[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 4269]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND IRS ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, April 9, 2002

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I regret that I cannot vote for 
this bill today, but unfortunately the way the Republican leadership 
has brought it to the floor makes that impossible.
  There are many things in this bill that I support, especially 
provisions similar to those in H.R. 2695. That bill, introduced by the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Houghton, would amend the Internal Revenue 
Code to exclude stock options and employee stock purchase plans from 
the definition of wages for purposes of employment taxes. This is a 
clarification that is very important to many of my constituents and to 
other people across the country and that needs to be enacted without 
unnecessary delay.
  I also support enactment of most of the other provisions of this 
bill--particularly the sections dealing with tax penalties and 
interest, collection procedures, confidentiality and disclosure, and 
tax administration. They are desirable improvements in current law.
  But that isn't true with regard to another provision--the one dealing 
with the disclosure of information about donations to and expenditures 
by certain political groups.
  Under section 527 of the Tax Code, limited tax-exempt status is 
available for ``issue advocacy'' groups organized for the primary 
purpose of accepting contributions and making expenditures to influence 
elections at the Federal, State, or local level. Until 2 years ago, 
these ``527'' political organizations did not have to report to anybody 
about the source of their contributions or the beneficiaries of their 
expenditures. They could and did operate free from public scrutiny and 
free from public accountability.
  That changed with enactment of the 527 Organization Disclosure bill, 
which now is Public Law 106-230. Under that law, if the groups want to 
keep their tax-exempt status they generally must let the public know 
where they get their money and the political purposes for which it is 
spent. I strongly supported that important change. But one provision of 
this bill threatens to undo much of that important reform by 
retroactively exempting some groups that now are covered by the 
disclosure law.
  I understand that some careful adjustment of the scope of the 
disclosure legislation might be appropriate, but I am concerned that 
the exemption in this bill is so broad that it might in effect create a 
major loophole that could be exploited by groups that would not be 
subject to comparable disclosure requirement under applicable law. That 
could go far to undermine the campaign-finance reform so recently 
signed into law.
  If this bill had been brought to the floor under more normal 
procedures, there would have been more time for debate on this and 
other provisions, and the House could have considered amendments to 
lessen the possible abuse of this exemption. However, the Republican 
leadership instead has insisted on using a procedure that limits debate 
and does not allow any amendments.
  I cannot support that approach, and I cannot support the bill's 
provisions related to these political groups. So, under the procedures 
chosen by the Republican leadership, I have no choice but to vote 
against the entire bill today. My hope is that if the bill does not 
pass today, the Republican leadership will bring it back under a fairer 
procedure that will permit changes that would allow me to vote for its 
passage.

                          ____________________