John Conyers

TOPICS

Conyers: Obama Is Sucking Up To The Wrong People

Congressman_John_Conyers__public_domain__4afe2_0.jpg

Just like we here outside the Beltway Bubble, sometimes you've just had enough and there's no more need for diplomacy:

President Barack Obama is “getting bad advice from… clowns” on Afghanistan and “sucking up to the wrong people” on health care, U.S. Rep. John Conyers told a Detroit radio audience this morning, according to show host Rev. Horace Sheffield.

Conyers, a Detroit Democrat, made the comments during a discussion about the effects of the economic recession on the urban poor, Sheffield said. The liberal congressman expressed frustration that health care legislation pending in Washington, D.C., was too solicitous of insurance companies and special interests, Sheffield said.

“He wasn’t angry. He was just deeply concerned that some of the issues being focused on don’t address the human reality,” said Sheffield, who hosts the program “On The Line” on WGPR-FM radio.



John Conyers and some allies on the House Judiciary Committee have come up with a fabulous way to get the insurance industry in line - by threatening to remove their anti-trust exemption.

Many people don't know that the insurance industry, under the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, has a broad anti-trust exemption that facilitates regional monopolies. The Act allows states to regulate the insurance business instead of the federal government, but also allows that, as long as the state regulates the industry, federal anti-trust laws would not apply.

As a result of this exemption, states have seen markets for health insurance where one or two companies predominate. In the state of Maine, Wellpoint controls 71% of the market. In North Dakota, Blue Cross controls 90%. Using the Herfindahl/Hirschman Index, a metric for market concentration, a 2007 study by the AMA found almost every health insurance market in the United States is highly concentrated.

This edition of the study analyzed 313 MSAs. This compares with 292 metropolitan areas in the 2005 study, 84 in the 2003 study, 70 in the 2002 study, and 40 in the 2001 study.

In terms of market concentration (HHI), the study found the following:

In the combined HMO/PPO product market, 96 percent (299) of the MSAs are highly concentrated (HHI>1,800), applying the 1997 Merger Guidelines.
In the HMO product market, 99 percent (309) of the MSAs are highly concentrated (HHI>1,800), applying the 1997 Merger Guidelines.
In the PPO product market, 100 percent (313) of the MSAs are highly concentrated (HHI>1,800), applying the 1997 Merger Guidelines.

Here's the AMA study. Paul Rosenberg has a lot more on this.

The point is that the concentration of the health insurance market among regional monopolies leads to higher costs for consumers, almost by definition. What the legislation by Conyers (D-MI), Hank Johnson (D-GA) and Diana DeGette (D-CO) would do is end that anti-trust exemption for health insurers, allowing for enforcement in all of these highly concentrated markets. The Senate has companion legislation:

“This legislation would specifically prohibit price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation in the health insurance industry,” said Conyers. “These pernicious practices are detrimental to competition and result in higher prices for consumers. Conduct that is unlawful throughout the country should not be allowed for insurance companies under antitrust exemption. The House Judiciary Committee held extensive hearings on the effects of the insurance industry’s antitrust exemption throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. It became clear then that policyholders and the economy in general would benefit from eliminating this exemption.

“The legislation we introduced today is intended to root out unlawful activity in an industry grown complacent by decades of protection from antitrust oversight. In doing so, we aim to make health insurance more affordable to more Americans. I want to thank my friend Senator Leahy for his leadership on the bill and for working with the House on this joint introduction.”

Many of the actions taken by the insurance industry over the years simply violate federal law. Repealing their anti-trust exemption would force the industry to end their criminal ways or face punishment. As a companion to insurance regulations designed to lower prices for consumers, but perhaps without the kind of enforcement necessary to maintain it, I couldn't think of anything better. And if nothing else, this legislation is a powerful whip to keep the industry in line as they try to extract more perks from the health care bill. Combine this with the multiple investigations into industry practices from Dennis Kucinich, Henry Waxman and others, and you have real pressure on the industry for the first time in a while.

