John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall votes Nos. 428-432, I am not recorded because I was absent from the House of Representatives due to a family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: On rollcall No. 428, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 429, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 430, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall No. 431, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall No. 432, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today marks what would have been the 96th birthday of Nelson Mandela, one of the great liberators in human history and an enduring international symbol of peace, integrity, humility, resilience, and courage. While we lost Madiba in December, his ethos of nonviolence and his unyielding quest for justice continue to guide and inspire people throughout the world. After 27 years imprisoned on Robben Island and decades of devoted campaigning to overturn hateful racist policies, Nelson Mandela succeeded not only in unravelling apartheid but also in shepherding his nation through an extraordinary peaceful democratic transition. The people of South Africa--and people of all races, ethnicities, and nationalities around the world--are forever grateful. More than two decades ago, just months after his release from prison, I had the honor of first meeting Mandela when he visited Detroit to organize for his ascendant political movement in South Africa and speak with the great American civil rights hero Rosa Parks. I was astounded not only by Mandela's insight but also by his kindness and humility. Just four years later, I was delighted to travel to South Africa to attend his inauguration as President of South Africa. Today, his birthday, is recognized globally as ``Nelson Mandela Day,'' an occasion established by the Mandela Foundation in 2009 to commemorate his life and to underscore the notion that a single person can--through commitment and character--yield extraordinary positive change. Today, in my hometown of Detroit, Michigan, thanks to the work of the Friends of Detroit City Airport Community Development Corporation and Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, a portion of Atwater Street from Civic Center Drive to Bates Street will be renamed ``Nelson Mandela Drive.'' A commemorative ceremony will highlight the extraordinary achievements of Mandela and ways that community members can continue to fulfill his revolutionary vision of justice and nonviolence.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for his generosity. Mr. Speaker, I, like my colleague from New York (Mr. Nadler), rise in support of this bipartisan legislation for several reasons. To begin with, section 119 of the Copyright Act expires on December 31. It is particularly important for unserved households, namely, customers who can't receive an over-the-air-signal of a local network. Thus, if Congress fails to act, millions of Americans stand to lose access to their broadcast television service. H.R. 4572 responds to this problem, in pertinent part, by extending for 5 years the section 119 license authorization, thereby ensuring continued service to millions of Americans. The other reason that I support this bill is that it is a good example of how Congress can work on a bipartisan basis and produce legislation offering effective solutions. There are many issues regarding the relationship between broadcast television stations and distributors that would benefit from similar efforts by stakeholders working together to see if consensus can be obtained. In particular, I have long argued that content creators should be compensated appropriately for their works. Negotiations in the free market can often best ensure that artists and content creators are fairly compensated. In some cases, we have seen consumers pulled into the middle of such negotiations. No one wants this to happen. It is not good for consumers, nor is it good for the parties involved. Finally, this legislation comports with two important guiding principles: consumers should be protected, and competition should be safeguarded. All of us consumers benefit from increased competition because it typically facilitates lower prices, while also generating more innovation, variety, and options. Consumers want the flexibility to watch programming on their choice of television sets, phones, and tablets, no matter where they are. We should also recognize that many consumers very much value local news and sports programming and the need for local channels to deliver community service and emergency information. Thus, we should continue to consider ways to increase programming options for subscribers to cable or satellite television.

Mr. CONYERS. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, when a municipality files for bankruptcy, its employees and retirees who have devoted their lives to public service--such as police officers, firefighters, sanitation workers and office personnel--risk having their hard-earned wages, pensions and health benefits cut or even eliminated. This is why I am introducing the ``Protecting Employees and Retirees in Municipal Bankruptcies Act of 2014.'' This legislation strengthens protections for employees and retirees under chapter 9 municipality bankruptcy cases by: (1) clarifying the criteria that a municipality must meet before it can obtain chapter 9 bankruptcy relief; (2) ensuring that the interests of employees and retirees are represented in the chapter 9 case; and (3) imposing heightened standards that a municipality must meet before it may modify any collective bargaining agreement or retiree benefit. While many municipalities often work to limit the impact of budget cuts on their employees and retirees, as was recently demonstrated in the chapter 9 plan of adjustment recently approved by Detroit's public employees and retirees, other municipalities could try to use current bankruptcy law to set aside collective bargaining agreements and retiree protections. My