[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 29, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H5026-H5030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROHIBITING STATES FROM IMPOSING DISCRIMINATORY COMMUTER TAXES

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 2014) to prohibit a State from imposing a discriminatory commuter 
tax on nonresidents.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2014

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSING DISCRIMINATORY COMMUTER 
                   TAX ON NONRESIDENTS.

       (a) Prohibition.--A State may not impose a tax on the 
     income earned in the State by nonresidents unless the tax is 
     of substantial equality of treatment for the citizens of the 
     State and the nonresidents so commuting.
       (b) State.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term 
     ``State'' includes the District of Columbia and any political 
     subdivision of a State.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks, and include extraneous materials, on H.R. 2014, the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is to mend a very peculiar and 
unique situation that has arisen between the States of New Jersey and 
New York. By virtue of a tax that was imposed by New York City, it 
appears and does still appear that a commuter tax for people who live 
in New Jersey but work in New York City was asserted against those 
commuters in a situation different from New York State residents 
outside New York City who worked in New York City, thereby setting up a 
discriminatory set of taxes for these commuters.
  The Supreme Court acted in a similar case in what is called the 
Austin case, finding this kind of discriminatory commuter tax 
unconstitutional and recently, just a couple of days ago, the New York 
statute itself that we are trying to amend or trying to work through 
that, too, was found to be unconstitutional. But we have it on good 
report that this might be appealed. Therefore, the question occurs for 
the Congress to do something about making sure that this does not 
continue.
  In that regard, this piece of legislation was approved by the 
subcommittee, and we will have Members from New Jersey fully explain 
the contents and the aims of the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. Perhaps some 
of my colleagues are wondering why we are wasting taxpayers' time and 
money today debating a bill directed at a tax that was declared 
unconstitutional last Friday. In fact, as of Friday's ruling, no person 
on the face of the earth, not from New Jersey, Connecticut or anywhere 
else, is faced with this tax. It does not exist.
  I realize that this is a hot political issue in some other States and 
so we are going to waste time talking about it, but the fact of the 
matter is we are talking about nothing. The bill passed in New York was 
atrocious. I say it about my own State legislature. It was atrocious 
and flatly unconstitutional, flatly against the Supreme Court's prior 
rulings, and the State Supreme Court in New York last Friday said it 
was facially unconstitutional.
  Now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) says it may be 
appealed. Yes, it will be appealed but by the City of New York, not by 
the State of New York, and the grounds for the appeal of the city is 
that the State had no right to pass the law in the first place under 
State law because it violated the State's home rule provision with 
respect to cities.
  If the city wins its lawsuit, the law will be reinstated, but it will 
be equal. That is, it will apply to commuters from within the State and 
from other States equally, as was the case for the last 30 years prior 
to the State legislature's atrocious actions a few weeks ago. If the 
city loses its appeal, the tax will not exist. In either event, this 
bill has no impact and can have no impact on the situation with respect 
to New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.
  The situation the bill's authors mean to address is the fact that the 
bill by its terms, the bill the legislature passed by its terms, said 
that New York City cannot levy a commuter tax on commuters from 
elsewhere in the State but can on commuters from other States.
  The Supreme Court knocked that down, and it is out. So why are we 
dealing with this bill? For political reasons. Now that I understand. 
We do a lot of things here for political reasons. That is not so 
terrible, but the fact is this bill would affect the tax laws in every 
State.
  The bill has not been properly considered. There have been no 
hearings on this bill. The bill was not considered or voted on by the 
subcommittee. It went straight to the committee without any hearings. 
And we do not understand, in the rush to get this bill to the floor, 
the Republican majority which cites that the committee process would 
have given us a chance to look the bill over more carefully.
  It deals with a very complex area of interstate taxation. While it 
was written specifically to address the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut 
situation, it applies to every jurisdiction in the United States. I 
think it is a mistake to consider it before the subcommittee has had a 
chance to have hearings and to really understand the implications of 
the bill the way it is drafted.
  To the extent the bill reflects the current state of constitutional 
jurisprudence, I have no objections, but we should take the time to 
understand what other unforeseen effects it may have nationally on 
various State tax laws across the country. We have not done this, and 
it is a mistake.
  Congress needs to consider that this legislation would apply to every 
State which taxes income earned within its borders by nonresidents. The 
normal process served by the Committee on the Judiciary would be able 
to assess the impact this legislation would have on the myriad State 
tax laws nationally rather than focusing on one cross-border tax 
dispute which is no longer at issue since the State courts have thrown 
out the law as unconstitutional.
  I understand this is a political hot potato in New Jersey and 
Connecticut, but that is no reason to rush the legislation through the 
process without any review, especially now that the tax that has the 
residents of those States upset no longer exists.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is an unnecessary bill at this time; 
and we should send it back, not pass it. Let the committee consider it 
properly and see how it impacts on the States other than New York, 
Connecticut and New Jersey, on which States it will have no impact at 
all.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5027]]

