John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. The problem is really, have we heard from the governors of any of these States that will be affected in the course of the committee process? I think that this point of order should lie ahead of time, Mr. Speaker, not after the vote. That is the whole point of a point of order under section 425, because it lies against legislation which imposes an unfunded mandate in excess of $50 million annually against State or local governments. The cost of deferring consideration of the larger issue of the State tax simplification, which this bill effectively does, has been estimated as creating a State revenue loss of $20 billion per year, to say nothing of the private sector cost of complying with the complex State tax system. All of this lost revenue is going to have to come from somewhere, either in the form of reduced services such as police, fire and education, or increased income and property taxes. Neither is a very desirable policy outcome. Now, I do not know if any of these estimates are correct or not, but I do know that we owe it to ourselves as legislators to learn the facts and determine the costs of the measure before we vote on it. Clearly, there is no rush concerning this matter. The current moratorium does not expire until October 21, 2001, 17 months from today. I need not remind the Members that it was the majority party which passed the unfunded mandates legislation in the first place as the very first measure in the Contract With America during the 104th Congress. We were told with much fanfare that the Republican Party was going to stop passing mandates on the State, or, at the very least, we would be aware of the cost of a mandate before they enacted them. Today, we will have an opportunity to see whether the majority will remain true to its promise to the States and the American people and uphold my point of order. We ought to look before we leap, and we certainly ought to know how much a bill will cost the States before we pass it. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on any effort to disregard this point of order and proceed with the consideration of the bill before us. I urge that the point of order be supported. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for as precise an answer as he can muster at the moment. Could I also further inquire of the gentleman, have we had any hearings to help us with this particular problem?

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. Can the gentleman answer it?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Could I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania if he can tell us how much this bill will cost the States? I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for this purpose.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have made this point of order because it is necessary that we obtain additional information regarding the impact that the bill's unfunded mandate will have on State and local governments before we approve the bill. This is absolutely necessary. I would submit that not a Member of this body has any clear idea regarding how much this legislation will cost the States. The reason is, is because we have not had a single day or even a single minute of hearings on the legislation. We are flying totally blind. The Congressional Budget Office has taken a brief look at the issue and they have merely told us that it will cost the States upward of $50 million a year. But they have not told us how much more it will really cost. I can tell my colleagues that the National Governors Association, led by Republican Governor Leavitt of Utah, has estimated that a single provision in the bill eliminating the current grandfather clause concerning Internet access taxes will cost the States $85 million in the first year alone. In Texas alone, the provision will cost $50 million this year, and $200 million by the year 2004. This could translate into 4,000 lost teachers and police officers in Texas alone. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 425 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a point of order against the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3709, the Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2000. Section 425 states that a point of order lies against legislation which imposes an unfunded mandate in excess of $50 million annually against State or local governments. Page 2, lines 24 and 25 of H.R. 3709 contains a violation of section 425. Therefore, I make a point of order that this measure may not be considered pursuant to section 425.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order that I would like to make about the bill that is pending.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, at last, a bipartisan amendment has arrived on the floor. We put our arms around it and thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the gentleman from North Carolina, who have recognized that if we limit this extension of the present moratorium on Internet access taxes and discriminatory taxes for 2 years, we will have arrived at a place that most of us will be much happier about. It is unfortunate that the speaker before me has not seen the letter in which the Governors are asking us to please, please take into consideration the fact that they want their taxes extended. Twenty-two of them are Republican Governors. I believe that this 2-year extension is a far more appropriate period for the moratorium. It is my hope that by such time the States could build on the very serious steps they have already begun to reform and simplify their laws. Then we could consider whether we want to approve any interstate process affecting these simplification efforts. If the States were not making progress by 2003, it would be a simple matter to extend the moratorium for an additional period of time if that were needed. By contrast, there is a real risk that extending the moratorium through 2006 would, in effect, delay this issue and create a situation where the States have no incentive for reform. This would have the effect of codifying into the law the present Byzantine, unmanageable, complex State tax system which harms both consumers and business. So this is why so many concerns have been raised about a 5-year extension. It is too long. It is opposed by the administration, which has written that ``The proposed 5-year extension would significantly reduce the incentive for States to simplify their tax systems, to the detriment of all interested parties,'' but especially hurt would be small businesses. A 5-year extension is also opposed by the National Governors Association. Read the letter. It is now on the Record. It is opposed by labor, the AFL-CIO, the NEA, the AFT, AFCSME, and by business through the National Retail Federation, the Wal-Marts, the Sears, the Home Depot and K-Mart, and many, many others. So we have arrived at a place where we can all come together, Republicans and Democrats, high-tech supporters and brick and mortar people. Let us come around to the Delahunt-Thune proposal now before the floor, now on the floor, which would give a 2-year extension, no more 5-year extension, a 2-year extension that would give our own committee the opportunity to hold the hearings and to deal with the realities and complexities of these problems on a sober and bipartisan basis to solve these very large problems that are facing us. Such a process has been sorely missing to date in our headlong rush to the floor to secure political points. For that reason, my commendations to the gentleman from North Carolina and to my dear friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt). I urge that their amendment be given further consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to assure my colleagues that as soon as I talk to the chairman of this committee, as ranking member, the Committee on the Judiciary will be ready to move forward with expedited speed, as I look at the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who is nodding his head in agreement. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to support the recommit motion.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleagues that we cannot stop the information highway progress by hobbling it with taxes. Our proposal would reach the support of the governors of the labor movement, of the retailers, of the small business people who cannot wait for 6 or 7 years. Support this motion to recommit, which would limit the moratorium to 2 years and eliminate the grandfathering provision.