Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 68 (Thursday, May 17, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 68 (Thursday, May 17, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H2285-H2298]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

HOPE FOR CHILDREN ACT

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 141 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 141

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 622) to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the adoption credit,
and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read
for amendment. The amendment recommended by the Committee on
Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as
amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means;
and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentlewoman from Ohio
is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Hall); pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 141 makes in order the bill H.R. 622,
the Hope for Children Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1
hour of debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. Finally,
the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
While this is a closed rule, it is important for my colleagues to
understand that this bill represents a bipartisan effort that has the
support of 289 Members of this body and could be passed under
suspension. However, this rule will provide extra time for my
colleagues to debate and discuss the importance of the adoption tax
credit.
Mr. Speaker, adoption is an issue that holds a special place in my
heart. It blesses a loving couple with the joy of parenthood and
provides wanting children the chance to find permanency in their lives
and love in their hearts. As an adoptive parent, I know firsthand this
joy, but I also understand the financial burdens that it places on a
family. Tragically, this burden can be so high that it prevents a
couple from becoming a family and sadly leaves a needing child without
a home.
Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the legislation that created
this tax credit 5 years ago, and an original cosponsor of this, the
Hope for Children Act, I am proud to be here today discussing these
important changes that serve to update the adoption credit. Since the
passage of the original credit 5 years ago, Congress has been working
hard to strengthen adoption laws in the United States.
In the 1996 legislation, we included a provision that prohibited
discrimination in adoption or foster care placements, helping to assure
that the cultural, ethnic or racial background of a child would not
hinder the placement into a loving home. Then, in 1997, Congress passed
one of the most important child welfare laws in 20 years, the Adoption
and Safe Families Act. This legislation helped to ensure that
consideration of a child's safety is paramount in placement decisions.
June of 2000 saw the introduction of the adoption stamp, which many
in Congress supported as a way to bring awareness to the 122,000
children waiting to be adopted in this country alone. In October of
2000, with passage of the Intercountry Adoption Act, the United States
became the 39th country to ratify the Hague Convention, a cooperative
framework between countries which ensures that a child's best interests
are safeguarded during intercountry adoption processes.
That same month, Congress passed the Child Citizenship Act, a bill
that grants automatic citizenship to foreign-born children adopted by
American parents. And then came the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect
Courts, which bolsters the efficiency and effectiveness of courts so
that children in our child welfare system are not kept from permanent
homes due to delays in the court system.
Now, in 2001, this House will consider the Hope for Children Act,
legislation designed to help foster and facilitate adoptions;
legislation that will strengthen families across the Nation; and
legislation that will help to provide loving homes to children who
desperately need them.
Current law provides a $5,000 tax credit to families for qualifying
adoption expenses when adopting a child and $6,000 for a child with
special needs. This is set to expire. Over 289 Members of the House
have cosponsored the Hope for Children Act to show their support for
extending and updating these sections of the code. H.R. 622 would begin
by making the current tax credits a permanent part of the Tax Code. It
would also raise the credit limitations to better reflect the costs of
adoptions, allowing families to claim up to $10,000 in qualifying
expenses upon adoption.
Statistics from the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse show
that the cost of adoptions range from $4,000 on the low end to
sometimes over $30,000 on the high end, depending on such factors as
the cost of birth-parent counseling, adoptive-parent home study and
preparation, the child's birth expenses and post-placement supervision
until the adoption is finalized. This bill will update the credit to
better reflect the costs associated with adoption today. This increase
will provide an additional $4,000 to the tax credit for special needs
adoptions.
Mr. Speaker, 63 percent of the children waiting in foster care are
between

[[Page H2286]]

the ages of 6 and 18. With this increased age comes an increased
likelihood that these children will be classified by the State as
special-needs children due to histories of emotional, physical, and
sexual abuse. We have children waiting to be adopted that bring with
them physical handicaps, and entire sibling groups that need to be
placed in a home together. These children, more than any others, need a
loving, permanent home; and families that will open their hearts should
be given the utmost support. All of these important changes will be
available to families beginning with expenses incurred in the 2002 tax
year.
Mr. Speaker, we have to reduce the financial burden that adoption can
place on families so that couples can become families and more children
can sleep peacefully under the roof of loving parents. The Hope for
Children Act will continue the hard work and dedication this Congress
has devoted to adoption by reducing this huge financial barrier. It
will help more children find the love of a family.
I urge all my colleagues to support both the rule and this important
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce),
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a closed rule. It will allow for the
consideration of the bill called the Hope for Children Act, H.R. 622.
As my colleague from Ohio has described, this rule provides for 1 hour
of general debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

{time} 1045

Under the rule, no amendments are in order.
Mr. Speaker, this bill permanently extends the adoption tax credit.
It raises it to $10,000. The bill also permanently extends the
exclusion from income for employer-provided adoption assistance and
raises it to $10,000. Under current law the amount in both provisions
is $6,000 for special-needs children and $5,000 for other children.
Special-needs children include those who have physical, mental or
emotional handicaps that make difficult placing the child with adoptive
parents.
Mr. Speaker, permanently placing foster children with loving,
adoptive parents is an important goal for our society. In doing so, we
are setting a firm foundation in life for these children and
strengthening our society as a whole. Therefore, it is appropriate for
our government, including the Federal Tax Code, to encourage adoptions.
I am proud to join the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and close to
200 of my House colleagues as a cosponsor of the bill. Almost two-
thirds of the House has cosponsored this legislation. I regret that
this is a closed rule which will not permit any amendments. Even in the
case of tax bills, it is often customary to permit one substitute
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us does not offer sufficient incentives
to promote the adoption of special-needs children; and although the
bill does increase the size of the adoption tax credit, the definition
of qualified adoption expenses is inadequate to help the overwhelming
majority of families adopting special-needs children. Because this is a
closed rule, there will be no opportunity to improve this on the House
floor.
It is the understanding of concerned Democratic members of the
Committee on Ways and Means that this issue will be addressed later in
the legislative process. I am concerned about this closed rule.
However, the bill was approved by the Committee on Ways and Means with
Democratic support. The bill clearly has the overwhelming support of
House Members on both sides of the aisle; therefore, I support the
passage of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham), an adoptive father himself.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the rule. I do not
like closed rules myself, but I think in this case with the bipartisan
support that we have on the bill, I doubt if there will be very many
people opposed to it. I support the rule and am a cosponsor of the
bill.
I have a son. He happens to be adopted. I would like to tell people
that there is no difference between a natural son and an adopted son as
far as the love and care, through better and worse. Like all children,
you have problems; but it has been a blessing to my wife and myself.
I would also tell you a story. My brother, when he was going to
college, was dating a young lady. Unbeknownst to him, the young lady
became pregnant. She went away to Kansas City and gave birth to this
child without my brother's knowledge.
Later on, my brother married this same young lady. They had two
children. Later on, the adopted child wanted to know who her parents
were. My niece, Louise, sought to find her mother. It took almost 2
years. She arrived in St. Louis and called my sister-in-law and said,
``I think you are my mother.'' Louise had been adopted. She turned out
to be living about a mile away from her natural parents.
When she arrived, she had no idea she had a natural father and a
natural brother and sister. Louise is now pregnant with her third
child. No, the child will not be aborted; and the child will have a
loving family from Josh and Louise. A loving mother who supported her
daughter's right to seek her natural parents is very close to my
brother and the entire family.
So the story, Mr. Speaker, is that adopted children, there are
success stories. And it is a wonderful thing that I think Members on
both sides of the aisle are doing here by making it possible to go
forward with this bill. Mr. Speaker, I thank the sponsors of this bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of the rule and the
underlying bill. I was among its original cosponsors, and I want to
take a moment to commend the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for their leadership.
The bill will make it possible for many more families to provide
children with loving and permanent homes. But I would be remiss not to
acknowledge my disappointment that the bill we are considering today is
not the one that I cosponsored originally. It has been stripped of one
of its most important provisions which was designed to help those
adoptive families most in need of our assistance, those who adopt
children with special needs.
Children with special needs are those who, because of their age,
race, disability or other characteristics, would be unlikely to find a
permanent home without special assistance. Many are older, some have
mental or physical or emotional problems. Not only are these children
the least likely to find a loving home, but when they do find a home,
their adoptive parents typically face financial burdens in caring for
them.
There are some 125,000, approximately, children in foster care now
who are eligible for adoption and who continue to wait and wait and
wait for a permanent placement. The vast majority of these children are
so-called children with special needs.
The credit actually does little for these families, unfortunately,
because it can be applied to only such adoption-related expenses as
adoption fees, court costs and attorneys' fees. Most special-needs
children are adopted from foster care and publicly-supported
institutions, and the families who do adopt them do not incur these
kinds of expenses. That is why the Department of Treasury reported last
October that only 15 percent of these families were able to claim any
tax benefits under the credit for 1998.
The provision that was removed from the bill would have remedied this
situation by providing a $10,000 tax credit for families who adopt
special-needs children irrespective of the nature of the expenses they
incur in providing for the child.
Mr. Speaker, this would have ensured that all adoptive parents could
partake equally in the benefits of the credit. Most importantly, it
would have provided a meaningful incentive to those

