[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 116 (Tuesday, September 26, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H8068-H8072]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MISSING CHILDREN TAX FAIRNESS ACT OF 2000
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5117) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify
the allowance of the child credit, the deduction for personal
exemptions, and the earned income credit for missing children, and for
other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5117
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 ``Missing Children Tax
Fairness Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF MISSING CHILDREN WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN
TAX BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 151 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional
exemption for dependents) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(6) Treatment of missing children.--
``(A) In general.--Solely for the purposes referred to in
subparagraph (B), a child of the taxpayer--
``(i) who is presumed by law enforcement authorities to
have been kidnapped by someone who is not a member of the
family of such child or the taxpayer, and
``(ii) who was (without regard to this paragraph) the
dependent of the taxpayer for the taxable year in which the
kidnapping occurred,
shall be treated as a dependent of the taxpayer for all
taxable years ending during the period that the child is
kidnapped.
``(B) Purposes.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply solely for
purposes of determining--
``(i) the deduction under this section,
``(ii) the credit under section 24 (relating to child tax
credit), and
``(iii) whether an individual is a surviving spouse or a
head of a household (such terms are defined in section 2).
``(C) Comparable treatment for earned income credit.--For
purposes of section 32, an individual--
``(i) who is presumed by law enforcement authorities to
have been kidnapped by someone who is not a member of the
family of such individual or the taxpayer, and
``(ii) who had, for the taxable year in which the
kidnapping occurred, the same principal place of abode as the
taxpayer for more than one-half of the portion of such year
before the date of the kidnapping,
shall be treated as meeting the requirement of section
32(c)(3)(A)(ii) with respect to a taxpayer for all taxable
years ending during the period that the individual is
kidnapped.
``(D) Termination of treatment.--Subparagraphs (A) and (C)
shall cease to apply as of the first taxable year of the
taxpayer beginning after the calendar year in which there is
a determination that the child is dead (or, if earlier, in
which the child would have attained age 18).''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).
General Leave
Mr. RAMSTAD. 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 material on H.R. 5117, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman
Archer) of the Committee on Ways and Means for clearing this bill for
the suspension calendar and to the majority leader, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Armey), the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) for
putting this important legislation on a fast track bringing it up
today.
Mr. Speaker, imagine the horror of learning that a stranger has
kidnapped your child. Then imagine the courage needed to keep alive the
hope of your child's recovery and safe return. Imagine the costs, the
financial costs, incurred by heartbroken parents spending every last
penny searching for their abducted child.
Mr. Speaker, imagine an agency of the Federal Government that steals
your hope, that tells you your child is no longer part of your
household. It does not get any worse from out-of-touch Washington
bureaucrats than to deny the family of a kidnapped child the dependency
exemption, even though the family continues to spend thousands of
dollars searching for their child and maintains the child's bedroom.
Unbelievable, but true. This is exactly what the Internal Revenue
Service has been doing to families of missing and abducted children.
Beside me right here, Mr. Speaker, is a picture of a young boy who
was stolen from his family in 1989 in Minnesota. His name is Jacob
Wetterling, and his story has touched countless lives throughout
Minnesota and our Nation. Jacob was abducted from the small community
of St. Joseph, Minnesota when he was 11 years old. A masked gunman took
Jacob from his bicycle while his brother and his friend watched
helplessly.
His family has not heard from Jacob since that day, but we all hope
and pray with them for his safe return, and
[[Page H8069]]
Jacob's family has turned his tragedy into a national effort that has
helped hundreds and hundreds of missing children in this country.
Jacob's parents, Patty and Jerry Wetterling, founded the Jacob
Wetterling Foundation, an organization that helps prevent and respond
to child abductions. Patty Wetterling, as most of my colleagues
remember, is a tireless advocate for children traveling around the
country, educating communities about child safety.
{time} 1045
It was Patty's work that inspired me to introduce the Jacob
Wetterling bill several years ago. Those of my colleagues who are here
remember Patty's effective lobbying efforts to pass that bill, walking
the halls of Congress, coming to my colleagues' offices, testifying
before the Committee on the Judiciary, working tirelessly on that
important legislation, which is now the law of the land, requiring
people who are convicted of crimes against children to register with
law enforcement whenever they move into a community.
The Jacob Wetterling law is working thanks to Patty Wetterling and
others who fought for that bill that protects American children from
predators.