legislation addresses this risk by requiring the municipality to engage in meaningful good faith negotiations with their employees and retirees before the municipality can apply for chapter 9 bankruptcy relief. This measure would also expedite the appellate review process of whether a municipality has complied with this and other requirements. And, the bill ensures employees and retirees have a say in any plan that would modify their benefits. Section-by-Section Explanation Sec. I. Short Title. Section 1 of the bill sets forth the short title of the bill as the ``Protecting Employees and Retirees in Municipal Bankruptcies Act of 2014.'' Sec. 2. Determination of Municipality Eligibility To Be a Debtor Under Chapter 9 of Title II of the United States Code. A municipality can petition to be a debtor under chapter 9, a specialized form of bankruptcy relief, only if a bankruptcy court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the municipality satisfies certain criteria specified in Bankruptcy Code section 109. In the absence of obtaining the consent of a majority of its creditors, section 109 requires the municipality, in pertinent part, to have negotiated in good faith with its creditors or prove that it is unable to negotiate with its creditors because such negotiation is impracticable. Section 2(a) of the bill amends Bankruptcy Code section 109 in three respects. First, it provides clear guidance to the bankruptcy court that the term ``good faith'' is intended to have the same meaning as it has under the National Labor Relations Act at least with respect to creditors who are employees or retirees of the debtor. Second, section 2(a) revises the standard for futility of negotiation from ``impracticable'' to ``impossible.'' This change ensures that before a municipality may avail itself of chapter 9 bankruptcy relief it must prove that there was no possible way it could have engaged in negotiation in lieu of seeking such relief. Third, the amendment clarifies that the standard of proof that the municipality must meet is ``clear and convincing'' rather than a preponderance of the evidence. These revisions to section 109 will provide greater guidance to the bankruptcy court in assessing whether a municipality has satisfied the Bankruptcy Code's eligibility requirements for being granted relief under chapter 9. Bankruptcy Code section 921(e), in relevant part, prohibits a bankruptcy court from ordering a stay of any proceeding arising in a chapter 9 case on account of an appeal from an order granting a municipality's petition to be a debtor under chapter 9. Section 2(b) strikes this prohibition thereby allowing a court to issue a stay of any proceeding during the pendency of such an appeal. This ensures that the status quo can be maintained until there is a final appellate determination of whether a municipality is legally eligible to be a chapter 9 debtor. Typically, an appeal of a bankruptcy court decision is heard by a district or bankruptcy appellate panel court. Under limited circumstances, however, a direct appeal from a bankruptcy court decision may be heard by a court of appeals. Until a final determination is made as to whether a municipality is eligible to be a debtor under chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, the rights and responsibilities of numerous stakeholders are unclear. To expedite the appellate process and promote greater certainty to all stakeholders in the case, section 2(c) of the bill allows an appeal of a bankruptcy court order granting a municipality's petition to be a chapter 9 debtor to be filed directly with the court of appeals. In addition, section 2(c) requires the court of appeals to hear such appeal de novo on the merits as well as to determine it on an expedited basis. Finally, section 2(c) specifies that the doctrine of equitable mootness does not apply to such an appeal. Sec. 3. Protecting Employees and Retirees. The chapter 9 debtor must file a plan for the adjustment of the municipality's debts that then must be confirmed by the bankruptcy court if it satisfies certain criteria specified in Bankruptcy Code section 943. Section 3 of the bill makes several amendments to current law intended to ensure that interests of municipal employees and retirees are better protected. With respect to plan confirmation requirements, section 3 amends Bankruptcy Code section 943 to require consent from such employees and retirees to any plan that impairs--in a manner prohibited by nonbankruptcy law--a collective bargaining agreement, a retiree benefit, including an accrued pension, retiree health, or other retirement benefit protected by state or municipal law or as defined in Bankruptcy Code section 1114(a). Such consent would be conveyed to the court by the authorized representative of such individuals. Subject to certain exceptions, section 3 specifies that the authorized representative of individuals receiving any retirement benefits pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement is the labor organization that signed such agreement unless such organization no longer represents active employees. Where the organization no longer represents active employees of the municipality, the labor organization that currently represents active employees in that bargaining unit is the authorized representative of such individuals. Section 3 provides that the exceptions apply if: (1) the labor organization chooses not to serve as the authorized representative; or (2) the court determines, after a motion by a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, that different representation is appropriate. Under either circumstance, the court, upon motion by any party in interest and after notice and a hearing, must order the United States Trustee to appoint a committee of retired employees if the debtor seeks to modify or not pay the retiree benefits or if the court otherwise determines that it is appropriate for that committee be comprised of such individuals to serve as the authorized representative. With respect to retired