, Congress Is a Culprit in Foreclosure Crisis

By Reps. John Conyers Jr., Matt Cartwright and Steven Horsford

In the immediate aftermath of the nation’s 2008 foreclosure crisis, Congress played a constructive role in keeping Americans in their homes. Lawmakers supported loan modification programs and sweeping financial reforms, and — while many rightfully demanded more action — these efforts eased the effects of the crisis.

Today, the lingering effects of predatory lending and the Great Recession mean that foreclosures remain a serious problem in communities around the country. But, in the national fight to stop foreclosures, one crucial fact has changed: Congress is now a culprit.

By failing to extend emergency unemployment insurance benefits, House GOP leaders have unnecessarily thrust millions of Americans into financial hardship and many, in turn, into foreclosure.

Congress must again be part of the solution.

Lawmakers should immediately extend emergency UI benefits. But, if House GOP leaders continue their obstruction, the absolute least lawmakers can do is pass a measure to direct the Federal Housing Finance Agency to impose a six month moratorium on foreclosures for individuals who have lost UI due to congressional inaction.

Because of the GOP’s termination of the federal emergency UI program, more than 2.2 million Americans, including more than 200,000 veterans, have lost access to an essential lifeline that’s rightfully theirs. Unemployment insurance is not a hand-out. Americans who lost their jobs in one of the toughest job markets in memory have largely paid into the emergency compensation program through payroll taxes.

There’s simply no valid economic argument for failing to renew UI. The Census Bureau estimates that these benefits enabled 2.5 million people to get out of poverty in 2012 and enabled more than 11 million to do so since 2008. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, restoring benefits would result in 200,000 additional jobs this year by increasing consumer demand. The logic is simple: When unemployed Americans receive income, they spend it. When they can go out and purchase their necessities, they boost the economy and promote job-creation. All this boosts tax revenue and reduces deficits.

When you factor in the foreclosures that result from people unexpectedly losing their basic UI income, the social and economic impacts are immeasurably greater. Foreclosure and evictions are not only responsible for massive anxiety and suffering but also downward spirals in property values and tax revenue.

Restoring UI is not just a matter of sound policy making. It’s a matter of basic decency.

While the Senate has done what’s right by passing legislation to extend UI, House GOP leaders refuse to even allow a vote. If this intransigence continues, the newly-confirmed director of the FHFA, Melvin Watt, can take matters into his own hands and impose a moratorium on foreclosures for Americans affected by the cutoff. Earlier this year, we, along with 74 of our colleagues, sent a letter requesting that he use his authority to do so.

Half a decade after the onset of the financial crisis, it’s unacceptable that tens of millions of Americans are still unemployed or desperately underemployed. Congress must — at the absolute least — keep these Americans from losing their homes.

Reps. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania and Steven Horsfordof Nevada are Democratic members of the House of Representatives.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

House Passes Conyers Amendment to Prevent Transfer of Shoulder-Fired Anti-Aircraft Missiles to Syrian Fighters

(WASHINGTON) – Late yesterday evening, the U.S. House of Representatives considered H.R. 4870, the “Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015.” During consideration of the legislation, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and Congressman Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) offered a bipartisan amendment to prevent the transfer of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles - otherwise known as Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems, or MANPADS - to any party in the Syrian Civil War. Since their initial use on a battlefield in 1978, MANPAD attacks have resulted in nearly 1,000 civilian deaths. After the amendment was approved unanimously by the full U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Conyers issued the following statement:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

“If there’s one simple lesson we can take away from US involvement in conflicts overseas, it’s this: Beware of unintended consequences. As was made vividly clear with US involvement in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion decades ago, overzealous military assistance or the hyper-weaponization of conflicts can have destabilizing consequences and ultimately undercut our own national interests. I am grateful that the House of Representatives unanimously passed my amendment last night to prevent the transfer of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles - commonly called MANPADS - to forces in Syria. These weapons are easily hidden, capable of extraordinary damage, and have already resulted in the loss of nearly 1,000 civilian lives,” said Conyers.

“Both U.S. and Israeli officials have feared that these weapons could be used by terrorists to bring down commercial jets. As the boundaries are increasingly blurred between insurgents fighting the Syrian government and those fighting the Iraqi government, providing additional arms could further destabilize the Middle East. The possibility that MANPADS - or any weapon - could fall into the hands of radical groups would unquestionably increase the already-devastating human toll in the region.