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would first like to respond to what the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler) has just said. It was not acted upon by our 
subcommittee but, rather, by the full committee.
  Number two, however, I want to put the record straight on another 
assertion that the gentleman has made, that this is a peculiar 
situation just between New York and New Jersey. That is, of course, the 
reason that the bill is here, but the bill, as drafted and which will 
eventually pass the Congress, applies to all States of the Union and 
asserts a very important principle.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Franks), the author of the legislation.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last month New York Governor 
George Pataki repealed the New York City commuter tax but only for New 
York residents. His goal was laudable. He was trying to give 450,000 
New York City commuters living in New York State a $210 million tax 
cut, but at the same time he wanted to force the residents of 
Connecticut and New Jersey who work in New York City to pick up the 
tab.
  Every year, 250,000 residents in my home State of New Jersey shell 
out $110 million in taxes to the City of New York. All commuters, 
whether they live in Rockland County, New York; Union County, New 
Jersey; or Fairfield County, Connecticut; rely on the same services and 
transportation infrastructure provided by the City of New York. They 
should not be taxed differently merely because they live in a State 
other than New York.
  Late last Friday, as was indicated, a New York State Supreme Court 
judge ruled that the targeted repeal of the New York City commuter tax 
was unconstitutional. The judge said it offends the provisions that 
govern privileges and immunities, equal protection for all citizens, 
and the provision that assigns regulation of interstate commerce to the 
Federal Government.
  While New Jersey and New York commuters have won a temporary victory, 
the commuter tax border war is far from over. New York City has already 
announced that it will appeal the lower court ruling.
  It is time we in Congress put this issue to rest once and for all. We 
must send a clear and definitive message, that tax wars between 
neighboring States will no longer be tolerated.
  The bill before us would prevent any State, including New York, from 
taxing the income of citizens from other States at a higher rate than 
they tax the income of their own residents. This legislation would 
impose a permanent cease-fire in the battle over commuter taxes by 
making it clear that taxes imposed by one State cannot discriminate 
against out-of-State residents.
  Finally, it would prevent politicians from ever again using the 
threat of a commuter tax to score political points at home at the 
expense of its neighbors and the economic well-being of the region.
  In a larger sense, Mr. Speaker, this issue should remind us of how 
much commuters have in common. They work side by side. They use the 
same rails and roadways to get to work. They cannot and should not be 
taxed differently solely because they live in different States.
  I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
  (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2014. This 
legislation is important to protect the ability of people to live in 
one State and work in another. Very simply, the purpose of this bill is 
to prohibit a State from imposing a discriminatory commuter tax on 
nonresidents.
  H.R. 2014 was introduced 3 weeks ago, after the State of New York 
repealed its commuter tax for suburban New Yorkers who commute to work 
in New York City; but the State of New York decided that the hundreds 
of thousands of commuters from New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania 
who commute into New York City should continue to be taxed. Had the New 
York Supreme Court not recently held this law unconstitutional, it 
would have gone into effect on July 1 and would have amounted to an 
unfair tax of several hundred dollars per commuter per year.
  With 240,000 New Jersey residents working in New York City alone, the 
result of this law would have been to give a huge tax break to the 
suburban residents of New York at the expense of suburbanites in New 
Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Speaker, as well as being blatantly unfair, the New York law is 
blatantly unconstitutional. Two hundred twenty years ago, the framers 
of the Constitution decided that they did not want 13 separate fiefdoms 
once they decided to declare ourselves one Nation. They did not want 
members from one newly-formed State to have to show a passport at the 
checkpoint or a borderline of one of the new other 13 States in our new 
United States. They passed the Constitution to prevent that. In 
particular, the Privileges and Immunities clause in article 4, Section 
2 of the United States Constitution says, and I quote, citizens of each 
State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in 
the several States, unquote.
  The law passed by the State of New York flies in the face of the 
United States Constitution. It clearly gives privileges to commuters 
from the suburbs of New York at the expense of commuters from the 
suburbs of New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. The New York law 
also violates the Commerce clause of the United States Constitution, 
which allows citizens to travel freely throughout the different States 
of the United States.

