CONYERS: Statement for the Hearing on H.R. 2887, the No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2017

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Before I begin my remarks, I’d like to take a moment to recognize Joseph Ehrenkrantz for his dedicated service to the House of Representatives.

Over the past two years, he has diligently served the House Judiciary Committee as a Professional Staff Member.

Joe began his career with the House Judiciary Committee Democrats shortly after graduation, and has worked tirelessly on issues of civil rights, state and local taxation, and voting rights ever since.

Joe has served the Members and staff of the Committee with great energy and enthusiasm, working to ensure the smooth functioning of Committee business by coordinating briefings, staffing hearings, and clerking markups.

We thank Joe for his many outstanding contributions to the House Judiciary Committee and the U.S. House of Representatives, and wish him well as he begins law school at Georgetown University this fall.

He will surely be missed.

Turning to today’s hearing, which focuses on H.R. 2887, the “No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2017,” it appears that supporters of this legislation intend to address the apparent problem of states regulating beyond their borders.

Twenty-five years ago, the Supreme Court in Quill held that a state may require a business to remit a sales tax only if such business had a physical presence in the state where the goods or services are provided. 

In an effort to respond to this holding, various legislative responses have been introduced over the years, including two of which I strongly supported, namely, The Remote Transactions Parity Act and the Marketplace Fairness Act. 

Although one of these bipartisan measures overwhelmingly passed the Senate in 2013, our Committee has unfortunately failed to consider either of these bills. 

Instead, we are focusing today on H.R. 2887, a highly-flawed measure. 

Among its many flaws, this bill would eviscerate the 10^th Amendment and override the powers of all 50 states by expanding the physical presence standard to all taxes and all regulations.

H.R. 2887 represents an extreme rethinking of the constitutional role of states in our Nation and would strip essential consumer protection powers and taxing authority from all 50 states.

To quote the bipartisan National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures, this legislation “is a direct threat to representative self-government.”

Simply put, H.R. 2887 would preempt tens of thousands of state laws and saddle these states with untenable budget constraints by reducing their ability to collect tax revenues.

Second, this bill appears to ignore the real problems that main street retailers face today.

Local retailers—that have to collect sales taxes—are desperately struggling to compete with the reduced prices and conveniences offered by remote Internet sellers, whose online prices are generally lower because many consumers do not pay any sales taxes and thereby can save upwards of 10% or more on the purchase price of these items.

Technological advancements have made it easier for consumers to take advantage of this disparity and the consequences of this loophole are becoming increasingly more apparent.

Since October, at least 10 major, nationwide brick and mortar retailers have filed for bankruptcy and more than 90,000 workers have been laid off. 

Retail sector growth is at its weakest since the Great Recession, and recent projections estimate that a quarter of all U.S. shopping malls will close in the next five years.

Without question, I am a strong supporter of competition, especially when it benefits consumers and encourages innovation. Nevertheless, competitors should compete on things other than sales tax policy.

We should ensure parity at the point of sale among retailers and level the playing field.

Finally, H.R. 2887, by codifying Quill, would effectively prevent states and local governments from accessing a substantial part of their tax base.

State governments rely on sales and use taxes for nearly one third of their total tax revenue. Yet, as more Americans purchase more of their goods on the internet, the states receive less in sales tax revenue.

We owe it to our local communities and local retailers, as well as state and local governments, to take up helpful legislation rather than considering such flawed measures as H.R. 2887.  Accordingly, I urge Committee Chairman Goodlatte and Subcommittee Chairman Marino to instead consider H.R. 2193, the “Remote Transaction Parity Act,” bipartisan legislation introduced by Representative Kristi Noem earlier this year.

In closing, I look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses today and yield back the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Floor Statement In Opposition Of H.R. 3003, "No Sanctuary for Criminals Act"

On June 29, 2017, the House considered and passed H.R. 3003, No Sanctuary for Criminals Act.

This bill will trample the rights of states and localities to determine what is in the best interest of their public safety and will conscript local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.

 The ultimate experts on community safety are communities themselves.

And hundreds of them have determined that as community trust increases, crime decreases.

This is because immigrants will come out of the shadows and report crimes to local law enforcement when they are not threatened with deportation.

 In fact, a recent study found that community trust jurisdictions are actually safer than their counterparts.

 Against this considered judgment, H.R. 3003 forces localities to abandon community trust principles and mandates the conscription of local officers into federal immigration enforcement.

 Some localities, of course, would rightfully resist this conscription.

As punishment, H.R. 3003 would rob them of vital law enforcement funding that they depend on to prevent crime, prosecute criminals, and boost community policing ranks.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Floor Statement on H.R. 1215, the so-called “Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017”

H.R. 1215, the “Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017,” will do little to protect Americans’ access to safe and affordable health care.  Instead, it will deny victims of medical malpractice and defective medical products the opportunity to be fully compensated for their injuries and to hold wrongdoers accountable.

