John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1393, the ``Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2017.'' I agree with the bill's sponsors that a uniform framework specifying when an employer must withhold state income tax could help ensure simplicity and be more administrable than the current varied state standards. However the means by which H.R. 1393 achieves this result would lead to significant state revenue losses and could actually encourage income tax avoidance. To begin with, rather than promoting uniformity, H.R. 1393 would have a significant adverse impact on income tax revenues for certain states. According to the Congressional Budget Office, for example, New York could lose between $55 million and $120 million annually if this measure was signed into law. Other states that would be adversely impacted include Illinois, Massachusetts, and California. And, as a result of the lost revenues from non-resident taxpayers, these states could be forced to make up their losses by shifting the tax burden to resident taxpayers or levying new taxes. And states may even have to cut governmental services, such as funding for education and critical infrastructure improvements. Another problem with H.R. 1393 is that it essentially provides a roadmap for state income tax liability avoidance. By allowing an employer to rely on the employee's determination of the time he or she is expected to spend working in another state during the year, the bill prevents the employer from withholding an employee's state income taxes to a non-resident state. This would be the result even if the employer is aware that the employee has been working in a state more than 30 days, as long as that state cannot prove that the employee committed fraud in making his annual determination and that the employer knew it. Rather than proceeding with this flawed bill, the House should be considering a fair and uniform framework to allow states to collect taxes owed on remote sales. By staying silent since the Supreme Court's 1992 Quill decision, Congress has failed to ensure that states have the authority to collect the sales and use tax on Internet purchases. Placing brick and mortar businesses at a competitive disadvantage hurts main street Americans and means fewer local jobs and fewer opportunities. Lost tax revenues mean that state and local governments will have fewer resources to provide their residents essential services, such as education and police and fire protection. We owe it to our local communities, our local retailers, and state and local governments to act this Congress. I am disappointed that rather than moving the bipartisan eFairness legislation that our communities need, we are considering H.R. 1393 instead. Accordingly, I oppose H.R. 1393.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with my colleagues, Representatives Debbie Dingell and Brenda Lawrence, to recognize the outstanding service that Rev. Patrick Oliver Lindsey has provided to the Greater Bibleway Missionary Baptist Church in Detroit, Michigan, over the past 25 years. For years, this church has been a pillar in the Detroit community, providing more than just spiritual guidance. At the helm has been stalwart lead Pastor Lindsey, who has served tirelessly to ensure the needs of his congregation are met. In June 1992, when Pastor Lindsey assumed the pastorate, he was charged with cultivating the congregation's spiritual growth and development, while overseeing the implementation of the ministry's strategic plan and directing the administration of the church's ecclesiastical and business affairs. Pastor Lindsey successfully spearheaded Phase 1 of the church's building project--a complete renovation of the existing facilities, and he founded the Rev. CJ Henderson Scholarship, which provides students with financial support in their pursuit of higher education. Pastor Lindsey has been a tireless servant, not only to his church, but to the entire Detroit Metropolitan Community. Pastor Lindsey volunteers his time to serve in a multitude of leadership roles in community organizations such as: Vice Moderator of the Pleasant Grove Baptist District Association, Board Chair of Community-in-Schools of Metropolitan Detroit, and is a board member of the Urban League of Detroit and Southeast Michigan. He is also a member of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., and the University of Michigan Alumni Association. Pastor Lindsey was born to Deacon John (deceased) and Ida Lindsey, and raised on the eastside of Detroit. He was educated in Detroit and Highland Park Public School systems and matriculated to the University of Michigan where he graduated in 1981 with a Bachelor's degree in Political Science. He is married to another spiritual servant, his wife Kathy, and they have two wonderful children: Kendall (a junior at University of Michigan) and Kaylyn (a sophomore at Wayne State University). Pastor Lindsey currently serves as Vice President of Government and Community Affairs at Wayne State University. In this position, he oversees the federal and state affairs offices, which support the University's goals and strategic plan by working with key stakeholders to ensure adequate funding for the institution's more than 27,000 students enrolled in its 13 schools and colleges. As you can see, Pastor Lindsey's reach has no bounds. His is truly, first of all, a servant of all. On Saturday, June 10, 2017, he will be honored by the Greater Bibleway Missionary Baptist Church. Today, we urge our colleagues to join us in honoring Pastor Lindsey's selfless leadership in the church and in his community over the past 25 years.