[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13282-13286]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      MOBILE WORKFORCE STATE INCOME TAX SIMPLIFICATION ACT OF 2015

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2315) to limit the authority of States to tax certain income 
of employees for employment duties performed in other States.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2315

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Mobile Workforce State 
     Income Tax Simplification Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON STATE WITHHOLDING AND TAXATION OF 
                   EMPLOYEE INCOME.

       (a) In General.--No part of the wages or other remuneration 
     earned by an employee who performs employment duties in more 
     than one State shall be subject to income tax in any State 
     other than--
       (1) the State of the employee's residence; and
       (2) the State within which the employee is present and 
     performing employment duties for more than 30 days during the 
     calendar year in which the wages or other remuneration is 
     earned.
       (b) Wages or Other Remuneration.--Wages or other 
     remuneration earned in any calendar year shall not be subject 
     to State income tax withholding and reporting requirements 
     unless the employee is subject to income tax in such State 
     under subsection (a). Income tax withholding and reporting 
     requirements under subsection (a)(2) shall apply to wages or 
     other remuneration earned as of the commencement date of 
     employment duties in the State during the calendar year.
       (c) Operating Rules.--For purposes of determining penalties 
     related to an employer's State income tax withholding and 
     reporting requirements--
       (1) an employer may rely on an employee's annual 
     determination of the time expected to be spent by such 
     employee in the States in which the employee will perform 
     duties absent--
       (A) the employer's actual knowledge of fraud by the 
     employee in making the determination; or
       (B) collusion between the employer and the employee to 
     evade tax;
       (2) except as provided in paragraph (3), if records are 
     maintained by an employer in the regular course of business 
     that record the location of an employee, such records shall 
     not preclude an employer's ability to rely on an employee's 
     determination under paragraph (1); and
       (3) notwithstanding paragraph (2), if an employer, at its 
     sole discretion, maintains a time and attendance system that 
     tracks where the employee performs duties on a daily basis, 
     data from the time and attendance system shall be used 
     instead of the employee's determination under paragraph (1).
       (d) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this 
     Act:
       (1) Day.--
       (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an employee is 
     considered present and performing employment duties within a 
     State for a day if the employee performs more of the 
     employee's employment duties within such State than in any 
     other State during a day.
       (B) If an employee performs employment duties in a resident 
     State and in only one nonresident State during one day, such 
     employee shall be considered to have performed more of the 
     employee's employment duties in the nonresident State than in 
     the resident State for such day.
       (C) For purposes of this paragraph, the portion of the day 
     during which the employee is in transit shall not be 
     considered in determining the location of an employee's 
     performance of employment duties.
       (2) Employee.--The term ``employee'' has the same meaning 
     given to it by the State in which the employment duties are 
     performed, except that the term ``employee'' shall not 
     include a professional athlete, professional entertainer, or 
     certain public figures.
       (3) Professional athlete.--The term ``professional 
     athlete'' means a person who performs services in a 
     professional athletic event, provided that the wages or other 
     remuneration are paid to such person for performing services 
     in his or her capacity as a professional athlete.
       (4) Professional entertainer.--The term ``professional 
     entertainer'' means a person who performs services in the 
     professional performing arts for wages or other remuneration 
     on a per-event basis, provided that the wages or other 
     remuneration are paid to such person for performing services 
     in his or her capacity as a professional entertainer.
       (5) Certain public figures.--The term ``certain public 
     figures'' means persons of prominence who perform services 
     for wages or other remuneration on a per-event basis, 
     provided that the wages or other remuneration are paid to 
     such person for services provided at a discrete event, in the 
     nature of a speech, public appearance, or similar event.
       (6) Employer.--The term ``employer'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 3401(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (26 U.S.C. 3401(d)), unless such term is defined by the 
     State in which the employee's employment duties are 
     performed, in which case the State's definition shall 
     prevail.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' means any of the several 
     States.
       (8) Time and attendance system.--The term ``time and 
     attendance system'' means a system in which--
       (A) the employee is required on a contemporaneous basis to 
     record his work location for every day worked outside of the 
     State in which the employee's employment duties are primarily 
     performed; and
       (B) the system is designed to allow the employer to 
     allocate the employee's wages for income tax purposes among 
     all States in which the employee performs employment duties 
     for such employer.
       (9) Wages or other remuneration.--The term ``wages or other 
     remuneration'' may be limited by the State in which the 
     employment duties are performed.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICABILITY.