[[Page H2287]]

who are eager to adopt children with special needs but maybe are unable
to absorb all of the extraordinary financial burdens that this can
entail.
As an adoptive father myself, I believe we have a strong interest as
a society, as a Nation, in encouraging all adoptions, but especially
those that provide a permanent home to a child with special needs.
As I indicated, I am going to support the bill, but I hope very much
that a way can be found to reinstate the provision before it is sent to
the President for his signature.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, regret that the provision that the gentleman
spoke of is not included. However, we have assurances from our
Committee on Ways and Means that this matter will be subject to
hearings. I think there is great support for it in the Senate. I, too,
hope it is added before it goes to the President for signature.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Camp), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a champion of
the issue of adoption in the House of Representatives.
(Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time, and for her leadership on the issue of adoption.
Mr. Speaker, since 1995, we have made tremendous progress from the
creation of the credit, to ending discrimination in adoption, to the
Adoption in Safe Families Act, a stamp commemorating adoption, the
Intercountry Adoption Act to help people who are adopting children from
abroad, and the Child Citizenship Act to make sure that children who
are foreign born who are adopted by American parents receive automatic
citizenship. That had been a real hang-up for families who are
adopting. And also for the Abuse and Neglect Act; and now, of course,
today increasing the credit.
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule. This bill represents a unanimous
bipartisan effort from the Committee on Ways and Means and from the
House. There are well over 289 cosponsors, a significant amount of
support.
This rule will provide extra time for my colleagues to debate and
discuss the importance of this act. The credit, as I said, was
originally enacted in the mid-1990s. A portion of that original law is
set to expire. So if we do not act, we will lose the adoption credit,
and we need to update the language of this bill to better reflect the
realities and cost of adoption today.
The Hope for Children Act will make permanent an update of the
adoption tax credit, increasing the credit to $10,000 per eligible
child and raising the income caps and exempting the credit from the
Alternative Minimum Tax, so there are no adverse tax consequences for
people who use this credit.
It will also extend the gross income exclusion for employer-provided
adoption assistance programs and raise that maximum exclusion to
$10,000 as well.
As has been stated, this is about children and families and about
finding a loving home for children who do not have homes. That is the
most important thing in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, again I wanted to commend the leadership on the
bipartisan effort of this bill, and especially the leadership of the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) who has brought the issue of adoption
to the floor.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill and also the rule, and for
the very strong pro-family, pro-adoption tax relief policy, Hope for
Children Act. Children's issues, and specifically promoting adoption
and improving foster care, have been important legislative goals in my
career. I am proud to have worked with President Clinton and his staff
in a bipartisan way in this Congress back in 1996 when we passed the
original bill that helped break down the financial and bureaucratic
barriers to adoption, giving every child what every child needs and
deserves: loving parents and a strong, stable home.
This legislation eases the cost of adoption by increasing the
adoption tax credit that expired this year from $5,000 to $10,000 for
all adoptions, and increases the employer adoption assistance exclusion
to $10,000.
Every child deserves a loving family. This legislation helps provide
assistance to those families who wish to add a child to their lives.
All parents today face the stark reality that raising children,
although wonderful and a true joy, is also increasingly expensive. The
simple cost of going through the adoption process can be very
expensive.
Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that this Congress will also be able to
address the item that my colleague from Massachusetts raised, the needs
of parents who wish to adopt special-needs children. And I am pleased
that my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), states a
commitment from the Committee on Ways and Means to address this later
in the session has been forthcoming.
These children are often older and have handicaps and medical
conditions, and I urge my colleagues to work with the gentlewoman and
others in the future to make sure that this is also included.
Again, I applaud the bipartisan leadership on this bill. With so many
children in need of homes, it is morally right for Congress to relieve
some of the financial burdens for these families.
All Members of Congress know that our doors are continually beaten
down by those seeking various tax benefits for specific special
interests. Children's voices often fail to be heard today in
Washington, and I am pleased to stand in support with my colleagues of
our Nation's children. This will help thousands of children waiting for
a family that wants them, and it will help thousands of middle-class
parents adopt them. It is an important bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on
the rule and the underlying bill.

{time} 1100

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and of the Hope for
Children Act. I thank my colleagues on the Hope Coalition for their
bipartisan leadership on this issue, especially the gentlewoman from
Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, there are very few things that can touch a life more
than providing a home for a child without a family. The presence of
parents in a child's life is undoubtedly the single most important
aspect of their development. However, many would-be parents of children
without homes are prevented from opening their doors due to the high
cost of adoption.
Mr. Speaker, the Hope for Children Act will tear down the financial
barriers to adoption by doubling the adoption tax credit from $5,000 to
$10,000. While this credit may cause a relatively small loss in revenue
for the Federal Government, it is a significant step to placing loving
families and children together.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Hope for
Children Act. It is said that He puts the lonely in families. It is the
Hope for Children Act that puts the Congress in the business of putting
lonely children into the families of America.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from
Ohio for yielding me this time.
I support the rule. This bipartisan legislation addresses the needs
of this country's most vulnerable citizens, the children. Many families
who would like to open their homes to children in need are prevented
from doing so because of the $8,000 to $30,000 cost that is associated
with this. The increase in the adoption tax credit to $10,000 for all
adoptions would greatly facilitate the placement of children into
permanent homes.
In Congress, we are limited as to what we can do to promote healthy
families. We cannot legislate kindness from parents towards their
children nor can we legislate responsible parental behavior. Therefore,
it is our duty to do what is in our power to encourage

[[Page H2288]]

strong families. One such thing we can do is to enable these families
who would like to open their households as permanent and loving homes
for children in need. This legislation relieves the heavy financial
burden placed on these families.
Any family who wishes to care for these children in a permanent way
should have the support of this body. I support the rule and urge
passage of the bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This is a good piece of legislation. I think many of us are very
proud to be on it. We hope as the bill makes its way through the
legislative process that this amendment addressing special-needs
children is added. We support the bill and the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
This issue is very close to my heart and a personal priority. By
reducing the financial burden that adoption can place on families, more
couples can share their love with lonely, wanting children. That is
what it is all about, fulfilling the dreams of those who long for a
family.
I would like to give my personal thanks to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) and the Committee on Ways and Means for their
extraordinary efforts on behalf of this bill; the majority leader, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey); and the Adoption Caucus. I urge all
my colleagues to support both the rule and this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 415,
nays 1, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 123]

YEAS--415

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--1

Stark

NOT VOTING--16

Bilirakis
Borski
Brady (PA)
Condit
Cooksey
Cubin
Ganske
Gilman
Hunter
Kilpatrick
Largent
Lewis (GA)
Lucas (OK)
Pence
Radanovich
Tierney

{time} 1126

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 141, I call up
the bill (H.R. 622) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
expand the adoption credit, and for other purposes, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House
Resolution 141, the bill is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 622 is as follows:

H.R. 622

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 ``Hope for Children Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF ADOPTION CREDIT AND ADOPTION ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.--
(1) Adoption credit.--Section 23(a)(1) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to allowance of credit) is
amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual, there
shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this
chapter--
``(A) in the case of an adoption of a child other than a
child with special needs, the amount of the qualified
adoption expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer, and
``(B) in the case of an adoption of a child with special
needs, $10,000.''.
(2) Adoption assistance programs.--Section 137(a) of such
Code (relating to adoption assistance programs) is amended to
read as follows:

[[Page H2289]]

``(a) In General.--Gross income of an employee does not
include amounts paid or expenses incurred by the employer for
adoption expenses in connection with the adoption of a child
by an employee if such amounts are furnished pursuant to an
adoption assistance program. The amount of the exclusion
shall be--
``(1) in the case of an adoption of a child other than a
child with special needs, the amount of the qualified
adoption expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer, and
``(2) in the case of an adoption of a child with special
needs, $10,000.''.
(b) Dollar Limitations.--
(1) Dollar amount of allowed expenses.--
(A) Adoption expenses.--Section 23(b)(1) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to allowance of credit) is
amended--
(i) by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$10,000'',
(ii) by striking ``($6,000, in the case of a child with
special needs)'', and
(iii) by striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(1)(A)''.
(B) Adoption assistance programs.--Section 137(b)(1) of
such Code (relating to dollar limitations for adoption
assistance programs) is amended--
(i) by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$10,000'', and
(ii) by striking ``($6,000, in the case of a child with
special needs)'', and
(iii) by striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(1)''.
(2) Phase-out limitation.--
(A) Adoption expenses.--Clause (i) of section 23(b)(2)(A)
of such Code (relating to income limitation) is amended by
striking ``$75,000'' and inserting ``$150,000''.
(B) Adoption assistance programs.--Section 137(b)(2)(A) of
such Code (relating to income limitation) is amended by
striking ``$75,000'' and inserting ``$150,000''.
(c) Year Credit Allowed.--Section 23(a)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to year credit allowed) is
amended by adding at the end the following new flush
sentence:

``In the case of the adoption of a child with special needs,
the credit allowed under paragraph (1) shall be allowed for
the taxable year in which the adoption becomes final.''.
(d) Repeal of Sunset Provisions.--
(1) Children without special needs.--Paragraph (2) of
section 23(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to definition of eligible child) is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) Eligible child.--The term `eligible child' means any
individual who--
``(A) has not attained age 18, or
``(B) is physically or mentally incapable of caring for
himself.''.
(2) Adoption assistance programs.--Section 137 of such Code
(relating to adoption assistance programs) is amended by
striking subsection (f).
(e) Adjustment of Dollar and Income Limitations for
Inflation.--
(1) Adoption credit.--Section 23 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to adoption expenses) is amended by
redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i) and by
inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:
``(h) Adjustments for Inflation.--In the case of a taxable
year beginning after December 31, 2002, each of the dollar
amounts in subsection (a)(1)(B) and paragraphs (1) and
(2)(A)(i) of subsection (b) shall be increased by an amount
equal to--
``(1) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(2) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2001'
for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.''.
(2) Adoption assistance programs.--Section 137 of such Code
(relating to adoption assistance programs), as amended by
subsection (d), is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(f) Adjustments for Inflation.--In the case of a taxable
year beginning after December 31, 2002, each of the dollar
amounts in subsection (a)(2) and paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of
subsection (b) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
``(1) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(2) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2001'
for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.''.
(f) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--
(1) In general.--Section 23(c) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to carryforwards of unused credit) is
amended by striking ``the limitation imposed'' and all that
follows through ``1400C)'' and inserting ``the applicable tax
limitation''.
(2) Applicable tax limitation.--Section 23(d) of such Code
(relating to definitions) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(4) Applicable tax limitation.--The term `applicable tax
limitation' means the sum of--
``(A) the taxpayer's regular tax liability for the taxable
year, reduced (but not below zero) by the sum of the credits
allowed by sections 21, 22, 24 (other than the amount of the
increase under subsection (d) thereof), 25, and 25A, and
``(B) the tax imposed by section 55 for such taxable
year.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 26(a) of such Code (relating to limitation
based on amount of tax) is amended by inserting ``(other than
section 23)'' after ``allowed by this subpart''.
(B) Section 53(b)(1) of such Code (relating to minimum tax
credit) is amended by inserting ``reduced by the aggregate
amount taken into account under section 23(d)(3)(B) for all
such prior taxable years,'' after ``1986,''.
(g) Credit Renamed the Tom Bliley Adoption Credit.--
(1) The heading of section 23 of such Code is amended to
read as follows:

``SEC. 23. TOM BLILEY ADOPTION CREDIT.''.

(2) The item relating to section 23 in the table of
sections for subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter
1 of such Code is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 23. Tom Bliley adoption credit.''.

(h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the bill is
adopted.
The text of H.R. 622, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 622

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 ``Hope for Children Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASED TAX INCENTIVES FOR ADOPTIONS.

(a) Increase in Maximum Benefit.--Section 23(b)(1) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to dollar limitation)
is amended by striking ``$5,000'' and all that follows and
inserting ``$10,000.''.
(b) Benefits Made Permanent for All Children.--Paragraph
(2) of section 23(d) of such Code is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) Eligible child.--The term `eligible child' means any
individual who--
``(A) has not attained age 18, or
``(B) is physically or mentally incapable of caring for
himself.''.
(c) Increase in Phaseout.--Clause (i) of section
23(b)(2)(A) of such Code (relating to income limitation) is
amended by striking ``$75,000'' and inserting ``$150,000''.
(d) Credit Allowed Against Alternative Minimum Tax.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 23 of such Code
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Limitation based on amount of tax.--The credit
allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not
exceed the excess of--
``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under this subpart
(other than this section) and section 27 for the taxable
year.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subsection (c) of section 23 of such Code is amended--
(i) by striking ``section 26(a)'' and inserting
``subsection (b)(4)'', and
(ii) by striking ``reduced by the sum of the credits
allowable under this subpart (other than this section and
section 1400C)''.
(B) Paragraph (1) of section 26(a) of such Code is amended
by inserting ``(other than section 23)'' after ``this
subpart''.
(C) Section 904(h) of such Code is amended by inserting
``(other than section 23)'' after ``chapter''.
(D) Subsection (d) of section 1400C of such Code is amended
by inserting ``and section 23'' after ``this section''.
(e) Amendments Related to Employer-Provided Adoption
Assistance.--
(1) Paragraph (1) of section 137(b) of such Code is amended
by striking ``$5,000'' and all that follows and inserting
``$10,000.''.
(2) Subparagraph (A) of section 137(b)(2) of such Code is
amended by striking ``$75,000'' and inserting ``$150,000''.
(3) Section 137 of such Code is amended by striking
subsection (f) (relating to termination).
(f) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2001.
(2) Expenses paid or incurred in prior years.--Expenses
paid or incurred during any taxable year beginning before
January 1, 2002, may be taken into account in determining the
credit under section 23 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
for a taxable year beginning on or after such date only to
the extent the aggregate of such expenses does not exceed the
applicable limitation under section 23(b)(1) of such Code as
in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this
Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) each will control 30
minutes of debate on the bill.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

{time} 1130

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before us today is H.R. 622, the Hope for Children Act. Most
importantly, I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for their leadership
in moving this

[[Page H2290]]

piece of legislation forward. But as chairman of the Committee on Ways
and Means, I also want to congratulate Members on both sides of the
aisle on the Committee on Ways and Means.
The bill before us today is not as the bill was introduced. It was
amended in committee to bring together both the idea of the Tax Code
assisting in adoption and the President's proposals as outlined during
the campaign. This bill may, in fact, be changed as it moves through
the legislative process with the Senate; but the heart of the bill, the
fundamental purpose of the bill, will not change; that is, that the
dollar amounts currently in law, some of them subject to termination,
will be made permanent and increased in the hope that adoption will be
utilized more frequently in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I have a Statement of Administration Policy that I would
like inserted in the Record. The heart of the Statement of
Administration Policy is ``H.R. 622 is consistent with the President's
priorities, which include permanently extending and increasing the
adoption tax credit.''
That is the focus that we should place on this bill, and this is one
of those opportunities to engage in a discussion and debate on the
floor of the House in a way that we do not do it as often as we would
like; but joining together on this particular bill, it will be a very
rewarding morning.

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, DC, May 17, 2001.

Statement of Administration Policy

(This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned
agencies)

The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 622, the
Hope for Children Act, as an important pro-family and pro-
adoption tax relief initiative. H.R. 622 is consistent with
the President's priorities, which include permanently
extending and increasing the adoption tax credit. The
Administration looks forward to working with Congress through
the legislative process to achieve a result that best
embodies the objectives of the President's plan.
Pay-As-You-Go Scoring
Any law that would reduce receipts is subject to the pay-
as-you-go requirements of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act. Accordingly, H.R. 622 or any substitute
amendment in lieu thereof, that will also reduce revenues,
will be subject to the pay-as-you-go requirement. The
Administration will work with Congress to ensure that any
unintended sequester of spending does not occur under current
law or the enactment of any other proposals that meet the
President's objectives to reduce the debt, fund priority
initiatives, and grant tax relief to all income tax paying
Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, there is broad support for the underlying
goals of H.R. 622, to assist families in meeting their needs on
adoption. The bill, as the chairman has indicated, would increase the
adoption credit to $10,000. That is broadly supported in this body.
Secondly, it would make permanent the adoption credit. In current
law, the adoption credit for special-needs children is already
permanent, and this bill would make it permanent for all adoptions to
use the credit; and there is broad support for that provision.
Mr. Speaker, let me point out two concerns that we have with this
bill. As I indicated, we supported the bill, but we have two concerns.
First, this is the eighth tax bill that has been considered by this
body. This bill is not part of the $1.25 trillion budget that has
passed both this body and the other body. So we are already starting to
see additional tax bills that are going to be considered that are going
to go beyond the $1.25 trillion.
One of the concerns that has been expressed by the Democrats is that
we, in fact, are going to be having tax relief far in excess of what is
provided in the budget resolution. I regret this will probably not be
the last time that we will be making this point, that there will be
other tax bills that are going to be brought forward that exceed the
budget resolution that was passed by this body.
The second concern, and we have already heard this by other speakers
speaking on the rule, is that there is not enough help in this
legislation for parents who want to adopt special-needs children. The
children that fall into this category are our most difficult children
to place with adoptive parents. These are usually older children,
children that come out of foster care, children that have one or more
disabilities. We want to help these children find permanent homes.
Unfortunately, today, only one out of seven parents who adopt a child
with special needs can take advantage of the credit that is in the law
for adoption expenses; and the main reason for this is that the
expenses that qualify for the adoption credit are normally paid for by
the social agencies that are involved in adoption of children with
special needs. Those parents who can take advantage of the adoption
credit find that they do not have as much expenses and they do not
reach the limit. The percentage of parents who are using the adoption
credit with special-needs children are much lower in reaching the
credit than those that are adopting other children. So, therefore, this
bill that costs $2.5 billion over the 10-year window will have little
benefit for helping children with special needs find permanent
placements.
Mr. Speaker, there are 122,000 children waiting for adoption with
special needs. I think we can do more to help families. The original
bill had a provision in it that allowed the $10,000 credit without the
documentation of costs. That amendment would cost about $125 million, a
small fraction of the money that the underlying bill that has been
reported to this body would cost.
Mr. Speaker, we support this bill; but I would hope that we could do
better. I would like just, if I might, to quote from the Committee
Report, and I thank the chairman for including this language in our
committee report: ``The committee, however, is aware that families
adopting special-needs children may incur continuing expenses after the
adoption is finalized that are not eligible for these benefits. The
committee will continue to search for ways to help alleviate these
post-adoption expenses.''
I want the chairman to know that we want to work with him in finding
a way in which we can provide additional assistance to families who are
adopting special-needs children. We think we can do better, and we hope
as the bill works its way through the legislative process we will find
a way to take care of that need.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
in part to respond to my colleague from Maryland.
In terms of his concerns about finding money to pay for this
particular program or, indeed, any other program, because
notwithstanding the budget reconciliation numbers, there is included in
that budget reconciliation an estimated revenue stream outside of
reconciliation of more than $18 billion over 10 years, more than enough
to pay for this particular program, and for a number of others that I
would say the Committee on Ways and Means will probably be looking at.
These are not large amounts of money, and they can be accommodated.
The question is ordering our priorities; and it seems to me that
based upon the support of this bill that this ought to be very high on
our priority list to claim its fair share of that revenue outside of
reconciliation.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Camp) be permitted to control the remaining time,
someone who has been instrumental in helping us shape this legislation
and move it forward.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for his leadership on this
very important issue. This bill would not have come to the floor
without his support and effort. Also, I am grateful for the bipartisan
effort that this bill has enjoyed.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to also mention that the former
chairman of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Bliley), originally introduced this bill in the last Congress, and
along with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce)