Good for John Conyers.


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1012)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1603)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

John Conyers draws a line in the sand for his vote on the health care bill.

Conyers: Well, we should be doing single payer, but we've compromised on that and what we're doing now is that we're stepping back. But this cannot be called reform of health care if a public option isn't on it and so this is down to the crunch time...


John Conyers calls for a probe into the Bush Administration

Oh, if only it were so.

Raw Story:

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has called for both a criminal investigation and a blue-ribbon panel to look into "Bush administration abuses of power and misconduct."

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) told the National Press Club Friday that both avenues should be pursued because a criminal investigation would be done in private, while a blue-ribbon "9/11-type" panel would work publicly and would create a public record of the Bush administration's actions.

Conyers also slammed former Bush administration officials who are refusing to testify before the judiciary committee. He rejected the notion that "executive privilege" prevents Bush White House officials from answering questions before Congressional committees.

"Wait a minute," he said, "you don't know what questions we're going to ask."

"If we ask a question that you think can't be answered, we can set it aside ... but the blanket [notion that] anybody near the White House doesn't have to come to a hearing, that wouldn't wash at my son's freshman class at Moorhouse College in Atlanta much less with me."


It took two years, but it finally happened - thanks to an agreement with the White House that deposing Rove would not infringe on executive privilege. Now everyone wants to know: What did Karl say? And don't you wish you were the fly on the wall?

Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove was deposed Tuesday by attorneys for the House Judiciary Committee, according to Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the panel’s chairman.

Rove’s deposition began at 10 a.m. and ended around 6:30 p.m, with several breaks, Conyers said.

Conyers would not comment on what Rove told congressional investigators, what the next step in the long-running Judiciary Committee investigation would be or whether Rove would face additional questioning.

“He was deposed today,” Conyers said in an interview. “That’s all I can tell you.”

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, declined to confirm or deny that his client had appeared before the committee. Luskin said there was an agreement that the depositions would remain confidential until they were completed. However, in a court filing Monday, the Justice Department indicated that the deposition set for this week would be the committee's last.

Conyers’ panel had first subpoenaed Rove in 2007 as part of its probe into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. But the Bush White House, citing executive privilege, refused to make Rove or White House Counsel Harriet Miers available for any deposition.


Lou Dobbs keeps flailing the dead horse of his fake ACORN 'scandal'

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1639)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1687)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
[H/t Heather]

Lou Dobbs and Co. (in this case, "reporter" -- and we use the term very loosely indeed -- Drew Griffin) have earned a new title: Masters of the Well-Beaten Mummified Horse Corpse:

In March, a House subcommittee looking into lessons learned from the 2008 election, heard from a Republican lawyer from Pennsylvania, accusing ACORN of a multitude of violations. In response, Democratic Congressman John Conyers, a fierce partisan who defended ACORN during the presidential campaign, surprised fellow members when he called the accusations a pretty serious matter. Conyers asked New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler to conduct a subcommittee hearing on ACORN. Here is what happened next.

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D), NEW YORK: Let me just say that I would certainly consider a hearing on ACORN, if I ever hear any credible allegations.

REP. JOHN CONYERS (D), MICHIGAN: Whoa. Wait a minute. This is a member of the bar here that got a successful partial injunction against ACORN.

NADLER: The chairman makes a good point and we will certainly consider it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GRIFFIN: Lou, they didn't apparently consider it very long. Congressman Nadler's office tells us there will be no hearing on ACORN. When we asked why, we were told Congressman Conyers changed his mind. When we looked for a statement there, this is what we got from Congressman Conyers' office.

"Based on my review of the information regarding the complaints against ACORN, I have concluded that a hearing on this matter appears unwarranted at this time." That's just about a month after he called the whole affair "pretty serious." Lou?

DOBBS: Obviously Congressman Conyers is not the only fierce partisan on that committee -- a stunning reversal and no further explanation.