This picture, Mr. Speaker, shows Jacob as he looked at the time he
was kidnapped in 1989, this first picture on my colleagues' left. The
picture beside it shows how Jacob might look today. That has been age
enhanced.
Mr. Speaker, if anyone, anyone has any information about Jacob, they
should call 1-800-THELOST, 1-800-T-H-E-L-O-S-T.
My thanks go to the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children, to Ernie Allen, and all those people there who work so hard
with their help with this graphic and for all they do to help bring
America's missing children home.
Mr. Speaker, the families of missing children fight countless
battles. Fighting the IRS should not be one of them. In 1990, the year
after Jacob was kidnapped, listen to this, Mr. Speaker, the year after
this young boy was kidnapped, his parents, the Wetterlings, were
informed they could no longer take the dependency exemption for Jacob
on their tax return, this in spite of the fact the Wetterlings
continued to spend a fortune looking for Jacob, making long distance
phone calls, organizing searchers, printing fliers, mailing them
throughout the Nation.
At the time, the Wetterlings did not fight the IRS. As Patty
Wetterling said, one has to pick one's battles, and she was too
exhausted from the other battles to fight the IRS.
Mr. Speaker, these families should not have to fight this battle.
Congress needs to fight the battle for them and win it for families of
abducted children.
This year, the IRS had a chance to clarify the dependency exemption
for abducted children. A family whose child was stolen by a stranger
asked the IRS whether they could continue taking the dependency
exemption. They were spending thousands of dollars searching for their
child, maintaining the child's room and so forth. The IRS answered in
August. Do my colleagues know what their answer was. No. Not in the
years after one's child was abducted, even if one maintains the child's
room and spends money searching for the missing child.
That is why I and a number of Members on both sides of the aisle
introduced the bill before us today, H.R. 5117, the Missing Children
Tax Fairness Act. This bill will clarify that families whose children
are abducted by strangers can continue to take the dependency
exemption. It also clarifies other areas of the law so these families
will be held harmless with respect to the child tax credit, earned
income tax credit, and filing status. The bottom line is this, Mr.
Speaker, no families' taxes will increase simply because a stranger
abducts their child.
Mr. Speaker, just last week, officials at the IRS were informed that
this legislation would be considered by the House today. Then on
Friday, just this last Friday, the IRS suddenly and dramatically
reversed itself and issued another advice memorandum saying that these
parents may be able to claim a dependency exemption after all. This is
a welcome change of heart by the IRS, but this legislation is still
needed.
First, the IRS advice memorandum does not establish legal precedent.
As we all know, the IRS could very well flip-flop again. We also need
to clarify other areas of the Tax Code dealing with children so these
families will no longer face the possibility of a tax hike.
It is my understanding that a few years ago, another family whose
child was abducted asked the IRS about the dependency exemption. The
IRS told them flatly, quote from the IRS official, ``We presume your
child is dead.'' Mr. Speaker, it is time to put an end to that callous
kind of response.
As Patty Wetterling put it best, ``I always felt it was awfully cold
for the IRS to profit from our great loss.'' Patty also said, and I am
quoting, ``I hope Congress will reverse the IRS and provide a huge
emotional and financial relief for parents of missing and abducted
children.''
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my colleagues for the bipartisan
outpouring of support for H.R. 5117. Again, I want to express my
gratitude to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) for clearing
this bill for the Suspension Calendar and to our House leadership for
putting it on a fast track.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to listen to parents of
abducted children, parents like Patty and Jerry Wetterling. Support
basic tax fairness and hope for families of missing and abducted
children.
I urge, in the name of tax fairness and hope, passage of H.R. 5117.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill before us today would codify the Internal
Revenue Service's current position to allow a dependent exemption to
the family of a missing child in the years after the child's abduction.
This bill would also extend this fair approach to families with missing
children for purposes of the child credit and earned income tax credit.
I support this bill, as does a broad bipartisan group of people in
this Chamber and the administration. I want to applaud the cosponsors
of this bill for bringing this to the attention of the committee on
Ways and Means and particularly the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Ramstad). The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) is the leading
sponsor of the bill; and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman),
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) are cosponsors of the legislation. They deserve
our thanks for highlighting this problem and the area that it consumes
in the tax laws of the country.
H.R. 5117, the Missing Children Tax Fairness Act of 2000, was
introduced in response to an ill-advised IRS chief counsel and the
advice in a memorandum that he presented which has, by the way, since
been reversed.