[[Page H2291]]

and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) helped bring this
bill to the floor.
Obviously, I support the Hope for Children Act, H.R. 622, which would
raise the tax credit for adoption to $10,000. Currently the maximum
credit is $6,000 for families who adopt a special-needs child and
$5,000 for all other adoptions. The credit is set to expire this year,
and H.R. 622 would make the credit permanent. The special-needs credit,
as the gentleman from Maryland mentioned, is permanent now. But
furthermore, the Hope for Children Act applies to all adoptions, both
domestic and intercountry. As the lead sponsor of the Adoption and Safe
Families Act, which was signed into law in November of 1997, I am
pleased that we are continuing our efforts to make adoptions easier.
I supported the legislation which was signed into law that provided
adoptive parents a $5,000 per child adoption credit, but now it is time
to expand this tax credit and make it permanent. Families can spend
anywhere from $8,000 to $30,000 to adopt a child; and we need to ease
the financial burden that really gets in the way of children finding
permanent and loving homes.
I have heard from many families like William and Susan Logan of
Midland, Michigan, who would like to open their home to a child, but
are prevented or delayed from doing so because of the high cost of
adoption. The good news is that the Logans will be traveling abroad in
the next couple of weeks to bring home the newest addition to their
family.
Regrettably, there are thousands more children who are without
permanent families, and it is time we work together to ensure they find
a loving home. I believe that now is the time to help those children
find the families they are waiting for so that they may enjoy a
wonderful, loving relationship. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
H.R. 622.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time and for being so generous with his time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very nostalgic moment for me. My late wife,
Jo, and I started our family with adoption. We brought Ted into our
family in April of 1968; and there followed Noelle and Annie and
Monica, and now grandchildren, granddaughters. It would not have been
possible without adoption.
I started thinking about what we were able to do, how we were able to
afford the cost of adoption. But there are many others who could not.
And in 1977, I introduced what then was recognized as the very first
bill to provide financial assistance for adoption, a modest $1,500 tax
deduction. Well, it was rejected by Treasury as costing too much;
Treasury could not afford it. There was not really much of a movement
across this country for adoption in those days. So I began to work to
build a consensus. With the help of Members on both sides of the aisle,
it is remarkable how I found support, for example, from our former
colleague, Mr. Lightfoot of Iowa, who himself was an adopted child;
from Mr. Bliley, the gentleman from Virginia, who was an adoptive
parent. Over time, we built a consensus and a bipartisan momentum until
in 1996, 20 years later, legislation was enacted to provide, not a tax
deduction, but a much more valuable $5,000 tax credit. Never in my
wildest dreams did I think we could achieve that goal.
I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint); the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce); the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Bachus); the gentleman from New York (Mr. King); and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Camp), who is currently the floor manager; and the
chairman of the committee; and my very, very dear friend, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for championing this cause within the
Committee on Ways and Means, and there are many others.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the committee did not follow my
suggestion that we name this the Bliley Adoption Tax Credit, but I
understand that the Chair has reservations about naming provisions of
tax bills for sponsors. However, we do have the Keogh bill; we do have
many other provisions of law that are named after former or, at the
time, Members of Congress who were their sponsors. Nonetheless, the
time will come, when this provision will be known as the Bliley Tax
Credit and perhaps just because of his activism. But the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and I did join forces in crafting this
legislation, securing 289 cosponsors; and I know that he is very
pleased. It would be nice if his name were attached to it, but the
recognition is there.
Now, I do feel, as the gentleman from Maryland said so well, that
this was an opportunity to go farther, to do more.

{time} 1145

I feel somewhat ill at ease saying that we should have done more when
we already are doing something. But let us never stop. We should never
rest in finding homes for children.
A modest number, I think, 122,000 already identified special-needs
children will benefit, hopefully, from this legislation with loving
parents who will take these children into their homes.
If we want to look at the cost side of it, think of the enormous cost
savings to society. The best insurance policy we have against violence
in our society, against crime, is a loving family, a home for these
children who are not condemned to a life adrift.
But there are further considerations; we do have to think about
these: home and vehicle modifications, out-of-pocket medical expenses,
lost income, no reimbursement for such lost income for parents who need
to take time to deal with their special needs adoptive child. They are
not reimbursed by the State; they are not eligible for the current
adoption tax credit.
There is much to be commended in this legislation. It is a big step
forward. I am delighted with it. I urge all those parents, all those
would-be parents to take a look when this becomes law and move quickly
on it, and show that we have acted in good faith and that there is a
response, and that children will be taken out of institutions and into
loving families.
I will say in closing, that it is not the tax credit by itself that
is going to make the difference in whether these children are adopted.
Parents will find homes for them. But we should use the Tax Code to
make it easier; to show that our government, our tax system, has a
heart, and we are opening that heart today a little wider, opening the
doors wider to a generous society, a loving society, one that respects
life from conception all the way through every stage of human
existence.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, it does give me great joy to stand here
today to celebrate the thousands of moms, dads, and children who become
bigger and stronger families through adoption.
The Hope for Children Act that we will pass in the House today will
help build more loving, stable families in America, and send a strong
signal across our land that every child is a wanted child.
Like many Americans, I grew up in a family without my father in the
home. While my mother and eventually my stepfather did all they could
to compensate for this missing piece in my life, nothing could dispel
the haunting in my heart that regularly whispered that I was not
wanted.
Too many Americans grow up with this sense of not being wanted. But
every year in America, thousands of children have an infinitely more
positive experience. When a married couple decides to adopt a child,
they not only fill a void in their own lives, they send a clear signal
to their child that he or she is loved and wanted.
The Hope for Children Act sends a strong signal that America wants
her children, all of her children. By helping new parents with the high
financial cost of adoption, we as a nation encourage the building of
strong, happy families.
I introduced H.R. 622 earlier this year, along with my colleagues in
the Hope Coalition, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Bachus), and the gentleman from New York (Mr.

