Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. How can the gentleman from Washington revise and extend his remarks on the bill before us when the bill has not been laid before us?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There has been a quiet revolution going on in the United States, and it was so quiet that a lot of people did not notice. One of the fundamental tenets of Marxism was that there was a separation between those who own the means of production and those who labored at that production; as Marx said in the Communist Manifesto, the capitalists and the proletariat. And there was a belief, still somewhat attempted to be carried on by some folks, that there is a significant and fundamental class difference, an economic difference, which produces a cultural difference between ``classes,'' the captains of industry, the big corporate folk and the workers that to a certain extent, this political argument is perpetuated today. The quiet revolution that I am talking about is the change that has occurred over the last half century, speeding up significantly in the last third of the 20th century, and really culminating in part for why we are on the floor today; and that is, there is becoming less and less of a distinction between workers and owners. As a matter of fact, based upon legislation in the 1970s, more and more companies are being owned by the workers. If my colleagues do not think that shows a fundamental flaw in Marxism and a significant and historic modification of capitalism, talk to any worker who has a 401(k), who owns shares in the stock market. And, frankly, that is becoming more and more your everyday American because, at the same time, the concept that one was supposed to go to work for a company and be employed for 20 years, 30 years, a lifetime, and that if they committed themselves to that company, they were rewarded by a pension or a decent retirement payment, exemplified, for example, a gold watch for loyalty. Today, not only are individuals working a number of different jobs in their lifetime, they wind up oftentimes with several different careers in their lifetime. And what is most remarkable about being on the floor today is that all of this occurred without a significant or heavy hand of government trying to make it happen. It just kind of occurred. There was an enlightenment that management ought to allow workers to participate as owners, and workers thought it might be a good idea to get a piece of the action. Frankly, since it developed to a very great extent below the radar screen and it was not going to be focused on until there were some problems that occurred, and obviously Enron as a focal point could be described as a problem, we are here today to make modest adjustments to a system that needs to continue to evolve largely in the private sector, not controlled or dictated to by government. However, in the chairman's opinion, government ought to watch very carefully what is occurring in this area because I believe there are a number of successful models that can be examined to help us in our dilemma of one of the key safety nets, the entitlement of Social Security, where over the next several years we are going to have to make several decisions about how we modify the Social Security system. It is, I think, significant that we are here today to put into place modest, but appropriate, changes in that structure in which workers have become owners, part or whole. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) for the purpose of a colloquy pointing to the fact that there is a difference between certain types of employee-owned companies, commonly known because of the law, as ESOPs.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. The diversification rules exempt privately held companies. Only public companies are subject to the rules.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the gentleman closed his statement right along the same class lines that I said have been blurred significantly. I was not talking about communism; I was talking about Marxism. The gentleman's reference that the captains of industry get to be treated differently than their employees is one of the reasons we are here today. If the gentleman would turn to page 75 of the bill, the gentleman would find section 108, which clearly prohibits the so-called captains from participating in activities that the employees are denied. Exactly the point that the gentleman makes is contained in the legislation. In addition to that, the reason we are here today with a shared committee responsibility is because in 1974 Congress passed, and the President signed, the Employer Retirement Income Security Act, known as ERISA. The jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means is to the Tax Code. The jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and the Workforce is to that portion of the law known as ERISA. As is oftentimes the case, there are two different sections of the law. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would wish that the Committee on Ways and Means also controlled the ERISA portion of the code, the Chair would reach out to the gentleman, and we could try to figure out a way to put that under our jurisdiction as well. But at least temporarily, it is under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. They have to be accommodated since that is their jurisdiction. It was a pleasure to work with the chairman of that committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), in putting together this package. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), who is someone who understands the relationship between owners and workers and the change that has occurred over time in that relationship, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) control the remainder of the time on this side.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. Employer contributions used to satisfy the 401(k) safe harbor test will not be subject to the diversification rules, as long as the contributions are made to a so-called pure ESOP, which is defined as an ESOP which holds no employee contributions, no employer-matching contributions, and no employer contributions used to meet the nondiscrimination test. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) who has been focusing on this issue since the time that he arrived in Congress.