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise as both the Dean of the House and as a former employer of Brian Cooper to congratulate him an his impending retirement from the House of Representatives after 35 years of service, and to thank him for his years of dedicated service to the House. Brian is a Baltimore native and the youngest of seven children of his parents Deloris and Ellsworth Cooper. Brian loves the Charm City so much that he has lived in the same house his whole life. He is a proud graduate of Frederick Douglass High School in Baltimore (the very same high school attended by Supreme Court Justice and civil rights icon Thurgood Marshall). After high school Brian received a scholarship to the Community College of Baltimore, now known as Baltimore City Community College, where he received his degree in commercial and graphic arts. Brian's first Capitol Hill job began in the fall of 1982 when he began work in the stock room for Publications and Distribution Services. Thereafter, in the 1980s and early 1990s, Brian worked for the House Post Office, the House document room, the Small Business Committee and the Government Operations Committee. At Government Operations, Brian served under both Jack Brooks and myself as Chair (the latter frame 1991 through 1994). In that capacity Brian worked as staff assistant, handled filing and archiving of committee materials, and prepared documents for committee hearings and markups. I can personally testify that Brian's work was respected and appreciated by Members an both sides of the aisle. In 1995, Brian joined the Office of the House Parliamentarian as Clerk where he spent a full 22 years, rising to become Chief Clerk to the Parliamentarian in 2009. Brian's mast visible duties included assisting presiding officers during sessions of the House and handling timekeeping and legislative paperwork at the rostrum. In addition, Brian provided invaluable assistance in creating the first office computer network, supervising House pages, and preparing for joint meetings and joint sessions. It is no understatement to say that Brian observed and participated in a great swath of American political history during that time period. Brian remains active in many artistic endeavors--including watercolor, oils, photography, and architectural design--which I understand he plans to continue in his retirement. Brian also plans to use his well-deserved retirement to travel to Italy and spend more time with family (including his many nieces and nephews). As a devoted Baltimore sports fan, Brian has enjoyed the highs and suffered the lows of the local teams. He is a particularly avid fan of the Baltimore Orioles, and I am sure he appreciates the good start they are off to this year. I know from personal experience and observation that Brian is the consummate professional. Members and staff on both sides of the aisle know Brian to be committed to an orderly and accurate legislative process observed in a fair, nonpartisan manner. In this age of increasing polarization and legislative gridlock, Brian is a committed institutionalist. He is the rare individual consistently striving to continue the customs and traditions of the House, and committed to pass on his institutional knowledge to his successors. The House and the Congress will greatly miss Brian's services, but we will greatly benefit from his work and legacy.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and congratulate her on this very important amendment. This amendment creates alternative sentencing specifically for teenagers who participate in sexting and could, as a result of this bill and the application of current mandatory minimum sentences, be subject to mandatory sentences of at least 15 years. We should not, as she has already stated so well, leave it to prosecutors to determine whether teenagers take part in teenage behavior.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and rise in opposition to this bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill restructures section 2251 of title 18 of the United States Code as apparently requested by the unit at the Department of Justice that enforces the laws against child pornography. H.R. 1761 is intended to address limitations in the prosecution of cases pursuant to section 2251, as identified by the Department. While we all agree that no child pornography offense should go unpunished, we cannot overlook the consequences of mandatory minimum sentencing. Section 2251(a) prohibits the use of a child to produce child pornography and related conduct, including overseas production and advertising child pornography. Pursuant to this bill, two new offenses would be added to this section to prohibit the production of child pornography and the transmission of live depictions of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct, such as live-streaming abuse online. This measure would also modify the existing offense that prohibits having a minor assist in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing or transmitting child pornography. As amended, this offense would prohibit having a minor assist in sexually explicit conduct that violates each of the three newly enumerated production offenses, except the transportation of a minor for use in child pornography production. In addition, it would amend the prohibition against the production of child pornography abroad to forbid the live transmission of child pornography produced abroad. The jurisdictional requirement for each of the offenses enumerated in section 2251, except the production of child pornography abroad, would be codified in a separate subsection. Other portions of the bill would be modified to follow the restructure of the statute for consistency. Unfortunately, current law sets forth a series of mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for production of child pornography offenses. First-time offenses are punishable by mandatory imprisonment of at least 15 years; offenders with a prior conviction face mandatory imprisonment for at least 25 years; and offenders with two or more prior convictions must be sentenced to imprisonment of at least 35 years. By modifying and expanding section 2251 to include several