Bob Goodlatte, (R-VA) is chair of the House Judiciary Committee. He has said that the House won't pass the measure already approved by the Senate that would require online businesses to collect state and local sales taxes like "brick and mortar" businesses do and he wants an "alternative" to be developed in the House.
Goodlatte says (from the Main Street Press Office, quoting the Washington Examiner) that he shouldn't have been taken as killing any legislation requiring online collection, but that he has "serious concerns" and thus wants the House to investigate "alternatives that could enable states to collect sales tax revenues without opening the door to aggressive state action against out-of-state companies. Furthermore, any alternative in the House would address fairness to all businesses and consumers.”
So he doesn't want "aggressive state action against out-of-state companies." When out-of-state companies sell items into the state, they should collect the taxes due to the state. Just what would Goodlatte consider "aggressive" actions in that context, I wonder.
But wait. Goodlatte also said that the Senate bill is "unfair" to consumers because "they'd have to pay more." Of course they'd have to pay more if they pay the taxes due on the purchase! But they should pay more! Consumers still owe those taxes that aren't now collected by online businesses--it is just really hard for a state or locality to collect them when they can't collected them through online businesses at the point of sale. There is no "fairness to consumers" issue in whether they pay the taxes due or not.
So just what does Bob Goodlatte want? Could it be protection of online business (excess) profits from the comparatively lower prices they can charge because of assisting consumers in evading state and local sales taxes?