“The bill subjects to Federal income tax for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1938, the compensation of all State and local officers and employees; grants consent to the States to tax the compensation received after December 31, 1938, by Federal officers and employees; (76th Congress 1st Session, House of Representatives Report No. 26 (H.R. 3790) February 7, 1939)

 “This bill therefore provides in a clear and unequivocal manner for such taxation.  If there are any possible doubts as to the validity of the taxation, the bill thus enables the issue to be squarely presented to the Supreme Court." (Report No. 26, page 2)

 “The number of public officers and employees has grown rapidly during the past few years.  Combined Federal, State, and local employees for the year 1937 amounted to 3,800,000 and received compensation in the total amount of $5,500,000,000.  This combined number represents 12 percent of the number of persons receiving wages and salaries, 13 percent of the total wages and salaries received, and approximately 9 percent of the national income.
 There were approximately 2,600,000 State and local employees in 1937, representing a total annual pay roll for that year of $3,600,000,000.  Many of these employees have salaries below the personal exemptions allowed for income tax purposes.  It is estimated that for 1937, 1,000,000,or 40 percent received $1,000 or less and approximately 2,300,000 or 90 percent received $2,500 or less.  Thus, 90 percent of State and local employees, if married, would not be subject to the Federal income tax.  (76th Congress 1st Session, Senate Report 112 (H.R.3790), February 24, 1939, page 3)

Congressional Record-House, February 9, 1939, page 1301, Congressman Boehne of Indiana:
 “It is my understanding that by the passage of this bill only about 6 percent of all State and local employees will fall into the category of Federal income-tax payers….
 …”Because a person has been appointed or elected to a public office is no reason why he should be placed in a preferred class…
 …If we can bring every public officeholder to realize this by taxing his own salary to the limit of the law, such employees will insist that a proper balance between income and expenditure be maintained at all costs.”

Congressional Record-House, February 9, 1939, page 1311, Congressman Robsion of Kentucky:
“It is urged that many of these officials and employees of the State, district, county, and city governments would not be required to pay an income tax after allowing exemptions.  If this policy should be once adopted, then the policy that has been urged for some time would be brought into action; that is, to greatly reduce the exemptions, so that all of our State, district, county and city employees, including teachers, nurses, and others, might be required to pay an income tax to the Federal Government.”

Congressional Record-House, February 9. 1939, page 1313, Congressman Disney of Oklahoma:
 “Let me answer the question.  The bill provides for a direct tax upon the State employee and gives consent to the State to tax Federal employees; but it must be said in all fairness in this connection that any Congress, which comes along, may, of course, repeal that consent.  It does not approach the dignity of a compact with the States.”

Congressional Record-House, February 9, 1939, page 1315, Congressman Jenkins of Ohio:
 “It prevents the Treasury Department from going back 2 or 3 years and levying a tax on school teachers and policemen and thousands of others in your State.  If they have a right to collect that tax 2 or 3 years back without any law why have they not the right to levy it forward now without this law? [Applause]  Who can explain that to me. I repeat, if they have a right to go back and tax school teachers and the policemen and the firemen of your community, they must do it by some virtue of some law, by some semblance of a law.  If they can collect 1937 tax legally then they can collect 1940 tax legally.  Of course, sometimes they do not pay much attention to the law down there, but they must act on some semblance of law.”

Congressional Record-House, February 9, 1939, page 1321, Congressman Reed of New York:
 “I repeat that the purpose of this bill is not to raise revenue, for it is conceded that it will not produce more that $16,000,000, a sum insufficient under the present spending program to run the Federal Government two-thirds of 1 day.
 The purpose is to bring congressional pressure upon the Supreme Court to destroy the fundamental principle that one sovereign power shall not destroy the functions of another sovereign power through the power of taxation, which is the power to destroy.
 …We know the evil at which the sixteenth amendment was directed.  The Court had held that you could not impose a tax upon the income from real estate or from personal property without apportionment.  The people wanted an amendment that would have the effect—and all the debates here has brought out that this was the understanding of the States when they ratified that amendment—of making it possible for the Federal Government to tax the incomes from these two sources without apportionment.  That is all in the world the sixteenth amendment did.”

Congressional Record-Senate, April 4, 1939, page 3765, Senator Brown of Michigan:
 “The Senator from Vermont for himself may certainly make that reservation; but there is no question, under the accepted practice here and in the courts, that the fact that we pass the bill will lend to it a presumption of constitutionality.”