On August 31, 2000, the New York Times reported that in April of this
year, a taxpayer asked an IRS customer service representative if he
could claim a dependent exemption for his kidnapped child for the 1999
tax year. The taxpayer also asked if the dependent exemption could be
claimed in future years if the child's room was being maintained and
money was being spent on such a search.
The IRS customer service representative contacted the IRS national
office for a technical response. The IRS chief counsel's office replied
that the allowance was legitimate in the year of the kidnapping but
that in subsequent years no exemption could be claimed.
This is not the first time, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Ramstad) pointed out, that this issue has arisen. The press has
reported a similar case involving 12-year-old Johnny Gosch who was
kidnapped by a stranger in front of five witnesses in Des Moines, Iowa
in 1982. His mother has said that the family's tax return was audited
then in 1996 and the exemption that they claimed was denied the family.
Fortunately, the IRS has resolved this matter in the correct way and
decided in favor of the family and similarly situated families. The IRS
should be commended for acting in a timely fashion to resolve this
particular sensitive matter. The bill is narrowly targeted and applies
only when a child is abducted by a nonfamily member.
A study by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, a private
research
[[Page H8070]]
group in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, found that only 24 percent of the
abductions were carried out by strangers.
With bipartisan support and the support of the administration, it is
appropriate that this bill be enacted into law. Without question, we
should all support this bill and see its passage today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne)
for his kind words, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) and the
four other Members from his side of the aisle. I want to also thank the
22 Members from this side of the aisle who are co-sponsors of this
bill.
I think we prove with this legislation that Congress can actually
work in a bipartisan common sense way to right a wrong, to pass an
important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Ramstad) has 10 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Coyne) has 16 minutes remaining.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), an important member of the Committee on Ways
and Means and a cosponsor of this legislation.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, the glare of the camera lights is not present here. The
press gallery is virtually empty. Yet, today, Mr. Speaker, with this
legislation we will send a signal across America that I hope many in
this town will heed. Because today, with passage of this legislation,
we will reaffirm that there are members of both major parties here who
are willing to put people before politics.
The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) recounted it well. It is
chilling, really, to think about the conversation that occurred between
the mother of a missing child and an employee of the Federal
Government, one charged presumably with the mission of service to our
citizenry. In asking if the deduction for a dependent was still in
effect, this Washington bureaucrat said, ``No, we presume your child to
be dead.''
Mr. Speaker, is there anyone in this Chamber, no matter partisan
label or political philosophy, who believes that was the right thing to
do? Is there anyone who could condone that heartless act?
Our Founders warned us of placing overwhelming powers in the hands of
a Federal bureaucracy. Individual freedoms are threatened; but, more
importantly, common sense is often abandoned.
Now comes the welcome news, as the gentleman from Minnesota reports,
and as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) from the other side
of the aisle confirms, that now the Internal Revenue Service has
reconsidered. Small wonder, Mr. Speaker, that Justice Brandeis called
sunlight the best disinfectant. But as our attention turns to other
matters, the temptation for that callous group-think to overtake the
Internal Revenue Service, again, I believe will be rife.
Mr. Speaker, I need not remind my colleagues that we have a
constitutional mandate and responsibility to enact law, that that law
is formulated in this Chamber, and signed into law at the other end of
Pennsylvania Avenue by our Chief Executive.
Let us not leave this to bureaucratic women or, to be charitable, to
misinterpretation. The stakes are too high for families ravaged by the
trauma of losing a child.
{time} 1100
Mr. Speaker, we should put ourselves in the place of those parents,
the horror of the event, the uncertainty of the child's fate, and
walking down a darkened hallway past an empty room; the daily fear and
trauma that is as close literally as their own home. And to have this
vast bureaucracy, in the name of compassion, take away from the
treasure of that family and impose a penalty on that family for what
can only be described as a horrible crime and a horrible curse, is
deplorable.
My colleagues, we have a chance today to right that wrong. The press
may not write about it, the punditocracy may leave it alone, but here
is an opportunity to stand together to put people before politics and
help parents in the most horrible of situations. Stand with us,
regardless of partisan stripe, in the name of true compassion and
common sense, and reject the heartless group-think of a bureaucracy out
of touch with the American public. Reaffirm our constitutional
responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, we need to right this wrong.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Coyne) for yielding me this time, and I also want to thank the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) for bringing forward this
legislation. I want to associate myself with the gentleman's entire
statement, and I think each Member of this body concurs in the passion
the gentleman has brought to this legislation. I expect and hope that
it will receive unanimous support in this body.