                              {time}  1545

  It also violates the due process and equal protection clauses, which 
protect Americans from being discriminated against unfairly by the 
States or the Federal government. The United States Supreme Court has 
consistently held that States may not impose a tax on nonresident 
taxpayers simply because they reside in another State.
  Fortunately, last Friday the New York Supreme Court held that the New 
York law is unconstitutional. However, this ruling does not change the 
need for us today to act here in the House of Representatives. The 
State of New York could still appeal the ruling, and the New York Court 
of Appeals could reverse the lower court's decision.
  It is imperative that this matter go forward today; that H.R. 2014 
pass today, not just for the residents of New Jersey, Connecticut, and 
Pennsylvania, but for the residents of every State in the United States 
of America. Mr. Speaker, a tax that unfairly penalizes Americans solely 
because of the State that they live in is inherently unconstitutional 
and un-American. It deserves to be overturned. Thus, I ask my 
colleagues to pass H.R. 2014.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I want to express my appreciation both to the chairman of the 
subcommittee as well as my colleagues and the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Franks) who has given such leadership here on this very important 
issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I see this has been adequately outlined by both 
gentlemen from New Jersey, Mr. Franks and Mr. Rothman. But I want to 
underscore the fact that we are not just talking about New York and New 
Jersey here, and Connecticut, we are talking about something that is 
going to preserve all the States, the commuters in all the States, from 
this kind of outright blatant discrimination that was brashly put into 
place by the Governor of New York.
  I also want to say that the fact that the State court has already 
acted on this does not negate the necessity for this. It underscores 
the necessity for this protection to be extended to all 50 States. 
There should not be this kind of discrimination.
  As has also been stated, and I think it bears strong repeating now, 
this is an underscoring of a constitutional right, not only the equal 
protection clause but the interstate commerce provisions of the 
Constitution. This

[[Page H5028]]