new ways in which to violate the prohibition against the production of child pornography, the bill would subject new classes of defendants to mandatory minimum sentences. Although the bill does not establish new mandatory minimum sentences, it would--in this way--expand the application of the existing mandatory minimums, which I oppose. Mandatory minimums have been studied extensively and found to distort rational sentencing systems, discriminate against minorities, waste taxpayers' money, and violate common sense. Under mandatory minimum sentences, regardless of the nature and circumstances surrounding the offense, the role of the offender in the particular crime, and the history and characteristics of the offender, a judge must impose a sentence set by the legislature. Even if everyone involved in a case--from the arresting officer, prosecutor, and judge to the victim--believes that the mandatory minimum would be an unjust sentence for a particular defendant in a case, it still must be imposed. Mandatory minimum sentences are the wrong way to determine punishment under this or any other statute. During the Judiciary Committee's consideration of this bill, the committee rejected an amendment that would have eliminated the applicable mandatory minimums in the current statute but would still have allowed judges to sentence these offenders to lengthy sentences up to the existing statutory maximums. Because those changes were not made, the bill continues to present problems with mandatory minimums. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the Members of the House cannot rely on prospective discretion to protect juveniles under this statute. We simply can't rely on it, participate in, given the new policy of the Attorney General. We are under a new regime here at the Federal level, and I can't depend on relying on the prosecutorial discretion to protect juveniles under this statute. Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill is well intended, and I share my colleagues' desire to protect children from being victimized by their depiction in pornography. However, I also believe that we must address the serious problem presented by the bill, namely, that it would expand the application of the existing array of mandatory minimum sentences that the code provides for these offenses. This aspect of H.R. 1761 directly conflicts with the growing bipartisan realization that mandatory minimums are unjust and unwise; this is so even for egregious offenses for which judges should be allowed to impose sentences--often severe and even beyond the minimums--based on the facts and circumstances of each case. I want to leave it up to the judges. In considering legislation to better protect our children from the types of exploitation addressed by this bill, we must not ignore the sentencing implications of these revisions to the statute. In light of the bill's failure to address these serious concerns, I oppose H.R. 1761 and urge my colleagues to do likewise. We should consider even stronger legislation that addresses all these concerns. We are not through with the subject matter by this bill coming before us today. There is more work to be done. I thank my colleagues for this very important discussion. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1973, the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act, for several reasons. Most importantly, this is a reasonable bill and is intended to help protect young athletes from abuse and preserve the sanctity of sports associated with the U.S. Olympic Committee, the organization responsible for preparing and training young athletes who might one day represent their country competitively all over the world. Children deserve to fully enjoy the innocence of their youth--by exploring the curiosities of the world, taking pleasure in the arts, and participating in sports--free from hurt, harm, or danger. Involvement in sports, and instruction and guidance from adult coaches, can positively influence a young person's growth and development, as well as his or her potential for future success into adulthood. The sexual abuse of children and youth is intolerable in any text, and we must take appropriate measures to eliminate it from youth sports. Such exploitation betrays and harms young people, sometimes severely and irreparably. Young people look to adults to protect them and keep them safe. We all have a responsibility to do so. With H.R. 1973, we have an opportunity to ensure that individuals abide by this duty. Existing Federal law requires certain professionals, such as doctors, dentists, social workers, psychologists, teachers, and daycare workers, who regularly interact with children, to report suspected abuse to law enforcement. While our discussion of this legislation today may focus primarily on sexual abuse, H.R. 1973 will require adults who interact with young athletes, in connection to national governing bodies of various sports, to report suspected abuse of any kind. The need for this legislation is best illustrated by an ongoing scandal of widespread abuse and exploitation of young gymnasts over the course of 20 years within USA Gymnastics, a prominent governing body of the U.S. Olympic Committee. Many complaints of sexual and emotional abuse went unreported, allowing coaches, instructors, and doctors to repeatedly victimize gymnasts as young as 6 years old. The shocking failure of anyone to report accusations through law enforcement, or even keep track of complaints internally, made it possible for some of these predators to commit horrific acts at several gyms in several states. For example, a cloud of allegations of abuse surrounded one particular physician in Michigan going back as far as 1997. Regrettably, allegations against him were not reported to law enforcement until recently. Following the first public complaint against him in 2015, more than 100 women have filed complaints accusing him of sexual abuse, and he now faces more than 20 criminal charges in both Federal and State courts. While the USA Gymnastics scandal is unfortunate, let it be an example and incentive to prevent such pervasive abuse elsewhere. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to join me and my chairman in supporting this important legislation. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member on the prime subcommittee on the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, let me close by saying that protecting young victims from sexual abuse is a necessary measure that will help ensure that young athletes in this country are able to pursue their athletic dreams in a safe environment and free of exploitation and abuse. This bill imposes an affirmative duty on coaches, trainers, instructors, doctors, and the like to protect the young athletes who have been entrusted to their tutelage. This bill establishes remedies for those who might be harmed, and this bill mandates training and oversight to encourage compliance, vigilance, and protection. I thank Chairman Goodlatte for facilitating the prompt consideration of this bill, and the Judiciary Committee. I also want to recognize the leadership of Senator Feinstein, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who authored the Senate version of this bill and who has been the leading voice in Congress in demanding we address these issues. Finally, I note that this important bipartisan legislation is supported by many advocacy groups including the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children; the National Children's Alliance; the National Center for Victims of Crime; Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network; and the United States Olympic Committee, as well as several of its national governing bodies. For the foregoing reasons, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1973, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the bill or the amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman and point out that this amendment addresses the provisions in the bill concerning one-on-one interactions between young athletes and the adults who work with them. The existing version of the bill requires the national governing bodies instruct coaches, instructors, doctors, and the like to avoid one-on-one situations with the young athletes that cannot be observed or interrupted by another adult. Under the proposed change, national governing bodies will be required to institute and enforce reasonable procedures designed to avoid one-on-one interactions between young athletes and their coaches, instructors, and doctors that cannot be observed or interrupted by another adult. Mr. Goodlatte's amendment also harmonizes language used in the bill with language in the underlying statute and makes technical and conforming changes. I support this amendment and the changes it makes to enhance H.R. 1973, and I look forward to further discussions of these provisions with the Senate, with the goal of producing a consensus bill for enactment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise as both the Dean of the House and as a former employer of Brian Cooper to congratulate him on his impending retirement from the House of Representatives after 35 years of service, and to thank him for his years of dedicated service to the House. Brian is a Baltimore native and the youngest of seven children of his parents Dolores and Ellsworth Cooper, Brian loves the Charm City so much that he has lived in the same house his whole life. He is a proud graduate of Frederick Douglass High School in Baltimore (the very same high school attended by Supreme Court Justice and civil rights icon Thurgood Marshall), After high school Brian received a scholarship to the Community College of Baltimore, now known as Baltimore City Community College, where he received his degree in commercial and graphic arts. Brian's first Capitol Hill job began in the fall of 1982 when he began work in the stock room for Publications and Distribution Services. Thereafter, in the 1980s and early 1990s, Brian worked for the House Post Office, the House document room, the Small Business Committee and the Government Operations Committee. At Government Operations, Brian served under both Jack Brooks and myself as Chair (the latter from 1991 through 1994). In that capacity Brian worked as staff assistant, handled filing and archiving of committee materials, and prepared documents for committee hearings and markups. I can personally testify that Brian's work was respected and appreciated by Members on both sides of the aisle. In 1995, Brian joined the Office of the House Parliamentarian as Clerk where he spent a full 22 years, rising to become Chief Clerk to the Parliamentarian in 2009. Brian's most visible duties included assisting presiding officers during sessions of the House and handling timekeeping and legislative paperwork at the rostrum, In addition, Brian provided invaluable assistance in creating the first office computer network, supervising House pages, and preparing for joint meetings and joint sessions, It is no understatement to say that Brian observed and participated in a great swath of American political history during that time period. Brian remains active in many artistic endeavors--including watercolor, oils, photography, and architectural design--which I understand he plans to continue in his retirement. Brian also plans to use his well-deserved retirement to travel to Italy and spend more time with family (including his many nieces and nephews). As a devoted Baltimore sports fan, Brian has enjoyed the highs and suffered the lows of the local teams. He is a particularly avid fan of the Baltimore Orioles, and I am sure he appreciates the good start they are off to this year. I know from personal experience and observation that Brian is the consummate professional. Members and staff on both sides of the aisle know Brian to be committed to an orderly and accurate legislative process observed in a fair, nonpartisan manner. In this age of increasing polarization and legislative gridlock, Brian is a committed institutionalist. He is the rare individual consistently striving to continue the customs and traditions of the House, and committed to pass on his institutional knowledge to his successors. The House and the Congress will greatly miss Brian's services, but we will greatly benefit from his work and legacy.