Mr. Speaker, let me point out that the IRS has made tremendous
progress over the last several years, thanks in large measure to the
attention of this body and the leadership of Commissioner Rossotti in
leading the IRS. They have made a lot of progress. But as this
legislation points out, there is still more progress that we need to
make collectively, in partnership, between the IRS and the legislative
branch of government.
The IRS has conceded the point in this bill, but the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) is correct, it is important that we pass this
legislation because it is our responsibility to clarify the law. If
there is any ambiguity on this point, we should speak very clearly for
the taxpayer, because the taxpayer is correct in this situation,
understanding that the IRS is responsible to interpret our laws.
Let me make one additional point, if I might, Mr. Speaker, and that
is, as I pointed out, there is joint responsibility here between the
executive and the legislative branch. We assumed and clarified that in
the IRS Restructuring Act. We are now debating in conference the
appropriation bill that includes the IRS. And let me just make the
point that the IRS needs our continued support, which includes adequate
tools to do the work we expect them to do, so that we have less of the
types of emotional exchanges that occurred in this case.
There will always be problems, we know that; but let us provide the
tools that we said we would to the IRS. Let us make sure the
appropriation bill that is brought out of conference adequately
finances the IRS and that we continue our oversight function. And I
want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) for the work they do on the
Ways and Means in oversight of the IRS. They are doing a tremendous
service to this Nation.
This legislation should pass, but we should continue our commitment
to support with adequate resources the IRS.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
this bill and congratulate the leadership on both sides of the aisle
for bringing it to the floor for a vote today.
The IRS made a terrible decision for an aggrieved American family,
and I believe every mother and father can identify with the sorrow that
the family felt when they lost their child through kidnapping. The
child was kidnapped and the IRS said the family could not take a child
dependent tax benefit due to a legal interpretation of support. The
family merely asked if the dependent exemption could be claimed in
future years if the child's room was kept intact and money was being
spent on the search for the child.
I am glad that the IRS reversed themselves yesterday. Their first
response was callous, to say the least. The IRS should not profit or
benefit from a child that is missing or one that
[[Page H8071]]
has been abducted. But as my colleagues have pointed out on both sides
of the aisle, it is important that we take steps for the future so that
this is not a sorrow or a problem that other families confront.
I do not believe that there is any opposition to this bill. Everyone
I know has spoken to me of their strong support for it. But I would
like to mention a bill that will be coming up for which there may be
some opposition, and I believe it is the most important bill before
Congress, which has the bipartisan support of the Women's Caucus, and
that is the Violence Against Women's Act.
Enacted in 1994, VAWA has already provided crucial judicial and law
enforcement training on violence against women, shelters for abused
women, a national hot line that logs over 13,000 calls a month, and
child abuse prevention programs that run across this country.
Two weeks ago, the Democratic leadership raised this issue directly
with the President and the Republican leadership and sent a letter to
Speaker Hastert demanding a vote on this bill. I quote from the
minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), in part.
He said, ``This is an epidemic problem in this country and we need to
put the Federal Government behind it.''
I will put his letter in the Record and also mention that this is the
first time that I have seen the Democratic leadership take a women's
abuse issue and make it a top priority for the Democratic caucus. I
congratulate the leadership and the many women in this body who have
worked for years on this issue; my good friend, the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert),
and others.
Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to have the same support for
the Violence Against Women Act that we have for this correction for the
child deduction and the IRS. And again, I congratulate the leadership
on both sides of the aisle on this important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include the letter I just referred to for the Record:
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, September 12, 2000.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Hastert: We write to request that you bring
H.R. 1248, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (``VAWA'')
introduced by Representative Connie Morella, before the full
House for consideration as soon as possible. H.R. 1248 has
224 bipartisan cosponsors and the support of domestic
violence and sexual assault groups nationwide.
H.R. 1248 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary,
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the
Committee on Commerce. The Committee on the Judiciary
favorably approved H.R. 1248 by a voice vote on June 27,
2000, but unfortunately, the Committee on Education and
Workforce and the Committee on Commerce have failed to
consider this legislation. H.R. 1248 is stalled despite the
fact that VAWA funding authorization expires on September 30,
2000. In recognition of this fact, the Senate last week
hotlined the Biden-Hatch version of VAWA, S. 2787.