[[Page H2292]]

King), to work to ensure enactment of the Hope for Children Act this
year.
However, as has been mentioned, the original Hope for Children Act to
permanently extend and double the tax credit for adoption was
introduced in the last Congress by the gentleman from Virginia, our
former, our former colleague, Tom Bliley. Chairman Bliley worked
tirelessly on adoption issues during his tenure in Congress and paved
the way for this legislation.
While he is retired from the House, it is our privilege to carry on
his work to pass Hope for Children today. The provisions in this bill
are an excellent step in making adoption a reality to more families. As
we work with the Senate to help the Hope for Children Act become law,
we look forward to exploring the best policy methods to address the
unique circumstances of special-needs adoptions in relation to the
adoption tax credit.
I want to take a moment to thank my colleagues in the House for
showing their overwhelming support for this bill. With 289 cosponsors,
this bill is truly bipartisan.
As we celebrate this pro-child, pro-family legislation today, I want
to thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and
the members of the Committee on Ways and Means.
I also want to thank the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Armey), for taking a special interest in moving this
important legislation.
Lastly, I would like to thank the members of the Hope Coalition and
their staffs for working as a team to make the passage of this
legislation a reality.
I especially need to thank a member of my staff, Courtney Weise, who
has made this her passion for the last 6 months. It is only because of
her that we pulled this off today.
Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday we celebrated Mother's Day; next month,
Father's Day. Being a mom or dad is the greatest privilege in life, and
this bill will help make moms and dads all across the country, and make
America a better place to live.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the
gentleman from Maryland, for yielding time to me.
I also want to commend and congratulate the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. DeMint) for introducing this meaningful legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to join with my colleagues in expressing the
importance of the Hope for Children Act. In our country, there are
thousands of children without a family to care for them. At the same
time, there are thousands of families who would like to bring these
children into their homes but cannot because of the rising cost of
adoption.
Families today often spend between $8,000 and $30,000 just to adopt a
child. Yet, the adoption credit to them is only $5,000. For many
families, this makes adoption impossible simply because of the huge
financial burden.
Last year, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services
consummated 6,281 adoptions. However, this year, DCFS reports that
1,600 children are still waiting to be adopted immediately; and there
are 29,000 children in Illinois living in non-permanent substitute
homes. By increasing the adoption tax credit to $10,000, the Hope for
Children Act will allow more families to adopt, give them the
opportunity to adopt. It will help more children bypass the foster care
system and become part of a permanent family. It will also help to
encourage the development of more stable families.
Children are indeed the future of our country, and it is necessary
that we give them the opportunity to grow up in stable and permanent
environments.
So I commend all of those families who would adopt and bring children
into their homes. They are indeed what I would call the salt of the
Earth, the pillars of the universe: those who are willing to share and
give of themselves so that others might have a more meaningful life.
I also want to thank my intern who just joined us, Kate Perdzik, who
actually wrote these comments, and the importance of the issue was
captured by her, not much more than a child herself, but one who really
understands the value of families taking into consideration the needs
of others.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn).
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I enthusiastically support H.R. 622, the Hope
for Children Act. One of the caseworkers in my district office has
adopted five children. The costs of adoptions are exorbitant, often
running $40,000 to $50,000 per child. Doubling the adoption tax credit
to $10,000 is a positive first step in helping families meet these
costs.
Easing the financial burden of adoption makes it possible for more
families to give children a loving family and a stable home, something
every child deserves.
I thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), for
this beginning. I am proud to support this important bill, and I urge
my colleagues to do so as well. Vote aye for H.R. 622.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, it is fundamental that the family is the central
institution of American society. Mr. Speaker, many families open their
hearts and open their homes to children through adoption. They know
that they can provide a child with a loving home, and they know that
they can grow as individuals and as a couple by experiencing the love
of a child.
Our enlightened social policy and tax policy should encourage this.
Unfortunately, the average adoption in 1998 cost roughly $5,900, with
25 percent of adoptive parents reporting expenses of more than $10,000.
That price tag prohibits many families from growing, leaving more than
118,000 foster care children waiting to be adopted.
Given the financial commitment being made by families who adopt a
child, the current credit does not go far enough. The Hope for Children
Act opens the doors for many families who wish to adopt children but
find the cost absolutely prohibitive.
H.R. 622 increases the maximum adoption tax credit to $10,000 from
$6,000 for special-needs children and $5,000 for all other adoptions,
while increasing the income cap for those who claim the credit from
$75,000 to $150,000. It also makes the credit permanent for all
adoptions, not just special-needs children.
The bill allows the credit to apply against the AMT, so families are
not unfairly pushed into the AMT by claiming this credit. This plan
also increases the exclusion for employer-provided adoption assistance
to $10,000 for all adoptions and makes this provision permanent.
Mr. Speaker, many families in my district and around the United
States know firsthand the joy of adopting a child. We should not allow
cost to stand as a barrier to all families that wish this experience,
to experience it. Passing this legislation will advance the goal of
providing every child with a loving home.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Hope for
Children Act. As a member of the Hope Coalition, I would like to thank
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for their energy on this bill this year, for guiding
it through the Committee on Ways and Means.
I would like to thank the members of the Committee on Ways and Means.
I would also like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the
other member of the Hope for Children Coalition, and the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. Bliley, as others have said, first introduced this legislation in
the 106th Congress. I was the lead sponsor the next year. The gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has always been a real driver and a real
enthusiastic supporter of this legislation.
All of us, no matter what party we belong to or what political
philosophy we subscribe to, we want children to have a loving and a
permanent home.

[[Page H2293]]

No children should ever be denied the chance to live with a family
that will love and cherish them. This tax credit will make it possible
for more families to open their homes and their hearts to a child
through adoption.
The high cost of adoption is an insurmountable obstruction to many
families who want to adopt a child. With this tax credit, we can help
ease that financial burden, sometimes enormous, and ensure more
children find a permanent, loving home.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, many people do not realize just how
expensive adoptions are: medical bills, legal fees, travel costs. We
owe it to those wanting children to ease these burdens. Passage of this
bill will unquestionably make a meaningful difference in the lives of
thousands of children.
One of those children is the son of my chief of staff, who Members
can imagine has been very enthusiastic since he adopted Wyatt Emerson
about a year and a half ago. I can tell the Members that Wyatt has made
a difference in the Emerson family, and the Emerson family has made a
difference in him.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

{time} 1200

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support
of H.R. 622, the Hope for Children Act.
In the past quarter century, the number of children in foster care
has grown much faster than the number of children adopted. Yet, despite
the large number of children of adoptable age, the adoption rate is
still significantly low. A primary reason for this is the costs of
adoption which can require a family to spend, as my colleagues have
heard, up to $30,000 to provide a child with a home.
The average American family just does not have this kind of money.
The Hope for Children Act seeks to remedy this problem by increasing
the adoption tax credit to $10,000. There are more people who want to
adopt than there are children who are eligible for adoption.
This essential legislation will allow more children to be adopted by
loving families who so desperately want them. These children deserve to
be loved and deserve to be wanted. We need to help these families be
joined together.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Hope for Children
Act.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Camp) for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Hope for Children
Act. This is an important measure that encourages adoption and provides
tax relief at the same time.
One of the biggest blessings is to have someone to call mom and dad.
I am in full support of this measure that would help provide loving
families and parents to children who are without a permanent place to
call home.
The Hope for Children Act will enable more American families to
adopt, and as a Congress we should do all we can to promote adoption.
As others have said before me, my predecessor Tom Bliley was the
original cosponsor of the Hope for Children Act, he worked tirelessly
to garner 280 cosponsors for this legislation last year.
The Hope for Children Act was included in major tax legislation
passed by the House, but unfortunately did not become law. I applaud
the efforts of those who have brought this legislation to the floor,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee
on Ways and Means, as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Bachus), the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
As a cofounder of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, Tom Bliley
sponsored over one dozen different adoption bills. As chairman of the
House Committee on Commerce, Mr. Bliley played a major role in the
Foster Care Independence Act, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and
the Adoption Awareness Act.
In addition to promoting adoption domestically, he secured aid for
displaced orphans overseas while working to enact the Hague
Intercountry Adoption Act.
Tom Bliley truly stood up for children without a voice, and his
leadership on adoption issues is much appreciated by a grateful Nation.
His efforts have helped children in need of loving homes and families
find happiness.
Mr. Speaker, today I join with my colleagues in helping more of those
children in need by supporting the Hope for Children Act.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, few Americans realize that it can cost
between $8,000 and $30,000 to adopt a child nowadays. That is a problem
we should also be addressing. But until we do, American couples need
help.
Too many loving families say no to adoption because they cannot
afford it. Others have to take out a second mortgage. They should not
have to do that.
The Hope for Children Act will extend and increase the adoption tax
credit for families who adopt. This is more than a good idea, it is a
necessary measure. I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr DeMint), my friend, for taking the lead on this measure.
I think we should also thank our former colleague, Tom Bliley, who
worked so hard to advance this legislation for so many years.
Mr. Speaker, every child deserves a loving home, but we need to help
adopting families overcome the financial impediments to taking a child
into their home.
This is a good bill. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Camp), my friend, for yielding the time to me.
Mr. Speaker, all of the arguments in favor of this extraordinarily
good legislation have been stated. I just want to thank the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) for his sponsorship of the
legislation, for working overtime to garner the number of cosponsors
that he did from both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, when I look around at the speakers today, who really
have been the movers and shakers, it reminds me of that famous
statement out of Casablanca: Round up the usual suspects. And you have
got the same key players, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and so many others, who are
always there trying to advance the ball and advance the cause of
adoption and to provide a loving option to a mother who may find
herself in a very difficult situation.
I want to commend all of those who have made this legislation
possible. The $5,000 credit certainly has had a laudable impact on
adoption and I am pleased to be an original sponsor of that. This
legislation now doubles the tax credit, which I think is very generous,
and hopefully not the end of our efforts to help those who would like
to make an adoption plan and bring a child or children into their home.
This is a great bill. I urge everyone's support for it.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the reminder of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say I would urge our colleagues to support
this legislation. I think it is a very important bill that moves
forward the cause for adopting parents and bringing families together.
I would like to just repeat the concern that I expressed earlier in
regards to special-needs children and their adoption. A report issued
by the Treasury Department in October of last year pointed out that
this bill might have an unintended consequence of making it actually
more difficult for special-needs children to find homes.
The reason, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill will make
it a little bit less difficult for parents to participate in
international adoptions where the majority of children are now
available.
We do not have many children available in this country for adoption
other than special-needs children; other than family relations. And
this might, in