GRIFFIN: Nope, we actually asked for an interview. We asked for an explanation of this very statement which says really nothing at all, what kind of evidence they reviewed that changed his mind. This is all we got in return, Lou.

DOBBS: Drew, thank you very much and ACORN is -- well I think we would have to say an interesting and unique organization that deserves a lot more attention, if not investigation on the part of all of us.

What Dobbs and Griffin seem to have trouble wrapping their little heads around is the reality that there's no there there.

Even in cases like the Nevada prosecution, the problem appear to be an issue regarding individual miscreancy more than organizational corruption. And how serious is the problem, exactly?

Continue reading »


TOPICS

Call Your Congress Member on Cramdown Vote

Via Brave New Films:

Joan Adams is living out of a Motel 6 in the suburbs of Orange County, California. She lost her home to foreclosure. There's no one out there to help, Joan says: "Billions of dollars to all the banks for bailouts for something they caused, and yet we're the ones that are homeless."

On Tuesday, Congress will vote on whether or not to level the playing field between the banks and struggling homeowners. Representative John Conyers has introduced legislation in the House that authorizes judges in bankruptcy proceedings to require banks to reevaluate mortgages of homeowners in distress.

Sign the petition to let Congress know that you support Conyers bill, H.R. 1106. Then, call your Congressional Representative and ask him or her to vote for it.

Sign petition here.
Find your Congressional Representative here.


TOPICS Video Cafe

Ring of Fire's Buried Stories Jan. 30th

From Go Left TV and Ring of Fire Radio:

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Mike Papantonio run down this week's stories that the mainstream media did a poor job of reporting - Everything from the ongoing Karl Rove subpoena saga, to the irreversible effects of climate change.

Ring of Fire's Buried Stories Jan. 30th Pt. 1

Part 2

Part 3


Rove announces he has no intention of obeying Conyers' subpoena

DOWNLOAD (77)
WMV QuickTime
PLAY (74)
WMV QuickTime

That subpoena from John Conyers seems to be making Karl Rove a little more ... clenched these days. Appearing with the ever-friendly Bill O'Reilly last night, he dismissed the possibility he would even consider appearing for the legal summons:

Rove: I have been directed, again on January 16, by the outgoing president's legal counsel, not to respond to a subpoena, exerting privilege on behalf of the former president and his close aides.

O'Reilly: So you're not even going to show?

Rove: No, and --

O'Reilly: What if they hold you in contempt of Congress?

Rove: Look, this issue is -- let's step back for a minute. This issue of whether or not I should show up -- I've never exerted any personal privilege, I've never said I have a personal right not to show up.

O'Reilly: No, but you're a counselor to the president, it's executive -- I got all that. But let's go beyond the argument. I know your argument. Say Conyers says Mr. Rove is in contempt of Congress. What happens then?

Rove: Well, look, this issue is before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia. Rep. Conyers could have waited until they resolved the issue one way or the other, gave guidance to him and gave guidance to the former president and to the current president. But instead, he decided to go forward with this -- I don't know if I want to call it a witch hunt, I don't think of myself as a witch, but I'm certain -- this is a guy who went to the cloak room and said, 'Somebody has to get his --' and then filled in a crude way to describe my posterior. He's sort of like Captain Ahab and I'm the whale.

Well, we know President Obama isn't keen on Conyers proceeding, but this indeed isn't just about petty revenge, as O'Reilly and Rove want to pretend. There are in fact much bigger issues at stake here:

PLEASE NOTE: C&L realizes that Karl Rove is not well-liked here for a great many reasons. Remember that wishing physical harm on anyone when you leave a comment here is against the commenting policy and will be deleted. You folks know better. - Sitemonitor

Continue reading »


TOPICS

icon Download | play

Rep. John Conyers grilled former Bushie John Yoo, who was a major player in instituting torture as US policy today's hearing called: "Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties."

