John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we have no speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mrs. Teresa Holder-Hagood and the students of Redford Senior High School in my home district of Detroit, MI. On Tuesday, April 25th, 2000, I was honored to visit with them to discuss various issues the students deemed important. The memorable opportunity was prompted by a visit from Mrs. Holder- Hagoods' government class to my Detroit office in September of last year. The students were quite inquisitive, following up their visit with over 40 written requests to join them and address an even larger assembly. After personally responding to each inquiry, I arranged to meet with several classes of Redford students on Tuesday, April 25th, 2000; we were joined by my former staffer Ms. Susan Watson, a ``locked- out'' Detroit newspaper columnist, now with the Detroit Federation of Teachers. Our visit proved to be a very stimulating session, capturing the essential character of the Detroit secondary-school community. After I was introduced by Ms. Cheri Luster, a sophomore in the school's college-prep curriculum, I found myself fielding questions covering a wide array of topics ranging from racial profiling and mandatory minimums to voting and education reform. While the student's inquiries were incisive, I could not help but be struck by their outstanding scholastic accomplishments, including, but not limited to, two Grand Winners in Math and Science at the Metro-Detroit Annual Engineering Fair and Leading Contender at the National Competition on Robotics-- 2000. At a time in our nation's history when an understanding of information and technological innovation is critical, these successes deserve acclaim. Morever, Redford Senior High School is currently celebrating its 80th Anniversary; what more wonderful way to mark the occasion than to tout these victories in national scholastic competitions. In the early 1900's, the very first teacher at Redford, Mr. Hiram Wilmarth, started out in a small white-frame school teaching only eight students. Today, Mrs. Holder-Hagood and her Redford colleagues, under the guidance of Principal Dr. Walter McLean, exemplify that same kind of solid commitment to student achievement. As senior teacher in the Social Studies Department and school ``Special Events Chairperson'', Mrs. Holder-Hagood, who has taught at Redford since 1969, utilizes the kind of educational tools which enrich her student's understanding of real world institutions in real time, through interactive experience. This approach to education is epitomized by the ``Close-Up'' educational program here in Washington, D.C., which arranges ``close- up'' meetings with Capital Hill legislators. Several Detroit area schools, including Redford, have visited my Washington office through this wonderful program, and its benefits have been quite rewarding for all participants. From its humble beginnings in 1907 of just under 10 registrants, Redford High School's enrollment has mushroomed to approximately 2,500 students from many backgrounds and cultures, and on Thursday, June 22, 2000, Redford High School expects to graduate over 250 seniors. While there is still much reform needed in our nation's urban learning centers, stories of triumph, like those being authorized by Mrs. Teresa Holder-Hagood and the students, teachers, administrators and parents of Redford High, remind us of what true heroism really is and encourage us all. And so, on behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives, I want to wish Redford Senior High School of Detroit a Happy 80th Anniversary and every success in the coming years.

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), a distinguished colleague of mine and the ranking member of another committee. (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking everyone that has worked on this measure. This is a very positive ending to what was originally a very rancorous matter in our committee because H.R. 4489 would eliminate the entry-exit data collection system required by section 110 of the immigration law for the U.S. and Canadian and Mexican borders. I have long opposed the section 110 entry and exit system because of the adverse impact it would have on the people and businesses of Michigan and other border States. Implementation of this section at land ports of entry would cause massive traffic congestions along our borders, bringing personal and business travel at many border points to stands still. This would have a crippling effect on trades and tourism. For example, at the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, more than 30,000 crossings per day take place. As little as a fraction of a minute added to the processing time of each of these vehicles would result in miles and miles of snarled traffic on both sides of the border. Tourists would be less likely to visit our border towns, and businesses, particularly those dependent on just-in-time delivery, would suffer. These prices are far too high to pay for a data collection system that, sadly, is unlikely to achieve its primary objective, dealing more effectively with persons who come to this country as visitors and overstay their visas. Under section 110, the INS would know who these individuals are but they would not know where they are. The information would probably have very little enforcement value. By contrast, H.R. 4489 would replace the entry-exit data collection system with a system for making use of the vast quantity of information we already gather on individuals entering and exiting this country. The information would be entered into a database that would allow U.S. immigration officials and consular officers based overseas to access it. More importantly, it would not lead to new border delays. Canada and the United States benefit from an outstanding relationship between citizens and businesses. Last year, more than 13.4 million Canadians came to the United States to do business, shop, visit our restaurants and tourist sites. In my home State of Michigan alone, more than 1.2 million Canadians visited for one night or more and added $216 million to the State's economy. H.R. 4489 will obviously help protect that flow of business and tourism. So my thanks, Mr. Speaker, to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), and our friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), and our ranking member on the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). Their leadership on this bipartisan legislation was important, and I too would urge a ``yes'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I am going to return our time. We have no further speakers. I want to thank the Judiciary staffers Perry Apelbaum, Noland Rappa- port, and Leon Buck for the long, hard work they have put in in negotiating with other Members and staffers to reach what I think is a very useful accord. I think that this will hold our committee in good stead. We have come to a very good ending on this matter, and so I am very happy to have played a small role in it.