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, it is really amazing when you listen to the individuals argue why they do not want this to become law, the argument that there is some duplication and that we ought to correct it. The gentleman from Texas who just spoke did not spend too much time talking about his suggested amendment which was defeated in committee, because it will give you an idea of what they mean by duplicate. His amendment said that any State or local government would be exempt from reporting to the Federal level if the law they had in place was exactly identical to the Federal law. You heard the gentleman in the well on our side say that the only way you are ever going to carry these arguments to their logical conclusion is to make everything Federal, require everyone to report to the Federal level. The gentleman from New York wanted to know why this was included in a bill which was labeled ``Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability.'' I can tell you why: Because the burden placed on these individuals is to file Internal Revenue Service papers. They are irrelevant to the activities at the Federal level that are carried on in the State and local governments. The Texas Funeral Directors Association, no Federal involvement, has to file. The New York Physical Therapy Association, no Federal involvement, has to file. The Baltimore Sitting Judges Committee, no Federal involvement, has to file. Why? Because the law says they have to file, not because they are involved in any way in Federal elections. Let me underscore this point, because our opponents do not seem to understand this. If you are involved, if you are dealing directly with Federal elections, you are going to be required to continue to report at the Federal level. If you are not, you will report to those reporting requirements that are in place in the State and local level. That is the sum and substance of this adjustment. But if you really read Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman's statements carefully, they do not even like the current law. What they want is more intrusive specific reporting when you are not involved at the Federal level. Disclosure only works if people believe it is appropriate disclosure. The gentleman from Connecticut's example was an example of someone violating the law; not that this is a loophole. The activity that he discussed, which said it was a loophole, is violating the law. It is violating the law under current law, it would violating the law under this amendment if it becomes law. If you look at the good taxpayer provisions in this measure, including removing duplication, this is a bill worth voting for, as 34 Members of the Committee on Ways and Means did, and I ask your support. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record correspondence between the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Government Reform regarding the jurisdictional matters on H.R. 3991. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC, April 9, 2002. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: On March 20, 2002, the Committee on Ways and Means ordered reported H.R. 3991, the ``Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act of 2002,'' as amended. The bill was subsequently referred to the Committee on Government Reform because section 301 of the amended bill addressed matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform under House Rule X, clause 1(h)(1). After examining the amended bill and consulting with the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Government Reform will not take any action on the bill in order to expedite its consideration on the floor. This does not constitute waiver of the Committee's jurisdiction over H.R. 3991. Furthermore, the Committee reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill that fall within the Committee's jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this legislation. Sincerely, Dan Burton, Chairman.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I say to the gentlewoman that the record shows that the gentlewoman voted for this bill. We are not limited by the number of bills that we can report out. This bill was based upon previous hearings. I am going to call shortly the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight, who the gentlewoman discussed today; and it will very likely lead to additional legislation, and we will move additional bills. The idea that we would hold hearings all year long and never move a bill, and then try to pull it together at the end is a novel idea. We might want to consider it, but it certainly runs against the tradition of this House. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds. Madam Speaker, perhaps the gentleman does not understand the law. The sham issue ads are not involved with the IRS and the reporting structure. If a Federal office holder influences a State and local PAC decision, this says they have to report at the Federal level. If there is Federal activity, they report at the Federal level. There is no loophole that is created. What it gets rid of is duplication where if a State and local PAC, not involved at the Federal level, that has to report at the State and local level. And as the gentleman indicated, he wants them to report on the Federal level even though they are not involved in Federal activity. At some point we have to ask ourselves whether continuing to use the phrase ``why put in loopholes, why do a poison pill,'' Members ought to look at the specifics of the legislation instead of the rhetoric, and ought to respond to what is on the page instead of chasing bogeymen. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means in helping us write reasonable and responsive legislation, and not press releases.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1-3/4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3991) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect taxpayers and ensure accountability of the Internal Revenue Service, as amended.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act of 2002 might be called modest, but if one looks at the particular provisions, I think for those individuals engaged with the Internal Revenue Service, I think they might find them relatively important. The Chair would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight, and especially the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) in their ongoing work in providing the committee with excellent legislation. As I said in announcing the call-up for the vote, that this bill was amended. It was amended in committee. Two amendments were taken, one by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), which would allow IRS information to be provided to State Attorneys General. I think it is significant that it was offered by the gentleman from New York. The information is an examination of 501(c)(3) groups and whether they would refuse, or whether there was a revocation or whether there was a tax deficiency reported at the Federal level, that information to be shared at the State level. As my colleagues might imagine, how unseemly as it might be, there are individuals and groups who tried to take advantage of the disaster because of the events of September 11. There are individuals or groups who seek to take advantage of the charitable nature of Americans and New Yorkers as well. What this amendment does is allow the sharing of Federal information to assist in the State's administering their laws governing a charitable organization as well. Quite an appropriate amendment, and it was accepted on a voice vote. The gentleman from Ohio, I think, speaking as well for the gentleman from Maryland, offered some specific amendments dealing with the way in which the IRS commissioner would treat IRS employees who were engaged in what have become now known as the ``10 deadly sins,'' based upon recent legislation in which if an employee of the IRS examines forms unauthorized, a number of them are grounds for immediate dismissal. As my colleagues might guess, that kind of an administrative tool perhaps is too extreme in some instances, and based upon the argument of the two gentlemen, it seemed persuasive to provide a degree of discretion to the commissioner in pursuing either disciplinary action or dismissal. In addition to that, there are some other specific provisions that would greatly assist individuals who are interacting with the IRS, and I will go into those in some detail later. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I am kind of interested in the words that the gentleman from New York used, ``filled with loopholes,'' ``fatally flawed,'' ``poison pill.'' I find it ironic that two-thirds of the Democrats on the committee voted for it. It is true all of the Republicans voted for it, and if my colleagues spent the time to really look at what the provision the gentleman was referring to in correcting current law does, the sum and substance is to basically say if someone is reporting to an agency that requires a person under the State and local laws of the State to report, they also do not have to duplicate that reporting at the Federal level if they are not involved in Federal activities. That is the sum and substance of what it is that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) offered and was included in the bill. I find it interesting that there was a press conference today by the very same gentleman that my friend and colleague from New York mentioned, Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman, and, of course, the bulk of that press conference was complaining about the current law, that they do not like the current 527, the one that they put into effect. It is not enough. The answer is they will never be satisfied. And what we have to do is look at what is reasonable and prudent, and numbers of groups have said that the double reporting when we are not involved at the Federal level is a significant burden. One would say, how burdensome is it? The IRS form that they are required to fill out says, as part of the truth in packaging and paperwork law, how many hours it requires to deal with the form. The number on that form is 94 hours; 94 hours of filling out a form in which someone was not involved in any way in a Federal election because of the way in which the legislation was written. What this bill does is correct that to say that there are no loopholes, that people who are required to report in the previous law are required to report today. The so-called stealth or phantom PACs are required to report as current law requires. What we do is remove the duplication. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to memorialize my friend and former colleague, Norm Hoffman, who was killed in a road accident one year ago today. Bakersfield suffered a significant loss with the death of Norm Hoffman. Norm was an extraordinary main in many ways, and he left his mark deep on the Bakersfield community. The Bakersfield City Council has officially designated March 16 as Norm Hoffman Day, and this Saturday, Norm will also be honored by the dedication of a memorial on the Bakersfield College campus where he was a beloved teacher to hundreds of students both inside and outside of the classroom. Norm was a dedicated athlete and fitness enthusiast. He was distinguished early by his athletic ability, but didn't find his real love, cycling, until later in life. As a college student, Norm was the NCAA champion in the half-mile at Oregon State and only a hamstring injury kept him from competing for a spot on the 1964 Olympic Team. In the 1970's, Norm took up and excelled at bodybuilding, winning the Mr. Kern County abdominal muscle group award and bulking up to 260 pounds. However, he found his greatest athletic success and enjoyment when he began cycling after age 40. The list of Norm's successes in cycling go on and on: four-time national champion in the 40 kilometer time trials; three national and world records; and consideration for a place on the 1988 Olympic time trials team at age 46. The most important of his achievements; however, is also his legacy: a whole generation of local cyclists who were inspired to take up the sport from his example. Norm's influence on the community is clearly visible. Chances are that most of the many cyclists you'll see on the bike path on Saturday morning owe their involvement in the sport to Norm Hoffman. Norm was a familiar sight to many of us in Bakersfield, as he cycled to and from Bakersfield College greeting his many friends with a wide grin. His determination, vitality, boundless energy and dedication to others are devoutly missed, but despite his absence, Norm continues to serve as an inspiration and as a role model to the many people who knew his indomitable spirit.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the motion just agreed to.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Once again reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I tell the gentleman that our intent is to maximize the opportunities for those who are unfortunately unemployed, not to create conflict; and we believe we have done that.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. And if my colleague from New York would not rapidly leave the Chamber, what I would have responded to him was that perhaps he forgets back in September, on the trade adjustment assistance package, the House placed more than $2 billion available for those individuals who lost their jobs in relation to the tragic events of September 11. Notwithstanding the fact it was on trade adjustment, we said that would be handled in the same fashion. When the gentleman talks about relieving the pain of the unemployed, he focuses on unemployment payments, as though being more generous on unemployment payments is how he relieves the pain of the unemployed. What the President so eloquently said in his State of the Union was that what this is all about is jobs. And the last time I checked, if we want to be an employee, we need to have an employer. What he calls benefits to the rich and the corporations, anybody else, who understands how this economy works, would say we are trying to create jobs. And when he says we do not have compassion for the unemployed, this sounds like a repeat of the welfare debate when they considered compassion holding people hostage to government payments. That is compassion? We believe compassion is making sure the economy grows so that people can have a job and have the dignity and respect of having a job, instead of making sure that we tie them to unemployment payments so we can show how compassionate we are in relieving the pain of unemployment by giving them a government check. I think that pretty well draws the line between the President and our approach to trying to deal with these issues and our friends on the other side of the aisle. They define compassion as a government check, they define taking care of the pain of the unemployed by giving them more government money, and we define it as growing the economy, creating jobs and letting people have the dignity of work. That is real compassion for those who, through no fault of their own, have no job at the present time. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.