       (a) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect on January 
     1 of the 2d year that begins after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (b) Applicability.--This Act shall not apply to any tax 
     obligation that accrues before the effective date of this 
     Act.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. 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. 2315, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act provides a 
clear, uniform framework for when States may tax nonresident employees 
who travel to the taxing State to perform work. In particular, this 
bill prevents States from imposing income tax compliance burdens on 
nonresidents who work in a foreign State for fewer than 30 days in a 
year.
  The State tax laws that determine when a nonresident must pay a 
foreign State's income tax and when employers must withhold this tax 
are numerous and varied. Some States tax income earned within their 
borders by nonresidents even if the employee only works in the State 
for just 1 day. These complicated rules impact everyone who travels for 
work and many industries.

[[Page 13283]]

  As just one example, the Judiciary Committee heard testimony in 2015 
that the patchwork of State laws resulted in a manufacturing company 
issuing 50 W-2s to a single employee for a single year. The company 
executive also noted, regarding the compliance burden: many of our 
affected employees make less than $50,000 per year and have limited 
resources to seek professional advice.
  States generally allow a credit for income taxes paid to another 
State. However, it is not always dollar for dollar when local taxes are 
factored in. Credits also do not relieve workers of substantial 
paperwork burdens.
  There are substantial burdens on employers as well. The committee 
heard testimony in 2014 that businesses, including small businesses, 
that operate interstate are subject to significant regulatory burdens 
with regard to compliance with nonresident State income tax withholding 
laws. These burdens distract from productive activity and job creation.
  Nevertheless, some object that the States will lose revenue if the 
bill is enacted. However, an analysis from Ernst & Young found that the 
bill's revenue impact is minimal.
  There is little motive for fraud and gaming because the amount of 
money at issue--taxes on less than 30 days' wages--is minimal. Also, 
the income tax generally has to be paid; the question is merely to 
whom.
  I commend the bill's lead sponsors, Representatives Bishop and 
Johnson, and thank all of the bill's cosponsors. I urge the bill's 
passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous 
consent to yield control of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bishop).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2315.
  A large and broad coalition of 11 large labor and tax organizations 
all oppose this bill because it is an attempt to impose standardized 
criteria for a uniform framework for the tax treatment of out-of-state 
residents, would cause certain States to lose massive State income tax 
revenues, and would facilitate tax liability avoidance through 
manipulation by employers and employees alike.
  It achieves this flawed result in several ways. To begin with, rather 
than promoting uniformity, H.R. 2315 would have a significant adverse 
impact on income tax revenues for certain States.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, for example, as the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) will explain, New York could lose 
between $50 million and $125 million annually if this measure were 
signed into law. Other States that would also be adversely impacted and 
affected include Illinois, Massachusetts, and California.
  As a result of the lost revenues from nonresident taxpayers, these 
States would be forced to make up these losses by shifting the tax 
burden to resident taxpayers. It may even cause these States to cut 
government services, such as funding for education and critical 
infrastructure improvements.
  Another problem with H.R. 2315 is that it essentially provides a 
roadmap for State income tax liability avoidance.