[[Page H2294]]

fact, make it a little bit easier for a family to go for an
international adoption rather than a special-needs adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I know that is not the intent of the legislation. I know
that the committee will continue to work on this, but I would just urge
my colleagues, as this bill works its way through the process, we need
to go back at least to the original provisions in the bill, to make it
easier for families that wish to adopt special-needs children.
We have a tremendous need there. This bill presents an opportunity,
and I would encourage us, as the bill works its way through Congress,
to address that need.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin)
for his effort on this legislation, and also for his comments. As the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), Chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means, mentioned, he would like to work with the gentleman in
terms of finding a way to assist special-needs adoption, adoptive
parents with the costs, and do it in a way that really had some
connection to the adoption expenses that might actually be incurred by
a family. Because, obviously, we are all here, and we heard from a
number of speakers from both parties who are very much wanting to
strengthen the ability of people to adopt, to strengthen families, to
try to find a way to make adoption easier and more frequent, and I am
hopeful that we can resolve that.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good day in the Congress. This is excellent
legislation that has been worked on for more than this Congress, and
really was the effort of former member and chairman Mr. Bliley to bring
this increase in the adoption tax credit to the floor, obviously make
it permanent, so that the planning of families and agencies can go
forward in trying to find and place children into loving homes.
This is an excellent bill, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, every year thousands of Americans open their
homes to children without permanent families in order to provide these
youngsters with stable and caring upbringings. Because of this, adopted
children, who once had no one to turn to, find themselves surrounded
with unconditional love and devotion. Adoptive parents not only
unselfishly decide to share their homes with a child but also choose to
share their hearts and lives so that their children can grow in happy,
nurturing surroundings.
However, adopting a child is difficult in part because the cost of
adoption continues to increase. A family can spend upwards of $20,000
just to make it possible to provide children with a loving home. These
families should not be financially burdened by the exorbitant costs of
adoption.
Thousands of individuals want to give a child a loving home but
cannot due to the huge expense. Adoption costs should not be an
insurmountable obstacle for these individuals. We have a responsibility
to these men and women to open the doors to adoption, not shut them.
And we have an even bigger responsibility to help a child find the
family he or she needs.
The Hope for Children Act exemplifies how Congress can help these
families and how we can provide more children with the opportunity to
live happier, successful lives.
This important legislation would increase the tax credit each
adoption to $10,000 and make the process more affordable for middle-
class families. Present law only provides a $5,000 tax credit per
adoption and a $6,000 tax credit for the adoption of a special-needs
child. The current tax credit is far below the actual cost of adopting
a child. Furthermore, the Hope for Children Act would index the credit
for inflation and increase the earnings limit, expanding eligibility
for the tax credit. The Hope for Children Act would also make the
adoption tax credit permanent law, repealing the sunset, and exempt the
beneficiaries of the credit from the Alternative Minimum Tax. This will
ensure that parents receive the full benefit of this credit.
Children who are without permanent families should not be penalized,
and families who want to open their homes to these children should not
have to struggle financially. Let us provide these families with the
opportunity to open their hearts and homes to a child in need. Let us
pass the Hope for Children Act.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 662, the
Hope for Children Act. Knowing of the importance adoption plays in the
lives of American families, Congress should do more to help facilitate
and promote its benefits. I am pleased that the House of
Representatives passed this bill earlier today with bipartisan and
unanimous support. This action speaks to the strength of this
legislation, and I hope the United States Senate moves quickly to
follow the lead of the House.
Unquestionably, this legislation would tear down the financial
burdens imposed on adoptive parents. These expenses can add up to
$20,000 or more in a single year and continue to be the primary
disincentive to middle-class families. While families who have children
born to them often enjoy the fact that health insurance pays for the
birth of their children, adoptive families receive no such support.
H.R. 662 offsets this imbalance and makes the process a more
financially viable option for middle-income parents to build families
through adoption.
Mr. Speaker, few can argue that adoption does not result in moving
children out of foster homes and providing the benefit of a solid home
and possibilities for a bright future. The benefits of adoption exist
not only with the adopted child, but with the biological mother and
society as well. Adoption can help break the cycle of abortion that too
often takes place with young girls having babies out of wedlock. By
choosing adoption, women can feel good about themselves by making the
right decision--not to have an abortion.
At the same time, adoption can help break the cycle of single
parenting. More than eighty percent of all females born to single
mothers under the age of 16 become teenage mothers themselves. By
choosing adoption as an alternative to single parenting, these women
can continue their education, develop job skills and a sense of
independence, and live the rest of their lives knowing they were not
forced to choose abortion over single parenting.
Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of fairness to adoptive families. H.R.
662 is good public policy and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with my fellow `Hope
Coalition' members who joined with me in introducing the `Hope for
Children Act' (H.R. 622). I will be very proud to see H.R. 622 pass the
House of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support.
Every child deserves a permanent, loving home and, with so many
families who want to open their hearts and their homes to these
children, I firmly believe we should help remove the financial barriers
that may hinder this union. By extending a $10,000 tax credit to
families who adopt a child, The Hope for Children Act will help to
foster strong, healthy families across the nation.
The promotion of special needs adoptions is essential. Families who
adopt special needs children incur significant costs after an adoption
has taken place. It must be mentioned that the Hope for Children Act,
as introduced, included a $10,000 flat tax credit for families who
adopt children with special needs. Though this measure was eliminated
in Committee, I will not stop fighting to ensure that the needs of
these children and families are adequately addressed.
Across America, there are an estimated 122,000 children waiting for a
family to love and care for them. but with adoption costs ranging from
$8,000 to $20,000, many families can not afford this huge expense. No
child should be forced to grow up without a family because of the
tremendous cost of adoption.
It has been a privilege and an honor to work with the members of the
`Hope Coalition' in ensuring that this legislation passed the House of
Representatives. Please be assured that I will continue to do all that
I can to make sure that the Hope for Children Act becomes law.
Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Hope for Children Act. This much needed legislation would help more
children be placed in loving homes by easing the financial burden of
adopting a child. By increasing the adoption tax credit to $10,000 for
all adoptions and increasing the employer adoption assistance exclusion
to $10,000, more families would be able to adopt. Adoption costs have
risen over the years, costing families anywhere between $8,000 and
$30,000 to adopt a child.
It is important that we pass this Hope for Children Act today because
the current $5,000 tax credit for non-special needs adoptions expires
this year, as well as the current $5,000 exclusion for employer-
provided adoption assistance. This tax credit helps make the adoption
process more affordable for middle-class families.
Helping to unite children with adoptive parents is an issue that we
can all agree on. There is perhaps no greater undertaking than raising
a child, nor more rewarding an experience. Thousands of children are
waiting to be adopted, waiting for the day they are welcomed into a
loving home where they can grow and flourish. Let's help make the dream
of so many families become a reality by passing the Hope for Children
Act today.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hope for Children
Act. As a member of this chamber and as the father of two

[[Page H2295]]

