[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E256]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      INTRODUCTION OF THE ``STATE VIDEO TAX FAIRNESS ACT OF 2009''

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 12, 2009

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I have introduced, along with my 
Judiciary Committee colleagues Rick Boucher of Virginia, Jim Jordan of 
Ohio, and James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the State Video Tax 
Fairness Act of 2009. This bipartisan legislation is a consumer-minded 
effort to prevent States from enacting taxes that may be designed to 
advantage one form of video transmission over another. This legislation 
preserves a level playing field between competitors while protecting 
State revenue prerogatives.
  This legislation accomplishes three goals:
  First, consumers will benefit from lower prices, because States will 
impose only fair and nondiscriminatory video transmission taxes, on all 
providers.
  Second, competition will strengthen in the paid television 
programming industry, because this legislation will ensure that no 
provider will be unfairly favored by discriminatory tax policies.
  Third, States will continue to have the ability to raise revenue, 
because this legislation does not hinder their ability to do so, as 
long as they do so in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner.
  This legislation incorporates changes adopted by the Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law at markup during the last Congress. 
Those changes include providing grandfather protection to those States 
that, as of January 1, 2008, had already enacted video programming tax 
structures that would violate the new requirement. The six States whose 
tax structures would be protected are Florida, Kentucky, North 
Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Utah.
  This legislation also includes several technical changes to conform 
the language to certain State tax laws with respect to the methods by 
which multichannel video programming distribution services are 
delivered, and clarifies a tax as discriminatory ``if the net tax rate 
imposed on one means of providing multichannel video service is higher 
than the net tax rate imposed on another.''
  This legislation ensures that States could not selectively reduce the 
effective tax rate by imposing the same tax rate on services, but then 
reimbursing certain costs borne by specific providers, as some States 
have done.
  The State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2009 will give households that 
pay for television programming service the assurance that they can 
choose to receive very similar services, such as from cable or 
satellite providers, without having to wonder whether subscribing to a 
particular service will entail paying more in taxes than if they had 
chosen a different service.
  I invite my colleagues to join with me and Representatives Boucher, 
Jordan, and Sensenbrenner, by cosponsoring the ``State Video Tax 
Fairness Act of 2009.''

                          ____________________