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, The Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 1999, was introduced by Representative Vento. It provides long overdue assistance for the naturalization requirements of U.S. citizenship to a valiant group of people who fought for our country many years ago. Between 130,000 and 150,000 Laotian Hmong have entered the United States as refugees since 1975. Many have found it difficult to naturalize because of cultural obstacles to learning how to read English. This is due in part to the fact that the culture of the Hmong did not include a written form of their language until recent decades. H.R. 371 would exempt the Hmong naturalization applicants from the English language requirements if they have served with special guerrilla units or irregular forces operating from bases in Laos in support of the United States during the Vietnam War (or were spouses or widows of such persons on the day on which such persons applied for admission as refugees). This legislation passed the House by voice vote on May 2 and I have no problem with the Senate amendments concerning the certification requirement which were technical in nature.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000. This bill would eliminate the present provisions of section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which requires the establishment of a new entry-exit data collection system at land, sea, and air borders to our country. The bill replaces the requirement for the implementation of a new data collection system with the implementation of an ``integrated entry and exit data system'' using currently available data. I welcome this important change in the provisions of section 110. This is an issue of great concern to the people and businesses of Michigan and other border states. Studies have revealed that carrying out the mandate of section 110 to create a new entry-exit data collection system would cause massive traffic congestion along our borders, bringing personal and business travel at many border points to a halt. This would have a crippling effect on trade and tourism. I also would like to note for the record my understanding of a technical issue. The bill includes an implementation deadline for high- traffic land border ports of entry. With regard to land border crossings, I have been assured that the implementation provision in the deadline only refers to the ``Arrival-Departure Records'' (Form I-94) that already are issued to some foreign nationals when they enter the United States and that the deadline provision does not in any way impose a requirement on the Attorney General to develop a new system for collecting exit data at land borders. The Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000 is a far preferable alternative to the onerous data collection requirements of the existing version of section 110 of IIRIRA. I look forward to working with Representative Lamar Smith in seeing that this important change is passed into law this Congress.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with Chairman Hyde, Administrative and Commercial Law Subcommittee Chairman Gekas and Ranking Member Nadler in introducing the ``Internet Tax Simplification Act of 2000.'' We are introducing this legislation at the request of a group of Advisory Commission on Commerce Members led by Utah Governor Micahel Leavitt. Several weeks ago we introduced H.R. 4267 at the request of a group of Advisory Commissioners led by Virginia Governor James Gilmore. This bill would amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to extend by five years the moratorium on State and local taxes on Internet access and extend for two years the moratorium on multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. It encourages the States to work cooperatively with the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to develop a simplified and uniform sales and use tax. The legislation also authorizes an interstate sales and use tax compact providing for a uniform sales and use tax system, authorizes the States to simplify their use tax rates, and authorizes those States which enter into the compact to collect use taxes on remote sales. Finally, the bill encourages States to work cooperatively with the telecommunications industry and other relevant groups to reduce the complexity of complying with State and local telecommunications taxes. We will be holding hearings on this bill and H.R. 4460 tomorrow, and it is my hope and expectation that we can quickly move to markup and legislative action. There are few economic issues before our committee which are more important than simplifying the sales tax and failure to act on this issue will harm all interested parties--retailers (both electronic and otherwise), State and local governments and consumers. The problems with the present system are several fold. First, the complexity of the system is daunting. There are presently over 6,500 taxing jurisdictions in the United States, when all State, county and municipal authorities are included. Needless to say, any retailer with a physical nexus to a State (and therefore subject to state tax jurisdiction under the 1992 Quill decision) is subject to a myriad of confusing and complex State and Local taxes. Second, the current disparate tax treatment as between traditional ``bricks and mortar'' retailers (which are subject to state tax) and remote sellers (which are not) has the potential to cause continuing economic distortion. As the New York Times editorial board has