bill reaffirms the proper Federal-State relationship in terms of 
commerce.
  I guess I have to say here, Mr. Speaker, it is very important to 
extend this to all 50 States so that we can foreclose and forestall any 
kind of thought that we are going to have a commuter tax war here State 
to State at any time in the future.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney).
  Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
2014.
  Let me start by making an observation. We have talked earlier about 
the New York Supreme Court. Many people in this Chamber I am sure 
understand that the New York Supreme Court is the trial court in the 
State of New York. It is the lowest level of State judiciary. So unlike 
perhaps common intention or common understanding, we are not talking 
about the New York judiciary having decided this, we are only talking 
about an individual judge. So this matter is still very, very much 
alive, even as to this legislation, and New York City has indicated 
that it will appeal this case.
  This bill needs to pass because the New York legislature needs to be 
told that this simply was outrageous and cannot be allowed. The bill as 
it stands in New York says that if it is found unconstitutional in any 
part, it will be unconstitutional in all parts. That puts the matter 
back in the General Assembly of New York for reconsideration.
  As the distinguished gentleman from New York indicated earlier, it 
was unwise of the New York General Assembly to pass this bill. I want 
to make sure they do not have the opportunity to act unwisely a second 
time. The best way to do that is to make sure that this bill passes in 
this House and in this Congress immediately.
  Let me conclude by saying not only is this bill unconstitutional and 
unfair, it is also very, very much unwise. Both Connecticut and New 
Jersey have reverse commuters, so there may be 90,000 people a day who 
travel from Connecticut to New York City. There are a substantial 
number of people who travel from New York back to Connecticut.
  We can imagine if this legislation were allowed to stand that the 
State of Connecticut and the State of New Jersey would quickly come to 
the conclusion that it needed to enact appropriate legislation in 
response. That is exactly what the commerce clause in the Constitution 
attempts to prohibit. We should make sure it is prohibited by statute.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  We would do New York a tremendous favor by passing this legislation, 
because clearly New York got itself in a box. I cannot imagine any 
member of a State assembly or a mayor or a Governor who does not 
recognize the pitfalls of starting warfare from one State to another 
where they start to say, ``we can solve all our problems, just tax 
everyone who works in our State who does not happen to live here 
because they do not happen to vote here.''
  I rise in support of the bill offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Franks), H.R. 2014, and thank him for introducing it. I 
thank him for all the communities in all the States around the country 
that need to make sure that if you tax someone from out of State, you 
must tax someone from within your State. If you do not tax someone 
within your State, you also must not tax someone out of the State.
  I also commend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) for his 
fine statement.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
New York for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, last week New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Cozier 
struck down a law passed by the legislature in New York that would have 
repealed the commuter tax for New York residents, but kept that tax in 
place for out-of-State residents.
  Mr. Speaker, there are two major issues here. The bigger issue, which 
has not even been addressed today, is what the Supreme Court did just a 
few days ago when it tied the hands of the Congress of the United 
States of America in the issue of States' rights. The bill by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) becomes even more important, 
more significant, and more timely.
  Read that decision, I ask Members from both sides of the aisle, the 
5-4 decision. That is the big issue that is involved here. New York 
City's Council responded to the ruling by stating that the city would 
immediately appeal the ruling. Wonderful. It is my sincere hope that 
Justice Cozier's ruling and H.R. 2014 will give the city pause.
  As I stated when the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) 
introduced this bill several weeks ago, New Jerseyans do not mind 
paying for their services they use in the State of New York. We are not 
simply talking about New York and New Jersey here, we are talking about 
every State in the Union where the possibility exists of inequity.
  This does not mean that our commuters should become an ATM for a 
State that does not want its own residents to pay their own way. That 
is political nonsense. The action of New York's legislature takes 
parochialism to its irrational extreme and invites tit for tat 
countermeasures that will only hurt one group in the end, of course, 
the taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the passage of H.R. 2014 will put an 
end once and for all to those fruitless attempts to pass harmful tax 
increases on those people who cannot hold these New Jersey legislators 
accountable, the residents of New Jersey and Connecticut.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Weiner).
  (Mr. WEINER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleagues from New Jersey 
and Connecticut and Pennsylvania who are fighting so vigorously for 
this, but we really have to wonder what indeed is behind this.
  It does not seem to be the substance of the issue. The courts are 
handling the substance of this issue as we speak. If substance had 
anything to do with this debate, perhaps we would have had a hearing in 
the full committee, or even a hearing in the subcommittee, or even any 
kind of a hearing before this came to the House floor under the 
suspension calendar.
  Mr. Speaker, this is entirely about politics, but in that debate 
about politics, we must not lose sight of some of the facts here. This 
is not about one State's ability to tax another State. That is done 
commonly. It is going to continue to be done even after this bill is 
passed.
  One State can tax the income derived in another State. It happens in 
States all around this country. The fact of the matter is that 
residents of other States who come in and derive income, for example, 
in New York City derive great benefits from that, great benefits that 
without this type of a tax structure they would do nothing to pay for.
  People every day come into New York City. New York City provides the 
economic engine for the entire region of the country. We are proud of 
that. All we are doing is trying to find a fair and equitable and 
balanced way to pay for those expenses.
  Now the courts have decided that the construct the New York State 
legislature has arrived at is unconstitutional, period. It is the end 
of the story. Yet we are here, frankly, throwing aside all of our 
concerns about States' rights, tossing all of our conservative 
instincts away.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I just listened to what the gentleman said 
very carefully. Would the gentleman be willing to recommend to those 
who want to appeal the decision of the court to remove their appeal, 
and maybe we would not have a need for this decision?
  Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman would understand.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Does the gentleman support that?

