[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 4 (Monday, January 28, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S153-S154]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         HOPE FOR CHILDREN ACT

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
now resume consideration of H.R. 622, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 622) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1686 to expand the adoption credit, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Daschle/Baucus amendment No. 2698, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Durbin amendment No. 2714 (to amendment No. 2698), to 
     provide enhanced unemployment compensation benefits.
       Nickles (for Bond) amendment No. 2717, to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a temporary 
     increase in expressing under section 179 of such code.
       Reid (for Baucus/Torricelli/Bayh) amendment No. 2718 (to 
     amendment No. 2698), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to provide for a special depreciation allowance for 
     certain property acquired after December 31, 2001, and before 
     January 1, 2004.
       Reid (for Harkin) amendment No. 2719 (to amendment No. 
     2698), to provide for a temporary increase in the Federal 
     medical assistance percentage for the medicaid program for 
     fiscal year 2002.
       Allen amendment No. 2702 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 2698), to exclude from gross income 
     certain terrorist attack zone compensation of civilian 
     uniformed personnel.
       Reid (for Baucus) amendment No. 2721 (to amendment No. 
     2698), to provide emergency agriculture assistance.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning.


                    Amendment No. 2699, As Modified

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, as 
modified. I call up amendment No. 2699.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2699, as modified, to the language 
     proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698.

  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

[[Page S154]]

 (Purpose: To provide that the exclusion from gross income for foster 
   care payments shall also apply to payments by qualified placement 
                   agencies, and for other purposes)

       At the end of the bill add the following:

     SEC. __. EXCLUSION FOR FOSTER CARE PAYMENTS TO APPLY TO 
                   PAYMENTS BY QUALIFIED PLACEMENT AGENCIES.

       (a) In General.--The matter preceding subparagraph (B) of 
     section 131(b)(1) (defining qualified foster care payment) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified foster care payment' 
     means any payment made pursuant to a foster care program of a 
     State or political subdivision thereof--
       ``(A) which is paid by--
       ``(i) a State or political subdivision thereof, or
       ``(ii) a qualified foster care placement agency, and''.
       (b) Qualified Foster Individuals To Include Individuals 
     Placed by Qualified Placement Agencies.--Subparagraph (B) of 
     section 131(b)(2) (defining qualified foster individual) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) a qualified foster care placement agency.''
       (c) Qualified Foster Care Placement Agency Defined.--
     Subsection (b) of section 131 is amended by redesignating 
     paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and by inserting after 
     paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Qualified foster care placement agency.--The term 
     `qualified foster care placement agency' means any placement 
     agency which is licensed or certified by--
       ``(A) a State or political subdivision thereof, or
       ``(B) an entity designated by a State or political 
     subdivision thereof,

     for the foster care program of such State or political 
     subdivision to make foster care payments to providers of 
     foster care.''
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Inhofe be added to this amendment as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 
underlying bill.
  My amendment corrects an inconsistency in the Tax Code that unfairly 
punishes foster care families and the foster care family members for 
whom they care.
  Many families that take in foster care family members receive a 
stipend from the placement agency to help provide this care.
  These stipends help defray the costs for food, shelter, and the basic 
necessities.
  In some cases, families get these stipends tax-free. But in others, 
families pay taxes on them as if they were ordinary income.
  My amendment replaces this patchwork system by providing a single, 
blanket rule that gives equal treatment to all of these stipends by 
simply excluding them from taxation.
  Because real world changes in foster care have outpaced the Tax Code, 
we presently have a situation where stipends are taxed depending on the 
age of the foster care family member, and whether or not they were 
placed by a for-profit agency or a nonprofit agency.
  This makes no sense.
  Presently, if the placement is done by a for-profit agency, or if the 
foster family member is over 18, the stipends are taxed.
  It is only if the foster family member is placed by a not-for-profit 
and they are under 18 that the stipends are not taxed.
  This is a distinction without a difference.
  It shouldn't matter if the stipends come from a for-profit or a 
nonprofit agency, or if it is a needy individual who is 12 or 42.
  We shouldn't tax love and compassion on such an arbitrary basis.
  Instead of sending a tax bill to the foster parents who are doing the 
right thing, we should give them a break and encourage their good 
intentions.
  What is important is that these needy individuals are getting help, 
and the families who help by offering to help should not be penalized 
for their good deeds.
  Instead of punishing foster care, we should reward it.
  My amendment helps to do just this by making it more attractive and 
more affordable to take in foster care family members.
  This is a noncontroversial, bipartisan idea. In fact, this proposal 
passed Congress as part of the 1999 tax bill that was vetoed by 
President Clinton. It also passed the House last year on two separate 
occasions as both a stand-alone bill and as part of the centrist 
stimulus package, H.R. 3529.
  I have been working on this issue for almost 5 years, and I have 
never heard one bit of criticism about it.
  It is a commonsense improvement to the Tax Code that would 
immediately benefit families by letting them keep more of the money 
that they receive for the foster care of children of any age.
  And it has the added, more important, benefit of promoting care and 
compassion for some of our most needy individuals.
  There are hundreds of thousands of children and adults in foster 
care. Both they and the families who are looking after them would 
benefit from my amendment.
  My amendment is nothing new to Congress. But let's make it new to 
those foster care families all across the Nation.
  Foster parenting is hard work. The stipends are very small. Foster 
care families and their charges deserve and need tax relief and 
fairness as much as anyone else.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient number?
  There is a sufficient number.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.


                                 RECESS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
stand in recess until 4 o'clock today.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 3:11 p.m., recessed until 
3:59 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer 
(Mr. Reid).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Levin). The Senator from South Carolina is 
recognized.

                          ____________________