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York, the ranking subcommittee member on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, of all the human rights violations currently occurring in our world, the trafficking of human beings, predominantly women and children, has to be one of the most horrific practices of our time. At its core, the international trade in women and children is about abduction, coercion, violence and exploitation in the most reprehensible ways. H.R. 3244 is a modest effort to eradicate forcible and/or fraudulent trafficking of persons into prostitution or involuntary servitude. The bill provides some protection for victims who would otherwise be deportable if identified by law enforcement by creating a new ``T'' visa category for eligible victims. Unfortunately, the bill reported out of the Judiciary Committee is much more restrictive than the bill originally introduced by Representative Chris Smith and Representative Sam Gejdenson. A compromise bill was substituted by the Republicans immediately prior to the Judiciary Committee mark-up to satisfy their unrealistic concerns that the bill would enable persons to fraudulently obtain a lawful status by claiming that they were a victim of sex trafficking or involuntary servitude. In particular, the Committee-reported bill incorporated several significant restrictions on the availability of visas for victims of sex trafficking and involuntary servitude. Among other things, the bill requires that victims establish that their presence is a ``direct result of trafficking;'' that they did not ``voluntarily agree'' to such trafficking; that they have a ``a well-founded fear of retribution involving the infliction of severe harm upon removal from the United States'' or ``would suffer extreme hardship in connection with the trafficking upon removal from the United States;'' and limits the Attorney General's authority to waive grounds of inadmissibility for trafficking victims. Each one of these requirements represents a marked departure from the spirit and text of the introduced version of the legislation, and each has the potential to prevent real victims of the legislation, and each has the potential to prevent real victims of sex trafficking and involuntary servitude from receiving refuge from their tormentors. Further, the bill unnecessarily caps at 5,000 per year the number of victims who can receive a nonimmigrant visa and caps at 5,000 per year the number of victims who can become permanent residents. Because estimates of the number of trafficking victims entering the United States are greater than 5,000 per year, we see no reason not to provide protection to the 5,001st who has been the subject of such terrible acts. Not only would the original bill have been more helpful to victims and their families, I believe that we should be doing far more to protect not just the victims of sex traffickers and involuntary servitude but also the victims of other forms of abuse such as battered immigrants and sweatshop laborers. I hope we have the opportunity to consider such legislation in the near future. Finally, I would like to note for the record my understanding of two somewhat technical issues. First, regarding the phrase in the new ``T'' visa provision that makes visas available to, ``an alien, and the children and spouse of the alien if accompanying or following to join the alien, who * * *.'' It is clear that the principal foreign national who is applying for the visa must meet the criterion for eligibility which includes proof that he or she is or has been a victim of a severe form of trafficking and several other requirements. The possible ambiguity is with respect to whether a child or spouse accompanying or following to join the principal foreign national also has to meet those requirements. However, I have been assured that the intention of the provision is for the child or spouse to receive derivative benefits from the principal foreign national who is applying for the visa. The spouse and child do not have to meet the eligibility requirements themselves. The bill also would permit trafficking victims who have been here for three years to become lawful permanent residents of the United States. This issue concerns the possibility of a misinterpretation in this provision too. Whereas the new nonimmigrant visa provision applies one eligibility criterion to ``children'' and another criterion to ``sons and daughters (who are not children),'' the provision for adjustment of status only addresses criterion applicable to ``unmarried sons and daughters.'' In a perfect world, I would have preferred to use the term ``children'' in the adjustment of status context to explicitly state that ``children are eligible for derivative permanent resident status. That being said, I accept the sponsors position that in the case of adjustment of status, derivative status is available to unmarried sons and daughters, which includes children, of the principal foreign national.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with Chairman Hyde, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chairman Gekas, and Ranking Member Nadler in introducing the ``Internet Tax Reform and Reduction Act of 2000.''. As the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, I have been proud of our Committee's bipartisan accomplishments in helping to maintain our Nation's leadership in the information economy. These include modernizing our patent and copyright laws, insuring the availability of trained workers, and our passage last Congress of the Internet Tax Freedom Act. Today, I join with my colleagues in introducing the Internet Tax Reform and Reduction Act of 2000 as the starting point in our process of considering possible legislative responses to the issue of the applicability of State and local taxes on the Internet. The legislation we are introducing today reflects the views of number of Advisory Committee on Electronics Commerce Members led by Virginia Governor James Gilmore. I believe it is important that their views be converted into legislative language so that the Congressional review process can commence. I intend to work with Chairman Hyde and Representatives Gekas and Nadler in seeing that the other members of the Commission, including Utah Governor Michael Leavitt, are given the same opportunity. I also expect that the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will hold a series of hearings during which all interested parties, including State and local elected officials, the technology community, and retailers will be able to offer their views. The bill we are introducing today would amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to impose a permanent moratorium on State and local taxes on Internet Access. It would also extend for 5 years the duration of the moratorium applicable to multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce and impose a 5 year moratorium on sales of digital goods and products. Further, the bill would set forth factors for the determination of jurisdictional nexus by the States with regard to Internet transactions, encourage the States to adopt a simplified sales and use tax, and set up an advisory commission on uniform sales and use taxes. The issue of the application of State and local taxes on the Internet is one of the most important matters facing the Judiciary Committee and the Congress. The Internet has led our robust economy into the 21st century. Its use in both the commercial and consumer sectors has skyrocketed, spurring the development of new businesses, products and services, and new and less expensive research and communications methods. At the same time, the Internet poses many new and novel State and local taxation issues. The Internet is not a partisan issue by any means, and I am happy to join with my colleagues as we begin to address this critical issue.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Lowey).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I thank the gentleman very much. I am also very grateful for his support of the motion to instruct the conferees.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, might I have a minute for the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall)?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we regret the process. We have never been to the Committee on Rules. We have never been to the full committee, the Committee on the Judiciary.