H.R. 1248 reauthorizes programs created by the Violence
Against Women Act of 1994 for five years beyond 2000. It
continues funding for VAWA programs such as law enforcement
and prosecution grants to combat violence against women, the
National Domestic Violence Hotline, battered women's shelters
and services, education and training for judges and court
personnel, pro-arrest policies, rural domestic violence and
child abuse enforcement, stalker reduction, and others. As
passed by the Judiciary Committee, the bill also authorizes
funding for new programs such as civil legal assistance,
transitional housing, and a pilot program for supervised
child visitation centers.
VAWA programs have made a crucial difference in the lives
of domestic violence victims and their families. Since the
passage of VAWA, intimate partner violence is down almost ten
percent. Nevertheless, domestic violence is still too common,
and each year about 850,000 violent crimes are committed
against women by their current or former husbands or
boyfriends. We must continue the commitment Congress made in
1994 to combat this violence.
We hope you will agree that VAWA reauthorization is an
urgent priority, and will therefore encourage expedited
Committee review and consideration by the full House as soon
as possible.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Gephardt, Democratic Leader; John Conyers,
Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary;
William Clay, Ranking Member, Committee on Education
and the Workforce; John D. Dingell, Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Lampson), chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus
in the Congress.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I want to particularly start out by thanking the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) for introducing the Missing Children's
Fairness Act. This is a piece of legislation that is indeed greatly
needed.
I was informed this morning, as the gentleman from Minnesota had
stated, that under pressure from lawmakers the Internal Revenue Service
has reversed a decision disqualifying parents from taking tax
deductions for kidnapped children. While I am happy to hear that the
IRS is reversing its decision, I am disheartened that it took the
threat of legislation passing to go this route.
I come from a part of Texas where there have been a significant
number of stranger abductions and deaths, particularly of young girls.
We have had 27 in the last 12 years. I know the pain and suffering that
these families go through, and to have this other kind of hardship
tossed on them through a thoughtless act, in my opinion, just further
complicates the effort that we are trying our best to make here in the
United States House of Representatives by bringing the bond of a parent
and a child closer, by making it easier for parents to search for their
children, and to keep the hope alive that exists when a child is
missing and they do not know where that young person might be.
This change in the form of an advisory opinion means that any parent
whose child is abducted by a person outside the family may take the
same deduction as any other parent with a dependent child: $2,800.
People whose children are abducted suffer enough, and they should not
have to have the IRS compound their suffering with more emotional or
financial burden.
This bill will help many parents who continue to maintain their
children's room, and maintain hope, more importantly, that their
children will be found; people like C.H. and Suzy Caine, whose daughter
Jessica was taken away a little over 2 years ago and they still have no
clue as to where she is. They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
searching for their children and then find themselves hit with the fact
that their child cannot be claimed as a deduction after the first year.
They are already living with a tragedy.
I ask that we support this bill and thank the gentleman for
introducing it.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Ramstad) has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Coyne) and my friends on the other side of the aisle for their
kind supportive, kind comments this morning. I appreciate them.
Mr. Speaker, we have a chance today to prove that Congress can work
in a bipartisan, or as my governor, Governor Jesse Ventura, constantly
reminds me, in a tripartisan timely way to right a wrong, to respond to
a horrible, horrible antifamily, cruel and heartless ruling by the IRS.
Now, as Mr. Cardin stated, and I join in his remarks, this is not a
blanket condemnation of the IRS or all the good people who work there,
and there are many good people who work there. This is aimed at this
particular ruling, which can only bring more pain and devastation than
the family of a missing abducted child can bear. We need to right this
wrong. And we have a chance, with an overwhelming yes vote on H.R.
5117, to bring relief to these families who have already suffered so
much.
I want to finally, Mr. Speaker, thank again Patty Wetterling and the
Jacob Wetterling Foundation for their work on this legislation and all
their work throughout the year, every single day, to help families of
missing children. I want to thank Ernie Allen, of the Center for
Missing and Exploited Children, for the work they do. I also want to
[[Page H8072]]
thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), and the Speaker, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), as well as the majority leader,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), for putting this important
legislation on a fast track.
I would also like to thank the tax staff of the Committee on Ways and
Means, particularly Chris Smith, who has worked hard on this
legislation; my staff, particularly Dean Peterson and Karin Hope, my
tax counsel on the Committee on Ways and Means, who have worked late
nights getting this bill ready for today.
This has been a team effort. Again, we have proven that we can work
together and join hands for an important bill on behalf of the American
people.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 5117, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________