Watch Yoo stammer and stonewall Conyers repeated efforts to get him to admit what he said previously. That the president could torture whenever he thought it was just and he could do it in the most heinous way possible.

Conyers: It was reported that you were asked if a president could order a suspects child be tortured in a gruesome fashion and you responded that "I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that. Is that accurate?

Yoo: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe it's accurate because it took what I said out of context. (I see) The quote stopped right before I continued to explain the number of things which I appreciate the opportunity...

Conyers: So far what I read was accurate, but there was more?

Yoo: But it stops at mid sentence, I mean I finished the sentence during the debate but I didn't get a chance to...

Conyers: OK, thank you...Is there anything professor Yoo that the president can not order to be done to a suspect if he believed it necessary for national defense?

Yoo: Ahhh, Mr Chairman, I think it goes back to the quote you just read because..

Conyers: No, I'm just asking you the question, maybe it doesn't, but what do you think?

Yoo: I think it's the same question I was asked..

Conyers: Well, what's the answer?

Yoo: First, can I make clear I'm not talking about...

Continue reading »


The Department of Justice's inspector general has finally released its report (434 pg pdf) on the FBI's involvement in detainee interrogations in Guantanamo, Afghanistan and Iraq. Reuters reports that the "Bush administration's top security officials ignored FBI concerns" and that the "FBI, alarmed by interrogation techniques such as the use of snarling dogs and forced nudity, clashed with the Defense Department and CIA over their use." Please do dig into the document and let us know in the comments any parts that may merit more attention. Emptywheel noticed already that "this report does not and cannot discuss the issues that OLC, Condi Rice, and John Ashcroft apparently faced tells you what we need to know about torture." Hmmm?

Also, David Kurtz notes that:

The IG's report has been delayed in part because the Pentagon slow-rolled its review of the report for classified information.

FBI Director Robert Mueller testified to Congress last month that he had "reached out" to the Pentagon and the Department of Justice "in terms of activity that we were concerned might not be appropriate -- let me put it that way." But it was clear from his testimony that the Justice Department's essentially unilateral legalization of torture had prevented the FBI from investigating the abuses its agents witnessed.

For those interested, here is Chairman Conyers' response (via email, after the jump)

Continue reading »


TPM Muckraker's Paul Kiel:

Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tell two other people: "We're closing in on Rove. Someone's got to kick his ass."

Asked a few minutes later for a more official explanation, Conyers told us that Rove has a week to appear before his committee. If he doesn't, said Conyers, "We'll do what any self-respecting committee would do. We'd hold him in contempt. Either that or go and have him arrested."

[...] Yesterday, in somewhat more diplomatic language, Conyers refused Rove's offer to testify in writing. ...(more)

Between Conyers here along with Rep. Robert Wexler's stance on Rove, Biden's literally calling BS on Bush, and the House's actually voting to cut off funding for Iraq and setting a plan to pull the troops out, it really has me wondering if there hasn't been some kind of a cosmic shift in the Democratic Party lately. Perhaps the third win over the GOP in red districts has lent them some confidence, but whatever it is, may we have some more of that, please?


Conyers Tells White House Iran Attack = Impeachment

It appears that despite record disapproval ratings and two failed occupations under his belt already, George Bush and his various mouthpieces are determined to beat the war drums to attack Iran.

Rep. John Conyers isn't having it:

As we and others have continued to review troubling legal memoranda and other materials from your Administration asserting the power of the President to take unilateral action, moreover, our concerns have increased still further. For example, although federal law is clear that proceeding under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance" can be conducted within the U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f), the Justice Department has asserted that the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping in violation of FISA is "supported by the President's well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs".6 As one legal expert has explained, your Administration's "preventive paradigm" has asserted "unchecked unilateral power" by the Executive Branch and violated "universal prohibitions on torture, disappearance, and the like."7

Late last year, Senator Joseph Biden stated unequivocally that "the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach" the president. 8

We agree with Senator Biden, and it is our view that if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued. Because of these concerns, we request the opportunity to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss these matters. As we have recently marked the fifth year since the invasion of Iraq, and the grim milestone of 4,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq, your Administration should not unilaterally involve this country in yet another military conflict that promises high costs to American blood and treasure.