[[Page H5029]]

  Mr. WEINER. Here is what I do support, Mr. Speaker. I support this 
body being somewhat deliberative some of the time. I believe that this 
is something that is clearly moving its way in a very expeditious way 
through the courts, and it has ruled in their favor. Yet we are here 
instead trying to chalk up political points, rather than trying to deal 
with the real issue, which is how those people who commute into New 
York City pay their fair share.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, most of the debate on this bill, with all due respect on 
all sides, has missed the point. New York City has had a commuter tax 
levied equally on residents of New York State and residents of other 
States for 30 years, 33 years.
  The State legislature, for local political reasons, and the Governor, 
for local political reasons, abolished that tax, but only for residents 
of New York State, not for residents of neighboring States, a clearly 
unconstitutional act, unconstitutional on its face, and the Supreme 
Court has said so, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania mentioned, in 
previous years. All we have to do is wait for the State courts to knock 
it down.
  The State Supreme Court last Friday said they cannot do that, the law 
is unconstitutional. So now we have this bill to repeal a law that has 
already been ruled unconstitutional, but we are told it is absolutely 
essential to pass this bill because the mayor, the city of New York, 
has appealed the ruling of the court.
  Yes, but the only grounds on which he has appealed the ruling of the 
court was not with respect to the unequal application of the law to the 
two States, or to the several States, I should say; he has appealed it 
on the grounds that the State legislature, without a home rule message, 
had no power under the State Constitution to pass that bill.
  The court will either agree or disagree. If the court agrees with the 
mayor, the law will be back in its entirety. The city will have the 
commuter tax equally on residents of New York State outside the city 
and on residents of other States, and this bill, if it passes, will not 
stop that tax. It simply says, you have to tax residents and 
nonresidents equally, and the law previously did that.
  If the action of the legislature is declared unconstitutional and the 
law was restored, it will again do that. It will meet the requirements 
of this bill, and residents of Westchester County in New York City and 
Bergen County in New Jersey and Fairfield County in Connecticut will 
continue paying the taxes they have for the last 33 years.
  If the court rules against the mayor's appeal and says that the 
legislature has the power to pass the tax, to pass the bill under New 
York State law, it still is going to hold the unequal application 
unconstitutional, because that part of the decision has not been 
appealed.