written, ``[a]n elementary principle of taxation says that taxes should distort purchasing decisions as little as possible. It is not the role of a tax code to determine whether customers shop in stores, online, or by mail order. With regard to the impact on State and local governments, maintenance of the current system carries with it the potential for significant financial loss. Sales taxes constitute the most important State and local revenue source, far greater than income and property taxes, with the Census Bureau estimating the 47.9% of State and local revenues come from sales taxes. With projections of online sales estimated to exceed $300 billion annually by 2002, State and local governments could lose as much as $20 billion in uncollected sales taxes under the present system. Finally, the present system could significantly harm individual consumers. This could obviously be the case if individuals faced increasing income and property taxes or declining services as a result of the loss of sales taxes from remote sales. A separate concern is the adverse impact of the present bifurcated system on poor and minorities. According to a recent 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 greater sales tax burden than their counterparts. Maintaining the present system will only serve to perpetuate that disparity. Time is of the essence, and I look forward to the Judiciary Committee and the full House taking up this important issue.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this measure, the Internet Nondiscrimination Act, is not really what it seems, because it merely addresses the most trivial of the Internet tax issues, the extension of the tax moratorium, and kicks the can down the road, so to speak, on the real issues, State simplification and the defining of what activity creates the necessary nexus for sales tax under the Supreme Court decision in Quill rendered in 1992. By extending the current moratorium for 6 years, more than two presidential elections from today, there is far less of an incentive for the States and Congress to deal with these far more important simplification issues. Indeed, there is a real risk that by 2006, many interests will become so dependent on the current system that it will become impossible to ever revisit the issue of State tax simplification. There can be no doubt that the present State system, which this legislation totally ignores, is a serious problem. First, the complexity of the system is daunting. There are over 6,500 taxing jurisdictions in this country. The jurisdictions generally require separate collection, have developed overlapping definitions of goods and services subject to tax, specifying different sets of exemptions and audit systems. Any retailer with a physical nexus to a State is subject to a myriad of confusing and complex State and local taxes. The second point that needs to be made is that the legal uncertainty of the present system can be quite harmful, even for remote sellers because of the many questions left unresolved in the Quill decision. For example, would the mere presence of a computer server in a particular State constitute a substantial physical presence for State tax purposes? I do not know. How are purely electronic sales of books, movies, and sound recordings to be treated? We are not sure. Would the existence of a kiosk to place sales ordered through the Internet or a physical return facility constitute the type of physical nexus needed to establish sales tax collection authority? Who knows? All of these issues can and should be addressed as a part of a comprehensive tax simplification effort, yet this will be far less likely to occur if we extend the present system to 2006. I would also note that the process by which the bill has been considered is neither serious nor credible. There have been no Committee on the Judiciary hearings to obtain input from the interested or affected parties. Instead, our markup was scheduled on one day's notice, the bear minimum required under the House and committee rules. This bill has been rushed to the floor waiving House rules specifying a 3-day layover requirement and against unfunded intergovernmental mandates. So in my view, the entire process appears to have been more the result of partisan political considerations than sound policy, because why else would the Majority Leader announce the legislation is slated for floor consideration before the committee had heard from a single witness, or even scheduled a subcommittee full markup? The majority appears to be using this legislation in a desperate effort to create the appearance of a serious high-tech agenda, even while they postpone and defer considerations of the larger issues. It is ironic that the majority could claim to be a champion of the tax-free Internet at the same time that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means is proposing a new 30 percent Federal tax on sales transactions, including all electronic sales consummated over the Internet. Later today, I will plan to support the Delahunt-Thune amendment, which extends the moratorium until the year 2003. Now, this approach will keep pressure on the Congress to deal with the more pressing problems of E-commerce and ensure that taxing authorities are not creating too many unwise toll booths on the Internet highway. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this is a motion to recommit, which is a very simple solution to the Delahunt amendment, which was nearly accepted by eight votes a few minutes ago. My motion would extend the present moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple discriminatory taxes for 2 years, from 2001 to 2003, but would eliminate the grandfathering of State access taxes, unlike that which was in the Delahunt amendment, which just recently failed. By taking the grandfathering out, my colleagues, I suggest that we have an excellent conclusion to a very difficult problem; namely, to continue to work on this not for 6 or 7 years, but for only 2 years, and to eliminate the grandfathering of the State access taxes that were included in the Delahunt amendment, which many of us supported. I urge that we support this motion to recommit, because I think it will marry the best of both of these provisions.