Department of Justice Oversight Hearing with Attorney General Eric Holder
House Judiciary Committee
Washington,
May 3, 2011 -
Watch Video of the Congresswoman's Q & A with Attorney General Holder
Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling today’s oversight hearing for the Department of Justice.
In the limited time I have this morning, I’d like to discuss a few issues with you, and then submit additional questions in writing so you and your staff can provide more information.
Mr. Holder, very early in his Administration, President Obama announced plans to restore an aggressive enforcement policy against corporations that use their market dominance to elbow out competitors. Many consumer advocates were pleased about the Administration’s reversal of President Bush’s policy, which strongly favored defendants against antitrust claims. During the Bush Administration, the Justice Department did not file a single case against a dominant firm for violating the antimonopoly law.
However, across all industries, the antitrust enforcement under the current Administration’s DOJ does not appear too far detached from previous Administration’ s rubber-stamped approvals of multiple mergers and consolidations. The mergers of: Ticketmaster-Live Nation; Continental-United; Southwest-Airtran; Comcast-NBC; and Google-ITA have all been approved by your Antitrust Division. It all begs the question: What has really changed?
In addition to the merger approvals, we continue to receive inconsistent messages from the Administration on its antitrust and regulatory philosophies. For example, in the same week that the Justice Department and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced their approvals of the Comcast-NBC Universal merger, the President named the former parent-company, General Electric’s CEO Jeff Immelt to his new economic panel on jobs and competitiveness.
In all fairness to the Antitrust Division, I am aware that Christine Varney has progressed leaps and bounds from the Bush Administration’s policies. I also understand that there are likely many undue outside pressures that at times, constrains your agency’s ability to do its job. Many of the members on the President’s new jobs panel appear to be negotiating investment, innovation, and job creation in exchange for tax cuts, repatriation holidays, and unconditional mergers and acquisitions. It is therefore a challenge for the Administration and the Department of Justice to balance overarching economic policy goals with the type of legal enforcement that would protect consumers.
Mr. Holder, throughout my participation in last year’s Comcast-NBC merger review, I repeatedly expressed my concerns about media diversity and how media consolidation has diminished the federal government’s capacity to promote the open exchange of independent and diverse ideas. However, consolidation is not only bad for diversity and the ability for minority and women-owned entrepreneurs and enterprises to enter the market and compete.
In general, whether we are discussing the tech industry, media companies, or wireless companies, consolidation can also restrict competition, stifle innovation, and impede small businesses and startups’ access to capital for investment. I think there is a case to be made that the rubber-stamped merger approvals and lax enforcement that has defined antitrust law in this country is counterproductive to forward-thinking innovation policy that could really stimulate the economy and create jobs.
When consolidation comes at the expense of innovation, the results can prove harmful to consumers and competition.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.