This legislation imposes various restrictions on lawsuits against health care providers concerning their provision of health care goods or services that would apply regardless of the merits of a case, the misconduct at issue, or the severity of the victim’s injury. 

There are so many problems with this bill that I would need 5 hours to discuss them all, but here are just a few.

To begin with, H.R. 1215 deeply intrudes on state sovereignty.

In particular, H.R. 1215 preempts state law governing joint and several liability, the availability of damages, the ability to introduce evidence of collateral source benefits, attorneys’ fees, and periodic payments of future damages. 

Members should not be fooled by assertions that the bill preserves state law. In fact, the rule of construction contained in the bill expressly states that it preempts state law except in very limited circumstances where state law is more favorable to defendants. 

And a number of so-called “state flexibility” provisions simply reinforce one-way preemption where the bill mostly supersedes state laws that are more favorable to victims, while leaving intact State laws that are more favorable to defendants.

In truth, H.R. 1215 does nothing to address the fundamental concerns about states’ rights previously raised by Members on both sides of the aisle.  In fact, just yesterday the House Liberty Caucus, a group of conservative libertarian members, registered their strong opposition to this bill stating that it “unconstitutionally voids state laws governing health care lawsuits.”

Further yet, this bill would cause real harm by severely limiting the ability of victims to be made whole.

For instance, the bill’s $250,000 aggregate limit for noneconomic damages -- an amount established more than 40 years ago pursuant to a California statute -- would have a particularly adverse impact on women, children, the poor, and other vulnerable members of society.

These groups are more likely to receive noneconomic damages in health care cases because they are less able to establish lost wages and other economic losses. 

Women, for example, are often paid at a lower rate than men, even for the same job, and are also more likely to suffer noneconomic loss, such as disfigurement or loss of fertility.

Imposing a severe limit on noneconomic damages, therefore, hurts them disproportionately.

Finally, this bill is particularly harmful for veterans, members of the military, and their families.  Because the bill preempts state tort law in any health care related lawsuit that includes any coverage provided by a federal health program, all cases arising from substandard care received in a Veterans Administration facility or a military hospital would be subject to the bill’s restrictions.

As a diverse coalition of veterans organizations noted in their letter of opposition, H.R. 1215 would limit the ability of veterans and military families to “hold health care providers, drug manufacturers and medical products providers accountable for pain and suffering, and death that result from substandard care, preventable medical errors, and defective drugs and devices.” 

For these and many other reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1215 and I reserve the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement on H.R. 1393, the "Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2017"

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

H.R. 1393, the “Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act,” helps to clarify various record-keeping and state income tax liability issues.  Nevertheless, the bill requires further revision before I can support it.

On the positive side, H.R. 1393 attempts to solve a legitimate problem presented by employee tax liability and employer withholding requirements.

Many employers are subject to multiple tax compliance record-keeping requirements for their mobile workers. 

These workers, in turn, are often subject to potentially conflicting and thereby confusing multiple state income tax requirements.

The paperwork that both employers and workers must file can be complicated and time-consuming.

And the filings, especially for sometimes miniscule amounts of income, can even be burdensome to state revenue departments.

Unfortunately, H.R. 1393, if enacted, could result in some states losing millions of dollars in revenue.

In fact, New York could lose upwards of $100 million in revenue.

Fortunately, this legislation only needs some simple changes to eliminate these negative impacts. 

For example, the bill currently has a 30-day threshold before an employee would be required to pay income taxes in a state. A much lower threshold would be fairer to the states and still provide certainty to employers and employees.

In addition, the bill’s timekeeping requirements could be tightened to help prevent tax avoidance.

A solution appears to potentially close and, accordingly, I look forward to working with my colleagues and the various stakeholders to finally achieve this goal.

I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to urge my colleagues to pass a fair and uniform framework to allow states to collect taxes owed on remote sales, rather than proceed with this flawed bill.

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.

While this decision may have made sense in 1992, it does not stand up well over time. In 2015 alone $26 billion dollars owed to states went uncollected.

Lost tax revenues mean that state and local governments will have fewer resources to provide their residents essential services, such as education and health care.

This Congress, House Republicans are advancing both TrumpCare and a disastrous budget that would both cut untold amounts of federal assistance to the states.

In light of these looming funding cuts, the loss of billions of dollars in state revenue is more pressing than ever.  This committee should move swiftly to close the internet tax loophole by passing legislation this Congress.

I thank the Chairman and yield back the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers Holds Hearing on State Voting Law Changes

Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Conyers, Whip Hoyer, House Democrats Hold Forum on State Voter Laws

(WASHINGTON) - House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers (MI-14), House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05), House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (NY-08), Congressional Black Caucus Chair Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), Representative Bobby Scott (VA-03), Representative Steve Cohen (TN-09) and Representative Marcia Fudge (OH-11) today held a forum entitled “Excluded from Democracy: The Impact of Recent State Voting Law Changes.” At the forum, chaired by Ranking Member Conyers, House Democrats joined voting rights groups to discuss new state measures adopted over the last year that would make it harder for eligible voters to register or vote and the need to protect voting rights.

