[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8282-8295]
[From the U.S. 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 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.

[[Page 8283]]


  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 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

[[Page 8284]]

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. 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 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.

[[Page 8285]]

  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:
       ``(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.''.

[[Page 8286]]

       (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 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.

[[Page 8287]]

  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. 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

[[Page 8288]]

the last Congress, and along with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) 
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

[[Page 8289]]

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. 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.

[[Page 8290]]

  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. 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.

[[Page 8291]]

  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 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

[[Page 8292]]

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 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 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. Speaker, 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

[[Page 8293]]

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 increase 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 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

[[Page 8294]]

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.
  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

     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
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior

[[Page 8295]]


     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
     Cooksey
     Costello
     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)
     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 (GA)
     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
     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.''

                          ____________________