Please call your Congressperson at 202-224-3121 or e-mail them and ask them to sign on to this letter.


John Conyers is a man who authored the MLK Day Holiday Act:

Conyers says his biggest achievement has been the Martin Luther King Holiday Act of 1983. "[It's] by far and away the thing I am most proud of," he says of the 15-year struggle to make that dream a reality."

He was down in Memphis at the tribute today and blasted John McCain for voting against his bill in 1983 to make MLK day a National holiday. The MSNBC host as usual had to stick up for McCain by saying that he was there apologizing for that vote so all should be forgiven. That only infuriated Conyers.

icon Download | play icon Download | play (rough transcript)

Conyers: When John McCain was my colleague in the House and I introduced the Holiday bill, he voted against it in 1983...Now I believe in forgiveness, but it's incredible that all he can do is show up on April 4th and think that everything is OK. We're not just African Americans, but we're most people.

Host: Rep. Conyers I think in all fairness we should say , perhaps you did not hear it but certainly John McCain did offer an apology for that first vote in 1983 when you did put forward that bill.

You had not heard that? He did make that apology sir so that he regretted voting that way back then.

Conyers: Yea, well look. I'm happy. That was in 1983, he didn't make any apology, he didn't make any apologies in 1987, so I guess I'm thrilled and forgiving that finally when he's running for President he remembers to apologize. No, that's great. (satirically)

Host: Well, he has done so today and perhaps you'll take that as some sort of appeasement, but anyway...

Updated: Nice job the host did in trying to praise John McCain's phony apology today. Yea, just get appeased! I mean this is ridiculous. It's like her job to make excuses for John McCain's actions.

Good job by Conyers for calling McSame on it too. Conyers was obviously not buying her line of reasoning. If John McCain thinks he can go down to Memphis and throw out a few words to try and appease his actions, he's got another thing coming. Of course the media will paint him as a brave man, straight talking away his prior sins, but he was almost 50 years old when he joined the HOUSE of Representatives and voted down MLK Day.

Matt Stoller finds an interesting graphic. Rick Perlstein takes us down the Conservative memory lane with excerpts of Nixonland.


Conyers to Bush: I'm Staying Here To Work On FISA

The Gavel:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. released the following statement to President Bush’s commitment to work on foreign surveillance legislation through the recess:

“The President’s efforts to cast blame on FISA, echoed by his allies in Congress, show an appalling disregard for the facts. He threatened to veto any extension of the Protect America Act and, following his lead, every single Republican in the House voted against the 21 day extension I sponsored in the House. The President and House Republicans cannot have it both ways, simultaneously arguing that the PAA is essential to national security and also engineering the defeat of an extension of it. The consequences for inaction are their responsibility.

Unfortunately, it is the same old tired rhetoric of fear that the country overwhelmingly rejected in the 2006 elections.

“From what I have seen from the Justice Department documents so far, there is no need to provide amnesty to telecommunication companies who are protected under current law, as long as they and the government are acting accordingly. I have not seen anything that leads me to believe, as the President seems to believe, that providing amnesty to these companies is a more compelling public interest than our Constitutionally protected right to privacy.

Chairman Silvestre Reyes of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also issued a statement challenging Bush to "put partisanship aside" on the FISA debate:

The proper course is now to conference the House bill with the Senate bill that was passed on Tuesday. There are significant differences between these two bills and a conference, in regular order, is the appropriate mechanism to resolve the differences between these two bills. I urge you, Mr. President, to put partisanship aside and allow Republicans in Congress to arrive at a compromise that will protect America and protect our Constitution.

I, for one, do not intend to back down - not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.

We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.