[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.

                          ____________________