                              {time}  1900

  By allowing an employer to rely on an employee's determination of the 
time he or she is expected to spend working in another State during the 
year, the bill prevents the employer from withholding an employee's 
State income taxes to a nonresident State.
  This would be the result even if the employer is aware that the 
employee has been working in a State for more than 30 days, as long as 
that State cannot prove that the employee committed fraud in making his 
annual determination and the employer knew it.
  Rather than proceeding with this flawed bill, I urge my colleagues to 
pass a fair and uniform framework to allow States to collect taxes owed 
on remote sales. By staying silent since the Supreme Court's 1992 Quill 
decision, the Congress has failed to ensure that States have the 
authority to collect sales and use tax on Internet purchases. I am 
disappointed that, rather than moving the bipartisan eFairness 
legislation that our communities need, we are considering this measure 
instead.
  For these concerns and other reasons, I hope that you will join me in 
opposing H.R. 2315.
  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address my colleagues 
regarding my bipartisan, bicameral, H.R. 2315, the Mobile Workforce 
State Income Tax Simplification Act.
  Mr. Speaker, according to the 10th Amendment, States are generally 
free to set their own public policy. It is important, however, that 
they do so in a way that does not place a substantial burden upon the 
Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
  As the American workforce becomes increasingly more mobile, Congress 
has the constitutional duty to ensure that State public policy does not 
interfere with interstate economic activity.
  As an attorney and businessowner, I have seen firsthand how 
complicated all these different State income tax laws are for those who 
travel and work. These burdens affect small businesses in particular, 
as well as their employees, because they simply do not have the 
resources to comply with all the varying State income tax requirements 
that exist today.
  Employees are currently being punished with complex reporting 
standards and the expense that results from filing all of this 
paperwork simply because they must travel outside their home State for 
work. And rather than expanding payroll or reducing prices for consumer 
goods, businesses are being forced to spend their hard-earned and 
scarce resources on complying with convoluted State income tax laws. 
This certainly fits the definition, in my opinion, of government red 
tape.
  During the subcommittee hearing on my bill last year, one witness 
testified that his employer had filed 10,500 W-2s on behalf of their 
numerous employees, primarily because they had crossed State lines for 
work. He went on to tell us that one of his coworkers had to file 50 W-
2s just for himself.
  Imagine an individual making less than $50,000 a year having to file 
50, 20, or even 10 W-2s. It is simply unacceptable to place that burden 
on our workforce today, and, moreover, it is unacceptable for us to let 
it go unresolved any longer.
  The Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact laws to 
protect the free flow of commerce among the States. It is imperative 
that Congress respects the 10th Amendment, but States must not use that 
power to prey upon workers from different States simply to raise 
revenues.
  That said, the complex array of State income tax laws in this Nation 
deserve a serious overhaul, and that is why conservative states' rights 
legislative groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council 
agree and support this legislation, specifically identifying H.R. 2315 
as the type of interstate commerce regulation Congress should enact. In 
fact, that is why more than 300 outside organizations, to date, have 
pledged their support for this bill.
  With the help of my colleague, Representative Hank Johnson, on the 
other side of the aisle, our Mobile Workforce State Income Tax 
Simplification Act is a carefully crafted, bipartisan, bicameral 
measure that streamlines income tax laws across the Nation. It creates 
a uniform 30-day threshold before which a nonresident cannot be exposed 
to another State's income tax liability. This ensures employees will 
have a clear understanding of their tax liability, and it gives 
employers a clear and consistent rule so that they can plan and 
accurately withhold taxes, knowing that the same rule applies for all 
States with an income tax. And best of all, it means much less 
paperwork and reduced compliance costs for everyone involved--
businessowners and employees.

[[Page 13284]]