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 695, the Child Protection Improvements Act, and tip my hat to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the author of the bill, who we will hear from shortly. We have a special responsibility to protect our young people and vulnerable adults. For that reason, I am pleased that we are considering this measure which would provide a robust, easily accessible, cost-effective background check system for organizations that work with youth and vulnerable adults. I support it for a number of reasons. To begin with, it will facilitate more comprehensive criminal background checks which provide a critical layer of protection. These checks help identify individuals who could potentially harm participants in programs for children, young people, and vulnerable adults as well. Background checks also serve to ensure the integrity and accountability of the organizations that sponsor these programs by reducing potential threats. Results from background checks that search criminal histories nationwide are more reliable than background checks that only search criminal histories in a few States. I think that is obvious. Secondly, the State background checks are no substitute whatsoever for the FBI's fingerprint-based system, which is the only nationwide database that allows a search of criminal histories in every single State. Currently, this database can only be accessed through the State law enforcement agencies, and many States limit the ability of organizations to access the system, with some States completely even forbidding access--no access whatsoever. As a result, organizations must navigate a labyrinth of State laws or rely on private companies to perform background checks of employees and volunteers. H.R. 695, on the other hand, would provide organizations with the ability to access the FBI's superior system without impacting the autonomy of States or the organizations. States would be able to continue or establish their own background check systems, and organizations would not be required to perform FBI background checks of potential applicants or volunteers. Finally, the need for this legislation is clearly justified by the Child Safety Pilot Program, which we implemented over a decade ago. This program documented the effectiveness of nationwide background checks for youth-serving organizations. Based on a comprehensive review of thousands of criminal history records spanning an 8-year period, the program demonstrated that people who might pose a risk to the safety of children, nevertheless, attempted to work with children. For example, the program identified applicants who, to avoid detection, used aliases, incorrect dates of birth, or wrong Social Security numbers. Some of these applicants had serious criminal histories, including even homicides, sexual assaults, child endangerment, and even rape. More than a third of criminal history hits were from out-of-state, and more than half of the people with criminal history hits failed to disclose them on their application. H.R. 695 would give organizations access to the FBI's comprehensive background check system and thereby help ensure the safety of our youth and others. Accordingly, I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this important measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly in opposition to H.R. 1862, and I regret this opposition because it would add a new offense--well, new offenses--to the current provision in the criminal code providing for mandatory life imprisonment for certain repeat sex offenders. Now, under section 3559(e) of title 18 of the U.S. Code, a defendant who has been previously convicted of a Federal felony or State sex offense committed against a child, and who is guilty of a predicate Federal sex offense against a child, must be sentenced to life in prison. H.R. 1862 amends section 3559 to add more Federal predicate offenses on which to base imposition of a life sentence; namely, sexual contact with a minor under the age of 12, aggravated sexual contact with minors between the ages of 12 and 15, and illicit sexual conduct with a minor abroad by a U.S. citizen. The bill would also provide the requirement that a Federal predicate offense relating to coercion or enticement of a minor be related to prostitution. Instead, H.R. 1862 would allow coercion or enticement of a minor into any criminal sexual activity to serve as a basis for imposition of a mandatory life sentence. Repeat offenders should, of course, be subject to increased penalties, and, for some offenses, life imprisonment is appropriate. Yet Congress should not mandate that life imprisonment be the only sentencing option. For far too long, the Federal criminal justice system has relied on an unsustainable system of mass incarceration that is largely driven by inflexible mandatory minimum sentencing. Mandatory minimums are not necessary to impose appropriate sentences. The judge at sentencing has all the information he or she needs to impose a sentence commensurate with the crime committed and the culpability of the offender. Arrived at this way, sentences may still be quite lengthy--perhaps, in some cases, life in prison--but these penalties must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to join with me and others in opposing this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a distinguished former member of the Judiciary Committee.