John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, we had a preconference before we had a bill and before there was a conference; and now we are not going to have a conference.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to begin by pointing out that this is perhaps one of the most important measures that we will determine from the Committee on the Judiciary's point of view, because it is antiterrorist legislation that expands the law in many directions; and from our point of view, we have been trying to put safeguards around these expansions. We have dropped the two worst provisions from the administration proposal, the illegal use of foreign evidence and the pretrial restraint provision. I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), my chairman, who has worked night and day on this matter; and I think that in the overall, we have had good cooperation. The measure before us corrects unconstitutional immigration provisions. We have corrected the immigration provision that allows indefinite detention without evidence. We have modified or narrowed any number of other controversial provisions, more than a couple dozen. We have added a 4-year sunset provision for most of the surveillance operations. We have added a new Inspector General for Civil Liberties and Civil Rights inside the Department of Justice. We have new Federal tort relief for improper government release of wiretap information. We have added new resources to ease the delays in patrolling and protecting the northern border, and we have immigration relief for persons being sponsored by the victims of those in the September 11 attack. Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record at this point a section- by-section analysis of the bill. Section-by-Section Analysis

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), who is on both committees, and I understand the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) will yield the balance of his time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes and 40 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, what is the time remaining for all sides?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, no one has appreciated the attempts at fairness more than the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The members of the Committee on the Judiciary had a free and open debate; and we came to a bill that even though imperfect, was unanimously agreed on. That was removed from us, and we are now debating at this hour of night, with only two copies of the bill that we are being asked to vote on available to Members on this side of the aisle. I am hoping on the other side of the aisle they at least have two copies. Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong with that process. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) first put his finger on it in the debate in which 79 Members were not able to go along with the bill, is that a legislative body that does not debate is being railroaded whether they know it or not, whether they want to accede to it or not. Although I like the money laundering provisions in the bill, I detest the work product that bears the name of my committee on it that has now been joined with this bill. For those reasons as we close this debate, my inclination is not to support the bill. I hate to say that to Members because a number have asked me what I was going to do, and I have said up to now I was not sure. Mr. Speaker, why should I put my name down in history for all time that I went for this ridiculous procedure which has been outlined? I do not feel inclined to support it tonight or tomorrow morning either.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1552, ``The Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act'' which extends the present moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes for two years, from 2001 through 2003. Maintaining the current system allows the potential for significant financial loss for states and localities. Sales taxes constitute the most important State and local revenue source, with the census bureau estimating that nearly one half of State and local revenues come from sales taxes. Projections of increasing online sales indicate huge revenue losses for states and local government. For example, my own state of Michigan is estimated to lose $500 million in foregone sales taxes this year under the present system. This inevitably translates into the loss of important funding for quality education, effective public safety, and other basic services. In Michigan the lost revenue from foregone sales taxes will cost my state the equivalent of 100,000 teachers or police officers this year. Think of how much we could do to reduce class sizes, build new schools, improve our quality of education and protect our streets with these funds. A separate concern is the adverse impact of the present bifurcated system on poor citizens and minorities. According to a Commerce Department study, wealthy individuals are 20 times more likely to have Internet access, and Hispanics and African Americans are far less likely to have such access. This means that poor and minorities who only buy locally face a far greater sales tax burden than their counterparts. Maintaining the present system will only serve to perpetuate that disparity. Steps are being taken to simplify the sales tax system, such as streamlining the rules and regulations of the 7,500 taxing jurisdictions in the U.S. Thus far, this streamlined tax system has 32 states participating in the effort to simplify tax rates and definition of taxable goods and certifying software that will make it easier for retailers and e-tailers. Nineteen states have enacted simplification legislation and another ten have introduced legislation for consideration. A two-year extension is a far more appropriate solution than a longer moratorium. There is a real risk that extending the moratorium for longer than two years would unduly delay this issue and create a situation where the states have no incentive to reform their laws. This would have the effect of codifying into law the present state tax system which would force states, who rely on sales tax revenue, to either raise other taxes or cut basic services. A shorter extension would allow the States to continue the very serious steps they have already taken to reform and simplify their laws. Then we could consider whether we should approve any interstate process effectuating these simplification efforts. If the States are not making any progress by the end of such a moratorium, it would be a simple matter to extend the moratorium for an additional period of time. A long extended moratorium is opposed by the National Governors Association--which sent a letter signed by 44 Governors, including 22 Republican Governors, by organized labor (through the AFL-CIO, NEA, AFT, and AFSCME) and by business (through the National Retail Federation, Wal-Mart, Sears, Home Depot, and K-Mart). A two-year extension will give Congress the opportunity to work together on a bipartisan basis to solve the larger simplification problems facing us. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, over the last several Congresses, we've debated the get-tough approach versus the prevention and treatment approach to addressing juvenile crime. This measure reflects the advice of the researchers and expert practitioners who are unanimous on the point that more resources are needed for appropriate individually tailored responses to juvenile crime. The measure before us is not a one-size-fits-all approach but a substantive bipartisan approach that actually will reduce crime and delinquency where it occurs, and that's why we all support it. However, my view is that juvenile justice is also about gun safety. I understand clearly that the sponsors of the bill have valid concerns that introducing the issue of gun violence into the debate would foster differences of view and jeopardize good legislation. They are correct that the Republican leadership bottled up this bill in a conference committee last year largely in an effort, I am told, to avoid addressing gun violence. But I believe that preventing juvenile crime is about thwarting easy access to guns, just as much as it is about prevention programs and services for at-risk youth. Ten children a day are killed by gun violence. The shooters at Columbine High School were provided a gun largely because of the lack of any background check by licensed sellers at gun shows. We continue to witness unspeakable horrors every week as children open fire on their classmates. You all read and see them weekly. The Nation stands ready to require a child safety lock on every gun. I think most Members of Congress are ready as well. But the Congress ignores the cries of the children and their parents. I know that the National Rifle Association's publicity machines have been spinning in high gear since the election to perpetuate the myth that gun safety is a losing political issue. The facts are, of course, that the NRA targeted countless House and Senate seats and lost nearly every single one. So gather your courage, my colleagues. Bit by bit, the tide is turning. Governor Pataki of New York has proposed far more ambitious gun safety measures that those that were bottled up by the Republican leadership this year. Senators McCain and Lieberman are attempting to find common ground on this issue as we speak. But regardless of the politics, I and others feel that we cannot back down on this issue because it is the logical and correct position to take, and if we really do not want to leave any child behind, we cannot allow so many children to be killed in senseless and preventable acts of gun violence. Too many families have lived through this unthinkable experience of burying their own children for us not to act. I would like to continue to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) on other solutions to juvenile crime such as the moderate measures passed by the Senate in the last Congress, the gun show background checks, child safety locks, a ban on the importation of large-capacity ammunition clips and a juvenile Brady. Let's all stay tuned for further complimentary support to this excellent measure before us.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I would say to my colleague that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, that we are going to report out a bill here today that will be the same as what the Senate did last night. That is not going to happen. So I will be anxiously waiting to see what our leadership does in terms of making sure we have a conference. That is the purpose of this dialogue.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, my appeal at this point is for us to consider whether we want to adopt the rule. Let us set aside the question of the underlying bill and all the problems it generates. What about the rule? No amendments, one substitute. Is that the way we really want to pass on the most comprehensive, sweeping law enforcement extending legislation coming out of the Committee on the Judiciary for years and years? I think not. For those reasons, I would ask that we consider sending it back to the distinguished committee from which it came. Why? Well, there is no money laundering discussion. There is no provision for money laundering in the bill that is in the House. What are we to do? Are you going to ask us to do this in conference, or should we not have some approach toward this very serious international question that the administration itself has spent a great amount of time dealing with and pointing out its relationship to terrorism, to drug running and illegal financing of activities around the world, and especially in this country? So I ask Members to consider this. Now we have the sunset provision. Well, we have got a modified sunset provision. We need not go beyond 2 years. Let us just talk about this plain out. We need to examine that. That is what the Committee on the Judiciary bill, with equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, voted out only 3 days ago.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. We have three matters up this morning. One is the so-called marshal law rule that would bring the bill to the floor right away; the second is the rule itself; and then there is the bill. Now, the previous speaker, the gentleman from Florida, tells us we have got to move really fast because there is a national emergency that requires us to get this bill into law before we have even seen it or read it. But the fact of the matter is that there are going to be two different bills that will come before the House, and we are going to conference. So there is not any emergency whatsoever. We will not have a conference until next week, and we do not know how long that is going to go. I am not even sure which provisions are going to be conferenced, because the Senate just passed their bill late last night; and the bill that the House should have been considering, passed unanimously by the Committee on the Judiciary, something that has not happened before in my career on the committee, has been sidelined, and we are piecing together another bill. So I am making an appeal to my Republican friends in the House to join me on at least a couple of occasions here today. First of all, let us reject the martial law that will allow this bill to throw procedure into the waste basket and bring the rule and the bill up right away. It has been said by the leadership that we will be out of here by 2 o'clock this afternoon. It is now 11:27 a.m. Will somebody explain to me what is going to be the difference if we take this bill up after the 435 Members have had a chance to read some nearly 200 pages of it? I will yield to anybody on that if they would like to explain that. There is no reason. It feeds this emergency nonsense that keeps coming from the White House and the Department of Justice, that we have got to do this right away or the poor Attorney General's hands are tied, he really cannot do anything. Well, we passed an anti-terrorist law in 1996 that gives him some of that, which has more power in it than the one we are going to consider here today or next week. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the rule that would expedite bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me time. I see the gentleman raises a question. I would like to assure the gentleman that we have a Department of Justice that makes sure it knows who is in this country and who is not. It is called the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and it has thousands and thousands of people at both borders working the airports. We do not need this bill to find that out. So if that is why the gentleman thinks we have to rush this through, I would like him to rest more comfortably over the weekend.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, no one has worked with more energy and thoughtfulness than the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) to whom I yield 2 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin our discussion by yielding 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, one of the most thoughtful members of our committee and of the Congress is the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) to whom I yield 2 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), whom I am inviting to speak out of order for a special reason.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who is a very effective member of the Committee on the Judiciary and who played a big role in our original work product.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very vital, thoughtful gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims on the Committee on the Judiciary. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to our esteemed colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). When tragedy struck September 11, Mr. Speaker, it was in his district. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)