  The goal of H.R. 2315 is to protect our mobile workforce, and that 
includes traveling emergency workers, first responders, trade union 
workers, nonprofit staff, teachers, and Federal, State, and local 
government employees. Any organization that has employees that cross 
State lines for temporary periods will benefit from this law.
  I would also note that great care was taken with this bill to 
diminish the impact on State revenues. My colleague across the aisle 
suggested concerns with this, and I would point out that a 2015 study 
the chairman raised earlier, conducted by Ernst & Young, found that 
H.R. 2315 would actually raise tax revenues in some States, while other 
States would only see a de minimis change.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the 308 
members of the Mobile Workforce Coalition who support the bill. I want 
to thank Chairman Goodlatte for all of his time and effort, all 180 of 
my colleagues who have cosponsored this House bill, as well as Senator 
Thune, Senator Brown, and nearly half of the United States Senate that 
have cosponsored our companion bill so far.
  The Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act is a simple 
way to reduce obvious administrative burdens with so much red tape 
interwoven in today's Tax Code. This bill is just a plain commonsense 
way to cut through the clutter and simplify part of the filing process 
moving forward.
  Together, we can make our workforce a priority and help our small 
businesses grow and save. I strongly urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 
2315.
  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 H.R. 2315. This bill represents 
a major assault on the sovereignty of the States, and does particular 
damage to my home State of New York, depriving it of more than $100 
million of its own tax revenue. The Mobile Workforce State Income Tax 
Simplification Act would prohibit States from collecting income tax 
from an individual unless the person works more than 30 days in that 
State in a calendar year.
  Simplifying and harmonizing the rules on tax collection across the 
country is a worthy goal, but this bill would block States from setting 
their own tax policy within their own borders. That is both highly 
questionable, as a matter of constitutional law, and deeply troubling, 
as a matter of policy.
  The power to tax is a key index of sovereignty, yet this legislation 
tells States they may not tax activity solely within their borders 
except as prescribed in the bill. I find this constitutionally dubious. 
Although I take a broad view generally of the Commerce Clause, I do not 
think it extends to a State's ability to tax a person doing business 
within its own borders.
  Setting aside that concern, however, this bill would do great harm to 
a number of States, most especially to New York. According to some 
estimates, New York State could lose up to $125 million annually if 
this bill were enacted.
  New York City's unique location as the center of commerce for the 
Nation as well as its physical proximity to two other States means that 
many individuals go there throughout the year for business purposes. 
But if you work fewer than 30 days, which is up to six 5-day workweeks, 
this bill would strip New York of its right to tax any of your business 
activity within its borders. That is both grossly unfair and extremely 
costly. While a de minimis exception might make sense, I hardly think 
that 6 weeks and $125 million is de minimis.
  This bill comes at a time when Congress is intent on shifting more 
and more responsibilities to the States. As States continue to struggle 
with budgets that are stretched ever thinner, we should not further 
limit their authority to tax and deprive them of yet more revenue. The 
fiscal impact of this bill on certain States may be quite minimal but, 
on others like New York, it would be catastrophic. If we deprive a 
State of $125 million each year, vital services like education, law 
enforcement, and health care could all be on the chopping block.
  During consideration of H.R. 2315 in the Judiciary Committee, I 
offered two amendments that would have mitigated its impact. The first 
would have reduced the bill's 30-day threshold to a more reasonable 14 
days, which is still almost 3 weeks of work without being subject to 
taxation. The other would have added highly paid individuals to the 
bill's list of exemptions, which would help avoid loopholes that could 
allow wealthy people to escape millions of dollars of taxation.
  Had my amendments been accepted, the expected impact on New York 
would have been reduced from more than $100 million to roughly $20 
million a year. While still causing a significant drain on resources, 
these amendments would have gone a long way toward making the bill 
fairer, while still achieving its underlying goals. Unfortunately, they 
were defeated and, therefore, I must oppose the bill.
  When the gentleman speaks of a company with 50 W-2 forms for one 
employee, if those W-2 forms total a few million dollars, that is not 
very burdensome. If they are for $50,000, I understand the point. My 
amendment would have taken care of that.
  I should note that this is not just about New York and that several 
other States would be similarly affected by this legislation. In 
addition, the bill is opposed by a broad coalition of labor and tax 
organizations, including the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, the International 
Union of Police Associations, the Federation of Tax Administrators, the 
Multistate Tax Commission, and many others.
  We should not be depriving States of the ability to tax within their 
own borders as we are transferring more functions to the States and 
cutting back on Federal spending. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
opposing this unfair and misguided legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in response to the previous speaker, my colleague from 
across the aisle, I would respectfully respond to his concerns about 
states' rights. This bill does not violate federalism principles. On 
the contrary, it is an exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority 
in precisely the situation for which it was intended.
  The Supreme Court has explained that the Commerce Clause was informed 
by structural concerns about the effects of State regulation on the 
national economy. Under the Articles of Confederation, State taxes and 
duties hindered and suppressed interstate commerce. The Framers 
intended the interstate Commerce Clause as a cure for these structural 
ills. This bill fits squarely within the authority by bringing 
uniformity to cases of de minimis presence by interstate workers in 
order to reduce compliance costs.
  I might also say, Mr. Speaker, in regard to this bill, this bill 
enjoys broad bipartisan support. It has 180 cosponsors from both sides 
of the aisle. This bill will minimize compliance burdens on both 
workers and employers so that they can get back to being productive, 
creating and performing jobs. We have received letters of support from 
hundreds of entities across the employment spectrum.
  But this bill is not just about business; it is about individuals.
  One businessowner told the Judiciary Committee that the compliance 
burdens from the patchwork of State laws falls on the employees who 
``make less than $50,000 per year and have limited resources to seek 
professional advice.''