adopted children, I want to thank Reps. DeMint, Oberstar, Pryce, King
and Bachus and the entire Congressional Coalition on Adoption for their
dedication to the well-being of our Nation's and our world's children.
It is fitting that we consider this bill less than a week after
celebrating Mother's Day and so close to Father's Day. These two days
have been set aside for us to thank our parents for raising us, for
giving us a sense of security and independence, and for offering us
their unconditional love. I would like to take this opportunity to pay
tribute to all parents, who know that there is no more important, more
difficult, and ultimately more rewarding undertaking than raising a
child.
I was very fortunate to have been raised by loving parents in a
stable and caring home. I can't help but be reminded, however, of the
over 500,000 children in our Nation's foster care system, many of whom
need permanent homes. Although we have made great strides in improving
the child welfare system, there is no substitute for a loving parents
and a permanent home. For the thousands of children who wait, adoption
offers the gift of hope, the gift of love, and the gift of family.
My own family was forever changed and enriched by the adoption of our
two children from Korea. It is difficult for me to express how deeply
grateful I am to have Kathryn and Scott in my life. As any parent can
attest, the love I have for my children knows no bounds.
As many of my colleagues also know, families can spend anywhere from
$8,000 to $30,000, or even more, to adopt a child. I am proud,
therefore, to be a cosponsor the Hope for Children Act, which helps
offset the financial impact of adoption. By raising the limit on the
adoption tax credit to $10,000 and making it permanent for all
adoptions, I hope that this measure will open thousands of more homes
and hearts to the miracle of adoption.
I would be remiss, however, if I did not point out what I believe is
one shortcoming of this legislation. All children, regardless of age,
medical need, disability, race or creed deserve a family to share their
love. We need to do more to encourage the adoption of special needs
children, those who are hardest to place in permanent homes.
Since State foster care programs cover most of the tax qualified
expenses associated with special needs adoptions, only about 15% of
adoptive parents of special needs children can benefit from the credit.
These parents, however, incur other substantial adoption-related costs,
such as out-of-pocket medical costs, counseling services, and lost
income from work. As parents, legislators and advocates, we must give
all children the chance to find a family. I thank the leadership for
indicating their willingness to work on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Hope for Children
Act and look forward to working with them to strengthen this bill.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of
the Hope for Children Act and I urge all my colleagues to support this
important legislation.
I have heard from many families back home in western Wisconsin of the
need for an increased adoption tax credit. The Hope for Children Act
seeks to ease the financial burden on many families who adopt children.
It will increase the adoption tax credit from $5,000 to $10,000 for
families who adopt children and make this credit permanent, which is
due to expire at the end of this year. Furthermore, it will index the
credit for inflation and increase the earnings limit, expanding the
eligibility for the tax credit.
As a father of two sons, I understand how important it is for
children to grow up in a loving and stable family environment. We must
find a way to help the thousands of children who have no permanent
family. I believe extending this tax credit is one of the most
important ways to help these children and the families who adopt them.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend all those families who have adopted
and cared for so many children that would otherwise never have known
the true meaning of a loving, caring family. I hope with this
legislation we will ease the high cost of adoption for many families.
Mr. Speaker, we must pass this commonsense legislation to give our
nation's needy children and loving families hope.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Hope for
Children Act, I rise in strong support of its passage and urge all my
colleagues to vote for this important family-building bill.
Just last Sunday, children young and old took time from their daily
routine to remember their mothers on Mothers' Day. These are the women
who have nurtured their children, giving them life, hope, happiness,
and love. In just a few weeks, we will similarly honor our fathers on
Fathers' Day, remembering the men in our lives who have taught us so
much about life's ups and downs, ins and outs.
But for thousands of children, there is no one to honor on these
special days and nothing to celebrate. For one reason or another, they
are without parents or families. Thankfully, there are thousands of men
and women who want to open up their homes to these children and make
them a part of their families. Adoption makes this possible.
In 1992, the last year for which total adoption statistics are
available, 127,441 children were adopted in the United States. Nearly
7,000 of those children were adopted in my home state of Florida, which
has the fourth largest number of adoptions in the country. Some of
these children were adopted by relatives, others by total strangers.
Some of them came from overseas, others from across the street. All are
loved and wanted. It made no difference to the children or the parents
that they don't look the same; it only mattered that they needed one
another.
Regrettably, many of these important unions are kept from ever
occurring because the costs of adopting can be more than a family can
bear. The adoption processes can cost between $8,000 and $30,000. The
adoption tax credit helps to ease this financial burden and remove this
obstacle. But, without our action here today, that tax credit will
expire.
Mr. Speaker, the Hope for Children Act permanently extends and raises
that tax credit to $10,000. Furthermore, it raises the employer
adoption assistance exclusion to $10,000. By enacting this legislation
into law this year, families can take advantage of this tax credit when
filling out their 2002 tax returns.
This bill is just plain good policy, Mr. Speaker. We should do all we
can to encourage adoption and to make families stronger. I ask all of
my colleagues to support this important bill.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show my
strong support for H.R. 622, the Hope for Children Act. I am proud to
be joined by so many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle as
an original cosponsor of this important legislation that will remove
some of the unnecessary financial burdens that have long plagued the
adoption process. I believe that it will also pave the way for children
to be raised in safe, caring environments by an adoptive family.
It is estimated that the average adoptive family can spend from
$8,000 to $30,000 to adopt a child. In addition, the lack of adoptive
families leaves children in an intermediate state, waiting for an
average of four years for an adoptive family. The Hope for Children Act
will increase the tax credit a family receives for adopting any child
to $10,000, up from the current amount of only $5,000 and $6,000 for
special needs children. This credit will make adoption more affordable
for middle-class families. Under current law, the tax-credit will
expire on December 31, 2001 for non-special needs children; however,
under the Hope for Children Act, the tax credit will be permanently
extended. Also, the credit would be indexed to inflation, meaning that
as inflation rates rise, so would the tax credit the adopting family
receives, for all families with incomes below $150,000.
In my District, I have witnessed the beneficial effects of outside
funding for adoption services. In September 2000, the Catholic Family
Services of Hartford, Connecticut, was awarded $250,000 from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services to help increase the number of
Latino children placed in adoption and the number of Latino families
that are licensed for adoption and foster care. The program is designed
to help facilitate the moving of children out of the child welfare
system and into permanent adoptive homes. This project helps those in
the community help themselves and provides loving homes to children who
deserve them. This has been a wonderful service to provide children
with and the best way to safeguard their future.
Mr. Speaker, adoption is a very sensitive and personal matter.
Adoption is an option left to couples that, often times, have endured
an intense personal trauma. The least we can do is to lift some of the
financial burdens brought on by the adoption process to let adoptive
families focus on the most important ingredient in the process, the
children. I applaud the strong commitment so many of my colleagues have
made to the Hope for Children Act. It is my hope that passage of the
Hope for Children Act will put children into loving and secure homes.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 622, the
Hope For Children Act which will increases the adoption tax credit for
families. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation and I commend
the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint for his leadership on
this important issue.
Today's high cost for adoptions causes many couples to dismiss
adoption as an option. With thousands of children in foster care
needing homes, and thousands more being put up for adoption by parents
who cannot care for them, the United States needs to make adoption
financially possible for more American families. A typical adoption can
cost a family anywhere from $8,000 to $30,000

[[Page H2296]]