“The answer to violence is not to increase access to weapons that allow for more violence. Preventing the transfer of anti-aircraft missiles is a first step towards de-escalating the chaos that has haunted Syria and the wider region for far too long, but until a lasting, peaceful resolution can be found it must not be the last.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Ranking Member Conyers Statement at Net Neutrality Hearing

(WASHINGTON) – Today, the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law held a hearing entitled, “Net Neutrality: Is Antitrust Law More Effective Than Regulation in Protecting Consumers and Innovation?” During his opening remarks Ranking Members John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) delivered the following statement:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

“I thank Subcommittee Chairman Spencer Bachus for holding this important hearing on net neutrality and the role of antitrust law in ensuring a free and open Internet. The Judiciary Committee has a central role in studying the issue of net neutrality and, more generally, competition on the Internet, and I appreciate the Chairman’s decision to assert our jurisdiction.

“Turning to the specific question of whether antitrust is more effective than regulation in addressing net neutrality, we should keep three things in mind. To begin with, we need a regulatory solution to address potential threats to net neutrality and must allow the Federal Communications Commission to do its job. Congress created the FCC to develop the expertise so that it could properly regulate the complex telecommunications industry. Any FCC rules to address net neutrality could have the benefit of addressing some potential threats to net neutrality before they fully materialize. And, it could do so in a manner that would be more comprehensive than the piecemeal approach of antitrust enforcement.

“Additionally, having a set of best practices enshrined in rules would provide certainty for industry.  The FCC’s efforts, therefore, must be given the opportunity to develop. In developing its rules to ensure a free and open Internet, the FCC should incorporate the following principles: broadband network providers should be prohibited from failing to provide access to its broadband network for any provider of content, applications, or services on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; broadband network providers should be prohibited from blocking, impairing, or discriminating against or otherwise interfering with the ability of any person to use a broadband service to use or access lawful content, applications, or services on the Internet; and there should be strong transparency requirements regarding clear disclosure to users of information concerning any terms, conditions, or limitations on the broadband network service.

“The FCC began its latest rulemaking process only a month ago, and we must allow that process to proceed. To the extent that we do look to antitrust law as a way of ensuring net neutrality, enforcement of existing antitrust law would be insufficient. Under current antitrust law, there is relatively little that antitrust enforcers can do outside the merger review context to address the conduct of a regulated industry like 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 arising in the net neutrality context.

“Moreover, exclusive reliance on antitrust enforcement, while having the benefit of a more nuanced and fact-specific approach to the problem, would also be a cumbersome, more limited, more resource-intensive, and after-the-fact way to develop a regulatory regime for net neutrality. Another potential approach would be for the Federal Trade Commission to use its authority under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to stop ‘unfair methods of competition.’ While I hold an expansive view of Section 5, to the extent that this approach goes beyond the scope of the Sherman Act or other antitrust laws it would be very controversial, as my friends on the other side of the aisle would be the first to note. Moreover, antitrust law is not sufficiently broad in scope as it does not address the non-economic goals of net neutrality, including the protection of free speech and political debate.

“Former Chairman James Sensenbrenner, Representative Zoe Lofgren and I introduced bipartisan legislation back in 2006 to strengthen antitrust law to address net neutrality, in part because the FCC was doing too little at that time, in my view. I am certainly open to suggestions on how antitrust law can be better tailored to address net neutrality concerns, but if we go down that path, current law must be modified to codify net neutrality principles. Whether one supports a more antitrust approach or a more regulatory approach, inaction by Congress and regulators is not an option, as potential threats to net neutrality remain present.

“In my opening statements at our 2008 and 2011 hearings on this issue, I noted that in many parts of our country, consumers have the choice of only one or two broadband Internet service providers that effectively function as monopolies or duopolies. I noted then that the market power that these broadband providers enjoyed could lead to differential treatment of content carried by the provider depending on how much a customer pays or the financial incentives for discriminating for or against given content. The concerns I noted may have only grown since then, particularly in light of increasing consolidation in the telecommunications industry that may result in even less choice, less innovation, higher costs, and more power in the hands of fewer broadband providers.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©