                              {time}  1915

  It may not seem like a lot to those who oppose this bill, but for 
folks that make that kind of money, it is a great burden.
  It has been questioned whether there will be revenue loss to these 
States. Analysis shows that the impact is minimal, affecting mainly the 
allocation of revenues, not the overall size of the tax revenue pot.
  This legislation is a great example of Congress working in a 
bipartisan way to relieve burdens on hardworking Americans.

[[Page 13285]]

  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
York for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2315, the Mobile Workforce 
State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2015, which is an important 
bipartisan bill that will help workers and small businesses across the 
country.
  As a proud sponsor of this legislation in both the 110th and 111th 
Congresses, I am very familiar with this issue.
  H.R. 2315 would provide for a uniform and easily administrable law 
that will simplify the patchwork of existing inconsistent and confusing 
State rules. It would also reduce administrative costs to the States 
and lessen compliance burdens on consumers.
  From a national perspective, the mobile workforce bill will vastly 
simplify the patchwork of existing inconsistent and confusing State 
rules. It would also reduce administrative costs to States and lessen 
compliance burdens on consumers.
  Take my home State of Georgia as an example. If an Atlanta-based 
employee of a St. Louis company travels to headquarters on a business 
trip once a year, that employee would be subject to Missouri tax, even 
if his annual visit only lasts a day. However, if that employee travels 
to Maine, her trip would only be subject to tax if her trip lasts for 
10 days. If she travels to New Mexico on business, she would only be 
subject to tax if she was in the State for 15 days.
  For example, in Georgia, Acuity Brands is a leading lighting 
manufacturer that employs over 1,000 associates and has over 3,200 
associates nationwide who travel extensively across the country for 
training, conferences, and other business.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in support of H.R. 
2315.

                                                Acuity Brands,

                                  Conyers, GA, September 19, 2016.
     Re H.R. 2315, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax 
         Simplification Act.