leading some families to take second mortgages on their homes or
accumulate other serious debt. This cost leaves many children in the
foster care system permanently.
H.R. 622 will help ease this financial burden so that children are
quickly placed in permanent and loving homes, which will encourage the
development of more stable families and help more children bypass the
foster care system. Studies have shown this stability discourages
children from becoming involved in crime or depending upon welfare.
This legislation will increase the adoption tax credit for families
who adopt special needs children from $6,000 to $10,000. The credit for
families who adopt non-special needs children is increased from $5,000
to $10,000 and extended permanently. Moreover this legislation
increases the income cap at which the credit begins to phase out from
$75,000 to $150,000.
As a parent of an adoptive child, I personally know that bringing a
child into your home is one of the most gratifying and fulfilling
things a parent can do. If we can encourage more families to adopt by
making it financially possible, thousands of children will benefit.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this important and timely
legislation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 622,
the Hope for Children Act. This much needed legislation is an important
step toward providing every child a loving, permanent home.
I thank and commend my colleagues for sponsoring and moving this
legislation forward. I know that they must share my passion and
commitment to our nation's children. H.R. 622 responds to a very real
need in the lives of some of our nation's most vulnerable children,
those awaiting adoption.
Under current law, a taxpayer may deduct expenses of up to $5,000
relating to the adoption of a child, and up to $6,000 for the adoption
of a ``special needs'' child. The credit is phased out for taxpayers
with annual income above $75,000. The adoption credit for special needs
children is permanent, but the credit for the adoption of other
children is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. Under current
law, beginning in 2002, the adoption credit could not be used to reduce
tax liability under the alternative minimum tax (AMT).
This bill increases the adoption tax credit to $10,000, up from
$6,000 for special-needs children and $5,000 for all other children. It
also makes permanent the adoption credit for children without special
needs. Under the measure, the adoption credit could be applied against
alternative minimum tax liability.
Current law also permits an employee to exclude up to $5,000 in
adoption expenses ($6,000 for special-needs children) from taxable
income for expenses reimbursed to the employee through an employer-
sponsored adoption-assistance program. This provision is also set to
expire on December 31. The measure increases to $10,000 the amount that
an employee may exclude from taxable income for expenses reimbursed
through an employer adoption assistance program. The measure also makes
permanent the adoption-assistance exclusion.
The measure increases the beginning point of the income phase-out
range for both the adoption credit and the adoption-assistance program
exclusion from $75,000 to $150,000.
During 1999, the most recent year for which data is available,
nationally over 820,000 children went through the foster care system,
and 568,000 were in the system at year's end. Of the children adopted
from foster care in 1999, 48 percent waited more than one year from the
time they became legally free for adoption until they were placed in an
adoptive home. The mean length of time in foster care is 46 months.
In my home state of Texas, at least 17,000 children were in foster
care at the end of 1998, the last year for which that data is
available. This is an increase of nearly 255% from the 1990 foster care
population and an overwhelming increase of 363% from 1986. During that
year, the Texas foster care system served over 20,000 children.
Approximately one half of these foster children are minorities.
Studies have shown that minority children wait longer to be adopted
than do white children. According to the National Council for Adoption
(NCFA), African American children constitute about 43 percent of the
children awaiting adoption in the foster care system, Hispanics 15
percent. In Harris County, 78 percent of all foster children are
minorities.
Thus, it is crucial that we do all we can to encourage adoption.
However, many parents who want to open their hearts and homes to a
child through adoption cannot do so because of the great expense.
Adoption can cost thousands of dollars, and so the cost is the primary
obstacle to bringing together loving families and children who need a
home.
Today, we can take an action that will have a direct impact on the
lives of children. Please join me in doing so.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Hope for
Children Act and thank Chairman Thomas, former Congressman Bliley, and
the bipartisan Hope Coalition for introducing this legislation. I have
supported this legislation for several years and am proud to currently
be one of 289 cosponsors.
Approximately 50,000 children are adopted nationwide each year.
According to the State Department's annual report, the number of
international adoptions increased approximately 13 percent from 1998 to
2000. According to Adoptions Forever, an adoption agency in Maryland,
the average aggregate cost of adoption for these international orphans
ranges up to $30,000, while a domestic adoption can range up to
$12,000. Passing the Hope for Children Act will ease the burden of what
can be an expensive obstacle to sharing your home life with a child in
need.
Currently, tax credits provided for adoption of children without
special needs will expire at the end of this year. The credit is
currently $5,000 for children without special needs, $6,000 for
children with special needs. H.R. 622 promotes adoption opportunities
by preserving and expanding tax credits for those families that choose
to adopt.
The Montgomery County division for child welfare provides lawyers and
travel compensation for adoptive parents. Despite this coverage of
general adoption payments, the division has more children with special
needs than they can place. With a $10,000 tax credit, an organization
like the Montgomery County division of child welfare will attract more
potential adoptive families, leaving fewer special needs children
without homes.
Enacting the Hope for Children Act allows us to build we must build
on current successes of tax credits for adoptive families and send our
support for families who adopt. Adoption allows children who otherwise
would be without a nurturing home to experience childhood with a
supporting family. Every family that wants to adopt should have the
opportunity to adopt. As a member of the Congressional Caucus on
Adoption, I encourage my colleagues to join me and the bipartisan Hope
Coalition in supporting H.R. 622.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the bill, this Member
wishes to add his strong support of H.R. 622, the Hope for the Children
Act, and would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means, and the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the
ranking member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, for bringing
this important legislation to the House floor today.
As you know, the high cost for adoptions causes many couples to
dismiss adoption as too costly. Other families have taken second
mortgages on their home or accumulated other debt. Because families
spend anywhere from $8,000 to $30,000 to adopt a child, these high
costs mean that many children do not get adopted and stay in the foster
care system permanently.
The Hope for Children Act will ease the burden of this expense by
increasing the adoption tax credit to $10,000 for all adoptions. While
this credit will not completely cover the often exorbitant costs
associated with adoptions, it will provide a healthy start toward
ensuring more children find a loving home.
This bill will encourage the creation of more families and help more
children bypass the foster care system to enter in to a permanent
arrangement. This much needed stability will also mean that these
children will have better, more stable home environments and that they
will be less likely to become future burdens on society either through
crime or welfare.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support
H.R. 622.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the ``Hope for
Children Act of 2001.'' This important legislation continues our
commitment to providing families assistance when adopting children who
might otherwise be in need of a loving home. I've had many constituents
tell me that the current costs of adoption can, in many cases, exceed
$25,000 or even $30,000. Raising the adoption tax credit from $5,000 to
$10,000 and making it permanent will go a long way toward alleviating
the burden of these burdensome costs.
I truly believe that there is no greater gift that a person can give
than placing a child in a loving and nurturing environment. There are
many young couples today looking to adopt a child, but the costs
associated with adoption prevent them from this noble mission. I do not
believe that this legislation creates an artificial incentive for
people to adopt. They simply want to bring a child into the world and
give it all of the love and affection they have to offer. The adoption
tax credit just makes it easier for people to fulfill that dream.
I have raised a household full of children. I've watched them grow
and mature into fine individuals. I've been there through good times
and bad. Nothing has brought me greater joy in my life than my children
and I hope this bill will give people across America that same
opportunity.

[[Page H2297]]

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Hope for
the Children Act and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this
important legislation.
This bill will help more families provide loving homes to more
children by increasing the adoption tax credit to $10,000 for all
adoptions and increase the employer adoption assistance exclusion to
$10,000. Because families can spend anywhere from $8,000 to $30,000 to
adopt a child, this assistance is vital to ensure children quickly find
a permanent, loving home. Many parents who want to open their hearts
and homes to a child through adoption cannot because of the huge
expense. This bill removes some of the financial obstacles to finding
families for these children.
Adoption is a beautiful expression of family values, for it allows
people the opportunity to extend their homes and their hearts to people
in need. It is my sincere hope that passage of this legislation will
encourage many more people to adopt and encourage individuals to
consider adoption as an alternative when they are not ready to be
parents. It is essential to raise the awareness of the benefits of
adoption in our effort to provide for all children throughout the
world.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hope for Children
Act. As a member of this Chamber, and, more importantly, as the father
of two adopted children, I thank Representatives DeMint, Oberstar,
Pryce, King, and Bachus and the entire Congressional Coalition on
Adoption for their dedication to the well-being of our Nation's and our
world's children.
It is fitting that we consider this bill less than a week after
celebrating Mother's Day and so close to Father's Day, 2 days that have
been set aside for us to thank our parents for raising us, for giving
us a sense of security and independence, and for offering us their
unconditional love. I would like to take this opportunity to pay
tribute to all parents, who know that there is no more important, more
difficult, and ultimately more rewarding undertaking than raising a
child.
I was very fortunate to have been raised by a loving mother in a
stable and caring home. I can't help but be reminded, however, of the
over 500,000 children in our Nation's foster care system who await
permanent homes. Although in recent years we have made great strides in
improving the child welfare system, there is no substitute for a loving
parents and a permanent home. For the thousands of children who wait,
adoption offers the gift of hope, the gift of love, and the gift of
family.
My own family was forever changed and enriched by the adoption of our
two children from Korea. It is difficult for me to express how deeply
grateful I am to have Kathryn and Scott in my life. As any parent can
attest, the love I have for my children knows no bounds.
As many of my colleagues can attest, families can spend anywhere from
$8,000 to $20,000, or even higher, to adopt a child. I am proud,
therefore, to be a cosponsor of the Hope for Children Act, which helps
offset the financial impact of adoption. By raising the limit on the
adoption tax credit to $10,000 for all adoptions, and making it
permanent, I hope that this measure will open thousands of more homes
and hearts to the miracle of adoption.
I would be in error, however, not to point out what I believe is one
shortcoming of this legislation. All children, regardless of age,
medical need, disability, race or creed deserve a family to share their
love. We need to do more to encourage the adoption of special needs
children, those who are hardest to place in permanent homes.
Since State foster care programs cover most of the tax qualified
expenses associated with special needs adoptions, only about 15 percent
of adoptive parents of special needs children can benefit from the
credit. These parents, however, incur other substantial adoption-
related costs, such as out-of pocket medical costs, counseling
services, and lost income from work. As parents, legislators and
advocates, we owe all children, regardless of need, a chance to find a
family. I thank the leadership for indicating their willingness to work
on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Hope for Children
Act and look forward to working with them to strengthen this bill.

1. Average cost of adoptions are between $8,000-$30,000,
depending upon circumstances (i.e. international, special
needs, etc.)
2. There are about 550,000 children in our nation's foster
care system waiting to be adopted. About 120,000 of these
children are special needs children, meaning they are more
difficult to place because of their age, medical condition,
physical or mental handicap, membership in a minority, or
being part of a group of siblings waited to be adopted
together.
3. The Hope for Children Act, which you cosponsored,
increases and expands the adoption tax credit. In general,
it:
Increases the limit on the credit for non-special needs
children from $5,000 to $10,000 and makes it permanent (it
would expire this year).
Increases the limit on the credit for special-needs
adoptions from $6,000 to $10,000 (it is already permanent).
Increases the limit on the employer adoption assistance
exclusion from $5,000 ($6,000 for special-needs adoptions) to
$10,000 for all adoptions and makes it permanent.
Increases the income limit for the full credit from $75,000
to $150,000. Phases out the credit for incomes between
$150,000-$190,000.
Indexes the credit for inflation.
4. While the bill as introduced makes the special-needs
credit a non-qualified credit, the Chairman's mark does not.
A non-qualified credit is very important to the special needs
and adoption community. Only about 15% of adoptive parents of
special needs children incur enough in qualified expenses to
benefit from the credit, these parents incur substantial
indirect costs through counseling, medical services, home
improvements for disabled children, etc.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 141, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 420,
nays 0, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 124]

YEAS--420

[[Page H2298]]

Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Borski
Brady (PA)
Condit
Cox
Cubin
Ganske
Gilman
Hunter
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Largent
Lucas (OK)

{time} 1232

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 124, I was
speaking at a Liberian rally and could not make it back in time. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________