                              {time}  1600

  No one thinks that it could be appealed, because the Supreme Court 
has been clear on the subject. So we are, at best, with regards New 
York and the neighboring States, wasting our time with this bill. It 
will have no impact whatsoever, period.
  I am not opposed to this bill because I am worried about New York. It 
will have no impact on New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut. It will 
have an impact on other States in ways we have not examined.
  For example, the bill says a State may not impose a tax on the income 
earned in the State by non-residents unless the tax is of substantial 
equality of treatment for the citizens of the State and non-residents 
so commuting. A lot of courts read that to mean that the State could 
not impose a lower tax on commuters from a neighboring State than the 
residents of its own State, so it might hold that if you taxed the 
residents of your own State at 4 percent, you cannot tax the residents 
of a neighboring State at 2 percent. I do not think that is what the 
sponsors intended, but this is a hastily drafted bill for a hastily 
concocted situation, which is no longer in existence, and it has not 
gotten proper scrutiny by the subcommittee and the committee in 
hearings.
  So I would urge that this bill should be set aside or defeated now 
and the committee should hold hearings and should really look into how 
this is going to affect the reciprocal agreement between, let us say 
Indiana and Illinois before we pass it. Again, this has no impact on 
New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut. We are not concerned about that. 
But it may have unanticipated consequences throughout the country, and 
it is just irresponsible to be considering this bill in this way at 
this time without proper hearings and proper consideration. That is why 
I urge its defeat at this time, so that we can consider it properly as 
to its implications throughout the rest of the country.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I commend my New Jersey colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle and in both Chambers for introducing this bill and 
for helping to bring it to the House floor so rapidly.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is important, because the State of New York 
has once again attempted to declare war on New Jersey. First, New York 
was dumping its garbage in New Jersey, then it was contaminating our 
shores with its dirty water and, after that, its needles were washing 
up on our beaches. Now, the New York Legislature has once again tried 
to harm New Jersey residents--this time, by discriminating against many 
of our hard-working residents trying to earn a living by working in New 
York City. The New York law would have repealed a commuter tax for New 
York residents, but not for non-residents.
  Foutunately, last Friday, the New York State Supreme Court ruled that 
the New York law is indeed unconstitutional. I am pleased at this 
outcome, but not surprised. This was such a blatant attempt at 
discrimination; I don't know how anyone could have ruled otherwise. In 
addition, several earlier court cases have ruled that there must be 
equality between states, and that states cannot discriminate between 
residents and nonresidents.
  I am pleased that the Court has ruled justly on the cases pertaining 
to the New York legislation. However, we must work to prevent this type 
of discrimination in the future and prevent any attempt to appeal this 
ruling.
  And, rather than discriminating against New Jersey residents, 
Governor Pataki should welcome New Jersey residents and other out-of-
state commuters with open arms. Our residents help New York businesses 
to thrive, and thereby foster the growth and prosperity of New York 
City and the entire State, in turn. Moreover, these New Jersey 
residents generate revenue for New York by eating in restaurants, 
shopping in stores, and engaging in other local commerce. Repealing the 
commuter tax for New York commuters alone is blatant discrimination 
that would only discourage New Jersey residents from supporting New 
York's businesses.
  And, we all know that New York residents enjoy the beaches and 
recreational opportunities New Jersey offers. New Jersey does not 
unfairly discriminate against New York residents taking advantage of 
our wonderful natural resources. Nor do we intend to do any such thing.
  For these reasons, I am here today to join my colleagues in 
protesting New York's attempt to repeal this commuter tax for in-state 
residents only. This repeal for in-state residents alone violates the 
Interstate Commerce Clause and amounts to discrimination for out-of-
state residents, primarily in my home state of New Jersey as well as 
Connecticut. I will not tolerate discrimination of residents in my home 
state--or anywhere--and will stand by those who protest this type of 
discrimination.
  I pledge to do my part to permanently resolve this problem. That is 
why I have cosponsored the anti-discrimination legislation before us, 
H.R. 2014, that would prohibit a state--in this and in all cases--from 
imposing a discriminatory commuter tax on nonresidents. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, which I hope will pass 
overwhelmingly in the House and Senate.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2014, 
legislation which would prohibit any state from levying discriminatory 
taxes on commuters from other states. I am pleased to be an original 
cosponsor of this bill, and commend my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. 
Franks, for introducing this legislation.
  We are here today as a result of New York State's decision to 
selectively repeal the New York City Commuter Tax, which sets a 
troubling precedent that other states or cities will likely choose to 
follow.
  Already, other cities have begun to view commuters as a cash cow. A 
Baltimore, Maryland, mayoral hopeful has raised the possibility of 
levying a commuter tax on individuals who work in Baltimore but live 
outside the city limits.
  On Friday, the New York State Supreme Court declared the tax 
unconstitutional for New Jersey's commuters. However, New York City has 
already vowed to appeal this decision. Despite this temporary reprieve 
for New Jersey commuters, this matter is far from resolved.

[[Page H5030]]

  That is why we must pass H.R. 2014 today. It will prevent New York, 
or any other state, from taxing commuters unfairly--and in a New York 
minute, it would end the Big Apple's discrimination against 240,000 New 
Jersey residents.
  Mr. Speaker, the poem on the base of New York City's Statue of 
Liberty reads, ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses 
yearning to breathe free.'' It seems that poet Emma Lazarus could have 
been talking about New Jersey's commuters, who are tired of bearing 
this unfair tax burden.
  New York State's action deserves a Bronx cheer. Let's pass this 
legislation today.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2014.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________