employees not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, the court, on motion by a party in interest after notice and a hearing, must order the United States Trustee to appoint a committee of retired employees if the debtor seeks to modify or not pay retiree benefits, or if the court otherwise determines that it is appropriate to serve as the authorized representative of such employees. Section 3 provides that the party requesting the appointment of a committee has the burden of proof Where the court grants a motion for the appointment of a retiree committee, section 3 requires the United States Trustee to choose individuals to serve on the committee on a proportional basis per capita based on organization membership from among members of the organizations that represent the individuals with respect to whom such order is entered. This requirement ensures that in a case where there are multiple labor organizations, the committee fairly represents the interests of the members of those various organizations on a proportional basis. Finally, section 3 of the bill imposes a significant threshold that must be met before retiree benefits can be reduced or eliminated. Current law has no such requirement. In a case where the municipality proposes in its plan to impair any right to a retiree benefit, section 3 permits the committee to support such impairment only if at least two- thirds of its members vote in favor of doing so.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, utility companies provide many basic and life-saving services, such as electricity to light our homes, water to drink, and gas to heat our homes. Sometimes, however, individuals, through no fault of their own, struggle to pay for these services often in the face of devastating medical debt, job loss, or economic disruption caused by divorce. While resorting to bankruptcy provides some relief from financial distress, current law permits utility companies to force these debtors to pay security deposits for continued service even if they were current on their bills before filing for bankruptcy or if they promise to be current on their bills after bankruptcy. Utility companies typically insist that debtors pay at least two months or more of their average bills as a deposit--in addition to requiring that they remain current on their utility bills after bankruptcy--in exchange for the utility continuing to supply service. H.R. __, the ``Preventing Termination of Utility Service in Bankruptcy Act of 2014,'' corrects this injustice. It provides that if the debtor remains current on his or her utility bills after filing for bankruptcy relief, the debtor should not have to pay a deposit to the utility to continue service. In Detroit, for example, families across the city have seen their water rates increase by 119 percent over the past decade. During the same period, the Nation generally and Detroit in particular suffered in the aftermath of a global financial crisis that left one-in-five local residences in foreclosure and sent local unemployment rates skyrocketing. Fortunately, we are incrementally recovering from the Great Recession of 2008. For those individuals who must seek bankruptcy relief, however, we should ensure that their ability to pay their utility bills going forward is not hindered by unnecessary demands for deposits if these debtors remain current on their payments to these companies. Terminating a family's access to such life-saving services that keeps the lights on, warms our homes, and ensures that they can bathe, hydrate and prepare meals is simply wrong if these utility bills are being paid on time. This legislation is part of a range of solutions that are needed to address the still pervasive adverse impacts of the Great Recession of 2008. I continue to work with my colleagues in Congress, state and federal officials, and my constituents to defend the right to water and protect public health. I will not tolerate the notion that--in the 21st Century, in the wealthiest nation on earth--families should go without access to affordable public water and sanitation services.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Ladies and gentlemen, the Internet Tax Freedom Act, enacted in 1998, established a temporary moratorium on multiple and discriminatory taxation of the Internet as well as new taxes on Internet access. This moratorium is due to expire on November 1 of this year. Since 1998, Congress has extended the moratorium on three occasions. Unfortunately, however, H.R. 3086, the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, responds to the impending expiration of the moratorium by making it permanent and ending the act's grandfather protections for States that impose such taxes prior to the act's enactment date. The approach taken in H.R. 3086 is problematic for a number of reasons. First, Congress, instead of supporting this seriously flawed legislation, should really be focusing on meaningful ways to help State and local governments, taxpayers, and local retailers. The House can do that by addressing the remote sales tax issue. In addition to extending the expiring moratorium on a temporary basis, the House should take up and send to the Senate legislation such as the Marketplace Fairness Act, which was mentioned earlier today on the floor of the House by the distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch). That bill incentivizes remote sellers to collect and remit sales taxes as well as require States to simplify several procedures that would benefit retailers. Such legislation would enable States and local governments to collect the over $23 billion in estimated uncollected sales tax each year. The measure would also help level the playing field for local retailers--who must collect sales taxes--when they compete with out-of- State businesses that do not collect these taxes. Retail competitors should be able to compete fairly with their Internet counterparts at least with respect to sales tax policy. The House should do its part and adjust the remote sales