     Hon. Hank Johnson,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Johnson: We are writing to express our 
     strong support for H.R. 2315, the Mobile Workforce State 
     Income Tax Simplification Act, and urge you to support the 
     legislation when the bill is considered by the House this 
     week.
       H.R. 2315, which would establish unified, clear rules and 
     definitions for nonresident personal income tax reporting and 
     withholding, is supported by 300+ organizations comprising 
     the Mobile Workforce Coalition, and has over 170 bipartisan 
     co-sponsors. The bill was approved by the House Judiciary 
     Committee in June 2015, and a nearly identical version of the 
     legislation was passed by voice vote in the House during the 
     112th Congress (H.R. 1864).
       Acuity Brands, Inc. is one of the leading manufacturers of 
     lighting and controls equipment in the world. We are a U.S. 
     corporation based in Georgia with offices, manufacturing 
     facilities, and training centers across the United States. We 
     employee over 4,000 associates in the United States, and our 
     fiscal year 2015 net sales totaled over $2.7 billion.
       Acuity Brands is a large multinational company with 
     locations in many states and customers in all 50 states, 
     which requires a large number of our associates to travel 
     outside of their respective states of residency in order to 
     properly manage and grow our business. Our associates travel 
     all over the country for training, conferences, intracompany 
     business, and volunteer activities for communities or non-
     for-profit entities. Many of these activities contribute to 
     the economy of those non-resident states. Our associates, 
     some of the country's foremost experts on matters impacting 
     the lighting industry, also travel at the invitation of state 
     legislators and regulators to provide testimony and technical 
     expertise on energy-related issues.
       Given the extensive travel required of our associates, some 
     of which is done at the behest of others, the current state-
     by-state system of nonresident personal income tax reporting 
     and withholding imposes substantial operational and 
     administrative burdens on Acuity Brands and our associates. 
     The current requirements vary by state and are often 
     changing, which presents significant compliance challenges. 
     Furthermore, state laws are not always clear on what 
     constitutes work travel or work days, or what exclusions 
     apply. Thus, significant resources are expended trying to 
     interpret various states' requirements and then attempting to 
     satisfy them.
       H.R. 2315 would simplify the current system and greatly 
     reduce the burden on Acuity Brands and other businesses. 
     Unified, simple rules and definitions for nonresident 
     reporting and withholding obligations would undoubtedly 
     improve compliance rates and it would strike the correct 
     balance between state sovereignty and ensuring that America's 
     modern mobile workforce is not unduly encumbered.
       In light of the foregoing, we would sincerely appreciate 
     your support on this legislation.
       Thank you very much for your consideration.
           Sincerely,

                                               Cheryl English,

                              VP, Government & Industry Relations,
                                                    Acuity Brands.

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. In a letter, Richard Reece, Acuity's 
executive vice president, writes that current State laws are numerous, 
varied, and often changing, requiring that the company expend 
significant resources merely interpreting and satisfying States' 
requirements.
  He concludes that:

       Unified, clear rules and definitions for nonresident 
     reporting and withholding obligations would undoubtedly 
     improve compliance rates, and it would strike the correct 
     balance between State sovereignty and ensuring that America's 
     modern mobile workforce is not unduly encumbered.

  We should heed the calls of Acuity and numerous other businesses 
across the country by enacting H.R. 2315 into law. With over 175 
cosponsors this Congress, it is clear that mobile workforce is an idea 
whose time has come.
  I thank my colleagues for their work on the bill, and, in particular, 
Congressman Bishop of Michigan for his leadership on this bill in the 
114th Congress; also Chairman Goodlatte for allowing this bill to come 
to the floor. Congressman Bishop has carried the torch for our esteemed 
former colleague, the late Howard Coble, who fought alongside me in 
support of this bill when it passed out of the House by a voice vote in 
the 112th Congress.
  I also thank our staffs who have worked tirelessly to build support 
for this legislation along bipartisan lines. This bill is a testament 
to the good that can come from working across the aisle on bipartisan 
tax fairness reforms.
  I am optimistic that the passage of H.R. 2315 augers well for the 
passage of e-fairness legislation, which is critical to countless small 
businesses across the country this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to bring 
this bill up for a vote as soon as possible. This country's employees 
and businesses deserve quick action.
  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, whatever the gentleman may say, the fact is this bill, 
since it deals only with earnings earned completely within a State, 
represents a major assault on the sovereignty of the States. It is one 
thing to say that interstate commerce must be regulated, that the 
State's ability to extend its tax out, its tax through a company 
without much nexus to the State that sells into the State can be 
regulated, but that is not this.
  What this says is: We are going to limit the State's ability to tax 
economic activity that occurs entirely within the State.
  Now, one might argue that if someone only spends a couple days in the 
State, you shouldn't tax that because it will discourage doing business 
in the State; and maybe if I were still a member of the State 
legislature, maybe I would argue that. But that is an argument for the 
State legislature. It is not an argument for Congress. That is an 
argument on the economic merits of the State's exercise of its own tax 
powers and its own judgment within its own borders. For Congress to 
step in and say: New York must forgo $125 million in revenue or some 
other State must forgo $55 million or maybe $22.38 entirely based on 
economic activity within that State is, frankly, none of our business.
  Today we talk about the burden that this imposes. Yes, a State might 
be wise to exempt small amounts of income so you don't need 50 W-2s to