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, members of the committee, I am, first of all, saddened that the Chabot amendment was attached to the Delahunt provision. If only it could have been a more fair parliamentary universe, we would all be better off in trying to make these decisions. But having said that, I have no other alternative but to oppose a permanent extension of a moratorium on Internet access and discriminatory taxes. Because if we pass a moratorium now, I guarantee my colleagues that we will never return to the important issue of tax simplification. We just will not come back, this is it. To try to nail this on to the Delahunt amendment that narrows to 2 years this extension I think is very, very unwise. The problems with the present system are fairly well-known by now. The complexity is daunting. Six-and-a-half thousand taxing jurisdictions in the United States, and we want to provide for a permanent extension of the moratorium without so much as a hearing, without anyone ever having examined what it is that we would be doing were we to accept such a provision? Needless to say, any retailer with a physical nexus to his State is subject to a myriad of confusing and complex State and local taxes. Next, the current disparate tax treatment as between brick-and-mortar and remote sellers has the potential to cause continuing economic distortion. In the New York Times, it has been written, an elementary principle of taxation says that taxes should distort purchasing decisions as little as possible and it is not the role of the Tax Code to determine whether a customer shops in stores, on-line, or by mail order. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the subcommittee, has made that point repeatedly. This is not the job of Tax Codes to determine where customers shop. Now, with regard to the impact on State and local governments, maintenance of the current system carries with it the potential for significant financial loss. Sales taxes in State after State is the most important revenue source, far greater than income or property taxes. And so, what are we doing here with projections of on-line sales estimated to exceed $300 billion in only a couple years from now, State and local governments could lose as much as $20 billion in uncollected sales tax. So, my colleagues, please let us vote no on the Chabot amendment, as well-intended as it may be, and continue our support for the Delahunt provision.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the subcommittee. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following editorial from the Washington Post dated today, May 10, 2000: A Demagogic Bill The House is scheduled to vote today on a five-year extension of the current ``moratorium'' on Internet taxation. The extension is deceptive legislation that in the short run doesn't do what most people think and that in the long run could do real harm. The measure does not ban state sales taxes on e-commerce--transactions over the Internet. But it sounds as if it does, which suits the sponsors just fine. They pose as champions not just of a tax haven but of a technology in which America leads the world (and of an industry that has become a major source of campaign donations). Not to worry that the electronic commerce they embrace poses a serious threat to the sales tax base of the states whose interests they also profess to champion. That is another day's problem. Not all members were prepared to join in the grandstanding. ``When it's convenient, we all give lip service to the 10th Amendment, pledging allegiance to local and state government rather than federal control,'' Rep. Ernest Istook said in a letter addressed mainly to his fellow Republicans. ``Yet this week there is a rush to trample that 10th Amendment, hoping to buy favor with a select few groups.'' ``Who will educate the Internet entrepreneurs of tomorrow, if the state and local tax base is destroyed,'' he asked. ``The Internet should not be singled out to be taxed, nor to be freed from tax.'' What the bill actually imposes is a moratorium not on electronic sales taxes but on taxation of access to the Internet, the monthly changes from AOL and similar providers. States remain free to levy taxes on Internet sales. Their problem is that they often can't collect them. The Supreme Court has ruled that they can't require out-of-state sellers to do the collecting for them in the same way they do in- state merchants. The threat, as more and more commerce shifts to the Internet, is not just that the states will lose revenue but that traditional merchants will be placed at a competitive disadvantage. The disadvantage could have the effect of accelerating the shift to the Internet, in which case the process will feed on itself. The answer is for the states to make their tax codes more uniform--not the rates, but the definitions: what constitutes food, for example, which is often exempt. Then Congress should authorize an interstate compact, under which sales taxes on e-commerce could easily be collected and remitted by computer. The National Governors Association is working toward such a result, which the Supreme Court would likely countenance. Instead of a show vote such as this, implying that it opposes such an outcome, the House should cast a vote in favor of it. The harm in this legislation is not what it actually does but in the commitment it implies--that the Internet will be tax free. Mr. Istook asked the relevant question. If his colleagues persist in undercutting the sales tax, are they ``ready to replace it with some form of federal revenue sharing for states and communities?'' No is the answer. No should be the answer to this demagogic bill as well. Mr. Chairman, I also include the following letters for the Record: April 12, 2000. Hon. Trent Lott, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Hon. Thomas A. Daschle, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington,

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), a real States' Righter.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. No one has worked harder on this than him.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side, please?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who is the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS

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.