tax disparity before the end of this Congress. In addition, this legislation will severely impact the immediate revenues for the grandfather-protected States and all States progressively in the long term. The Congressional Budget Office, for example, estimates that this bill will cost certain States ``several hundred million dollars annually'' in lost revenues. Indeed, the Federation of Tax Administrators estimates that the bill will cause the grandfather-protected States to lose at least $500 million in lost revenue annually. These States include Texas, which would lose $350 million a year in revenue; Wisconsin, which would lose about $127 million per year; Ohio, which would lose about $65 million per year; and South Dakota, which would lose about $13 million per year. Further, this bill would become effective during the mid-cycle for the grandfather-protected States. Because these States have to balance their State budgets, they will need to cut spending or raise taxes to balance their budgets. Should this become law, State and local governments will have to choose whether they will cut essential government services--such as educating our children, maintaining needed transportation infrastructure, and providing essential public health and safety services--or shift the tax burden onto other taxpayers through increased property, income, and/or sales taxes. Meanwhile, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the permanent moratorium will deny the non-grandfathered States almost $6.5 billion in potential State and local sales tax revenues each year in perpetuity. H.R. 3086 will burden taxpayers and services while excluding an entire industry from paying their fair share of taxes. Finally, the bill ignores the fundamental nature of the Internet. The original moratorium was intentionally made temporary to ensure that Congress, industry, and State and local governments would be able to monitor the issue and make adjustments where necessary to accommodate new technologies and market realities. The act was intended as a temporary measure to assist and nurture the fledgling Internet that back in 1998 was still in its commercial infancy. Yet this bill is oblivious to the significantly changed environment of today's Internet. The bill's supporters continue to believe that the Internet still is in need of extraordinary protection in the form of exemption from all State taxation. But the Internet of 2014 is not the same as its 1998 predecessor. Today's Internet is considerably different in terms of both the types of accessibility and the accompanying technology. The Internet then was access primarily a slow, unreliable dial-up service. But now technology has provided many types of methods to access the Internet, and we can anticipate that the Internet and its attendant technology will continue to evolve. By permanently extending the tax moratorium, however, Congress severely limits its ability to revisit it and to make any necessary adjustments. Simply put, a permanent moratorium is unwise, and so I urge my colleagues to think about this carefully and oppose H.R. 3086. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Zoe Lofgren, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Judy Chu, a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlelady.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to conclude by pointing out that we might be going in the wrong direction with this misguided legislation. It will devastate State revenues, especially those States currently protected by the grandfather clause, and force State governments to eliminate essential governmental programs and services and burden taxpayers. Furthermore, 11 national organizations are concerned with the fiscal impact on our State and local governments: the National Governors Association, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and 15 other labor organizations: the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the American Federation of Teachers, the UAW, SEIU. Fifteen national labor organizations and 11 national, local, and State government organizations all join with us who are urging my colleagues to reject this seriously flawed legislation. Please join us in making sure that we, the people, prevail on this measure in the House of Representatives. I yield back the balance of my time. List of Opponents of H.R. 3086 There is a long list of opponents of this bill. These opponents are concerned with the fiscal impact on our state and local governments. Opponents include such state and local groups as--the National Governors Association, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Federation of Tax Administrators, the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, the International City/County Management Association, the Government Finance Officers Association, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, and the Multistate Tax Commission. Also opposing this bill are labor groups such as--the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the Communication Workers of America (CWA), the Department for Professional Employees (DPE), the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), the International Union of Police Associations (IUPA), the National Education Association (NEA), the Services Employees Union International (SEIU), the United Auto Workers (UAW), and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, if there is one simple lesson that we can take away from our involvement in conflicts overseas, it is this: beware of unintended consequences. As was made vividly clear with the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion decades ago, overzealous military assistance or the hyperweaponization of a conflict can have destabilizing consequences and, ultimately, undercut our own national interests. It is for this reason that I offer this bipartisan amendment with my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), and others to prevent funds in this bill from being used to transfer man-portable air defense systems, known as ``MANPADS,'' to parties in the Syrian civil war. MANPADS, also known as ``shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles,'' can be fired at an aircraft by individuals on the ground, and they can be easily hidden or transported in the trunk of a car. According to the Los Angeles Times: U.S. and Israeli officials have feared that they could be used by terrorists to bring down commercial airliners. Leaders of the Syrian opposition movements have told The Wall Street Journal and other news outlets that they are actively seeking the transfer of MANPADS from the U.S. and our allies and that U.S. officials continue to consider these requests. I urge the support of the amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. CONYERS. In reclaiming my time, I thank both of the floor leaders for their support. Madam Chair, I want to make clear that this amendment will simply ensure that no funds may be made available under this bill for the transfer of these devastating and highly mobile weapons to any party in the Syrian civil war. So, regardless of one's opinion about U.S. intervention in foreign conflicts, this prudent and responsible amendment deserves our support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, and the other sponsors of this amendment for their continued leadership on the effort to roll back dragnet surveillance of United States citizens. Last month, a broad, bipartisan majority passed H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM Act. That bill rightly ends domestic bulk collection. But, as I said then, ending bulk collection is only part of the work that must be done to fully reform government surveillance. This amendment closes the ``backdoor surveillance'' loophole--through which the government queries U.S. person information without a warrant. This amendment also prohibits the government from mandating the creation of vulnerabilities in commercial products and services for later exploitation. Together, these changes end two demonstrated threats to our privacy and civil liberties--without any measurable loss to our national security. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a trailblazer in business, music, and philanthropy from the great City of Detroit: Mr. Don Davis. Mr. Davis--who passed away on Thursday, June 5--at the age of 75, was the CEO of the First Independence Bank as well as a Grammy-winning record producer and a celebrated musician. He brought both joy and prosperity to his community and to all those around him. Mr. Davis started his career as a session guitarist for Motown in the 1960's and eventually rose to become owner of the legendary studio known as United Sound. While his musical career spanned numerous studios and labels, Mr. Davis's musical legacy will forever be associated with Motown. This musical legacy includes guitar work in Barrett Strong's ``Money (That's What I Want)'' and Mary Wells' ``Bye Bye Baby''. Since its founding, Motown has been a cultural cornerstone of the United States, and it has been an honor to call Mr. Davis--one of Motown's original musicians--a friend. As a Detroiter and a public servant, I have admired Mr. Davis not only for his music but also for his trailblazing accomplishments in business and philanthropy. After retiring from his career as a professional guitarist in 1970, he founded what would become Michigan's only African-American owned and operated commercial bank: the First Independence Bank. Over time, this institution would rise to become the 12th largest African-American owned bank in the nation, holding nearly 5 percent of all assets in the nation's African-American banking community. Mr. Davis never saw business as a means to advance personal interests. Instead, he led his business to maximize the expansion of economic opportunity for underserved people. He was a fervent believer in bringing entrepreneurial prospects and quality jobs to people in desperate need. A renaissance man, Mr. Davis brought the passion he displayed as a Motown musical artist to the fields of finance and economic development. I am deeply saddened to learn of the death of my dear friend, Mr. Don Davis. He will live on through his exceptional music and his extraordinary investments in the Detroit community.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CONYERS. Ladies and gentlemen, this amendment fights foreclosures by limiting payment of the FHA insurance claims in cases in which borrowers have not been through the full FHA loss mitigation process. Our Nation's foreclosure crisis is not only an economic calamity, but it is also a social and public health calamity as well. While we all know that foreclosures cause downward spirals in property values and tax revenue, new research has shined a light on foreclosures as a cause of massive and debilitating anxiety and illness. According to a recent study in the American Journal of Public Health, foreclosures have even been a likely cause of an increase in suicides in America. I offer this amendment today to help end the terrible scourge of foreclosures. When the Nation's largest banks--Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Chase--sell delinquent FHA-insured loans into the Distressed Asset Stabilization Program, HUD pays them the outstanding balance of the loan. Only the loans that have fully complied with HUD's foreclosure provision and loss mitigation requirements are supposed to be sold through the Distressed Asset Stabilization Program. Yet, many of the loans banks are selling through the program have not met this standard. I with great pleasure yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. CONYERS. Ladies and gentlemen, this amendment would help ensure prudent oversight over the program so that only loans that have truly met all of HUD's loss mitigation requirements are sold through the Distressed Asset Stabilization Program. I hope my colleagues on the other side will join us in supporting this very commonsense amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I wish to speak on the point of order.