[[Page 13286]]

someone who earns a total of $50,000, but for someone who earns $50 
million and may earn $20 million in a couple of days in a State, that 
State ought to be able to tax it, and it ought to be up to the economic 
and political judgment of that State as to how, in the interests of 
economic intelligence, to limit its exercise of its taxing power so as 
not to discourage business. That is a State's decision.
  We hear a lot of rhetoric about States' rights and sovereignty and 
yielding power to the States on the floor, but here is an example going 
much farther than anything else I have seen, frankly, of the Federal 
Government stepping in and saying to a State: You may not exercise your 
taxing power within your State when it has nothing to do with another 
State.
  If someone comes into the State and earns $50 million in 10 days or 3 
weeks or 4\1/2\ weeks, why shouldn't that State be able to tax it if it 
wishes to? By what right does Congress tell it that it can't? By what 
right does Congress tell New York: You must forgo $100 to $125 million 
in revenue?
  Even the efficiency argument doesn't make much sense with today's 
computers and computer ability.
  So I think that this is an invasion of States' rights. It is an 
invasion of the core ability of the State to tax within its own 
borders. It is an invasion of--it is not a theft--it is a deprivation, 
my own State is about $125 million, which our taxpayers will have to 
make up, and it is wrong for that reason.
  Now, I understand why ALEC might support this bill. ALEC wants 
government to do nothing, wants the Federal Government not to tax, the 
State governments not to tax, and have as little power as possible. 
That is a view, but it is not a view that justifies the Federal 
Government telling a State and telling the States' voters that, whether 
they like it or not, they shouldn't tax economic activity within that 
State, they should come up with the money some other way or they should 
have less State services. That is for the States' taxpayers, the 
States' voters to decide.
  This bill is an imposition on the States. It is an imposition on the 
people of the States. It is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I came to the United States Congress, I served as 
general counsel and chief legal officer for a small business. One of my 
primary functions was to ensure compliance on the patchwork of 
government requirements and issues that presented itself every day. It 
was a huge burden for our company. It was a huge burden for the 
employees of our company.
  This is exactly what we are talking about today. This is the exact 
kind of compliance that is choking out small business and really, 
really falling on the shoulders of those who can least afford it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense solution to a real problem. We 
live in a global economy. It is something we can't deny. Our mobile 
workforce is there, and it is going to continue to grow. We cannot 
continue to penalize companies and individuals for that fact.
  We have 180 cosponsors for this that accede the exact basis for what 
we are trying to accomplish here. These are bipartisan folks--
Republicans and Democrats. The same is true with a companion bill in 
the Senate. There are lots and lots of outside groups that support it, 
not just specific legislative groups, but businesses that deal with 
this every day.
  So I am very proud of this bill. I am grateful to Representative 
Johnson of Georgia for his work on the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 2315. I'm glad 
to see that the House of Representatives is taking up legislation to 
address a confusing state income tax issue that is leading to some 
unfair results. But I am concerned that another issue important to my 
state is being ignored.
  Many states currently face legal limitations on their ability to 
collect sales tax from out-of-state sellers. With the boom of the 
internet, economic transactions are increasingly moving online. For 
states that rely on sales tax revenues to fund state agencies and 
programs, they've seen a real hit to their balance sheets.
  What's worse, we're seeing brick and mortar retail outlets all across 
the state and country--businesses that have made real investments in 
their communities--face a competitive disadvantage against online 
retailers. That means more empty storefronts on Main Street and fewer 
jobs in local communities.
  That's why I've supported efforts to help level the playing field and 
ensure that Washington retail stores have the ability to compete. The 
Remote Transactions Parity Act would authorize states to collect sales 
on products sold to Washingtonians that cross state lines. This bill 
now has nearly seventy bipartisan cosponsors.
  Mr. Speaker, there are very few legislative days left before the end 
of this Congress. I'd encourage my friends in the majority to make a 
real effort to address this important issue before we adjourn.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2315.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________