"The loudest sound that exists in a democratic society is the voice of a voter in an election. Ensuring that every veteran, every senior citizen, every student – whether born or naturalized – has the right to vote should not be a partisan issue, it should be a legal and moral imperative of both parties," said Rep. Conyers. "Today, we are at a crossroads. For the first time since the Jim Crow era, we can go the way of making it harder as a society for minorities to register to vote, and harder and more expensive for minorities to cast their votes. Or we can build on the progress of the civil rights era to continue to enhance all of our citizen’s access to the ballot."

"With a crucial election less than one year away, I am very pleased Rep. Conyers held this forum today to examine the impact of new state measures that put the voting rights of millions of Americans at risk," said Whip Hoyer. "The right to vote is fundamental to our entire system of government and we must do everything in our power to ensure that every eligible American has the right to participate in our democracy and make their voices heard.”

"Election Day is almost one year away and we must make sure that people understand the serious consequences of voter suppression laws," said Rep. Cohen. "Voter ID laws have a disproportionate impact on certain communities – students, seniors, the poor and minorities – all of whom are less likely to have the kinds of identification required under a photo ID law. These laws have flown under the radar for far too long and I am glad we came together today to shine a light on them."

"Today's forum highlighted how some of these state voter laws are creating unnecessary procedural hurdles limiting a person's right to vote while doing nothing to prevent voter fraud,” said Rep. Scott. “Congress must work to ensure that every American eligible to vote is able to do so free of burdensome restrictions."

"There is a concerted effort across this country to limit, suppress and undo our right to vote, and a certain predetermined segment of Americans are being targeted,” said Rep. Fudge. “Young people, seniors, our disabled and minorities will all feel the repercussions of this effort. That's why it is so important that we do not remain silent."

"Our right to vote is under attack,” said Chairman Emanuel Cleaver, II. “Early voting days have been cut short, stiffer identification requirements are being implemented, and proof of citizenship is required - all of these policies are statically proven to impact people of color disproportionately. Shrouded in claims that these laws are designed to eliminate voter fraud, I strongly believe that these laws will in actuality only prevent our right to vote--an unacceptable consequence."

"Voting is a fundamental right vested to us by the United States Constitution. For many Americans, this right was not simply handed to us, but earned through hard fought battles," continued Rep. Cleaver. "Given the disproportionate impact that the voter suppression laws will have on African American voters, these laws are reminiscent of the poll taxes used in the Jim Crow South. We must act now --and the Congressional Black Caucus will, as the 'Conscience of the Congress' -- stand united and continue the fight against any laws enacted to suppress the right to vote for millions of Americans. This hearing was a first step, but there is more work to be done and the Congressional Black Caucus will remain steadfast in the struggle to protect the voting rights for all Americans."

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers Fights Dangerous Gun Legislation: Bill Would Override States’ Efforts to Reduce Gun Violence

Contact: Matthew Morgan

OCT 26, 2011 Issues: Health Care

(WASHINGTON) – Today, Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) led the opposition to H.R. 822, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011,” a dangerous bill that would override the laws of almost every state by obliging each to accept concealed handgun carry permits from every other state, even if the permit holder would not be allowed to carry or even possess a handgun in the state where he or she is traveling.   The House Judiciary Committee approved the bill by 19-11 vote with all Democrats and one Republican opposed to the bill.   

During consideration of the bill, Committee Republicans refused to adopt Ranking Member Conyers’  amendment to preserve the application of state laws concerning eligibility to carry concealed weapons within their borders.  Committee Republicans also rejected other common sense amendments offered by Democrats that would have allowed states to prevent concealed carrying of handguns by those with out of state permits with convictions for offenses such as misdemeanor assault on police officers and misdemeanor sex offenses against children. 

“The refusal by Committee Republicans to allow states to protect their citizens against gun violence has set the country on to a dangerous path,” said Conyers.  “The proliferation of guns on our Nation’s streets is an urgent problem in need of solution.  For example, the chances of being murdered for African American males in Detroit between ages 15 and 24 have risen rapidly in recent years, and nationally, almost 300 African American youth aged 15 to 24 are injured by gun fire each week. 

“More concealed guns on the streets, in contravention to local state laws, will not solve this problem, but make it worse.  

“Each state must be allowed to make critical public safety determinations like conceal-and-carry laws without Congress overruling them.  The opinion of local and state law enforcement agencies hold great weight in these matters.  And during the hearing on the bill recently held by the Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey summarized best their concerns with the bill:  ‘This bill would eliminate the right that states now have to set their own public safety laws, in consultation with law enforcement professionals.  This legislation is not aligned with our vision for the future of policing.  It is counter to what the field of law enforcement needs to create safer neighborhoods, towns and cities.’” 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©