[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 64 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4766-H4775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3286, ADOPTION PROMOTION AND 
                         STABILITY ACT OF 1996

  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 428 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 428

       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. 3286) to help 
     families defray adoption costs, and to promote the adoption 
     of minority children. The amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute 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, and on any further amendment thereto 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; (2) an amendment to title II of 
     the bill, as amended, if offered by Representative Gibbons of 
     Florida or his designee, which shall be considered as read 
     and shall be separately debatable for thirty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; (3) 
     the amendment recommended by the Committee on Resources 
     (applied to the bill, as amended), if offered by 
     Representative Young of Alaska or a designee, which shall be 
     considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 
     thirty minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent; and (4) one motion to recommit, 
     which may include instructions only if offered by the 
     minority leader or his designee.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Morella). The gentlewoman from Ohio 
[Ms. Pryce] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             general leave

  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and that I be permitted to insert extraneous materials in the 
Record on H.R. 3286.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 428 provides for the consideration of 
H.R. 3286, the Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of 1996, under a 
modified closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  The rule also provides for consideration of the bill in the House 
without intervention of any point of order, and makes in order the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Ways and Means, now printed in the bill.
  The rule provides for the consideration of an amendment to title II 
of the bill, as amended, if offered by Representative Gibbons of 
Florida, or his designee. The amendment will be considered as read, and 
will be debatable for 30 minutes equally divided between the proponent 
and an opponent.
  The rule further provides for the consideration of the amendment 
recommended by the Committee on Resources, if offered by Representative 
Young of Alaska, or his designee. That amendment will also be 
considered as read, and will be debatable for 30 minutes equally 
divided between the proponent and an opponent.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, which may 
include instructions only if offered by the minority leader or his 
designee.
  Madam Speaker, let me say that with respect to the amendment process, 
the Rules Committee has tried to be fair and balanced, allowing one 
amendment to be offered from each side of the aisle. Although the 
Committee heard testimony on several worthwhile amendments to the bill, 
some of which I individually supported, many of the proposals would 
have affected titles under the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  As my colleagues may know, in the past the Rules Committee has 
observed the bipartisan custom of carefully limiting amendments to 
matters within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee, 
especially proposals that would directly affect the Tax Code and 
Federal revenues, as we continue to do so under this rule.
  Madam Speaker, today, under the terms of this fair rule, the House 
will consider important legislation that seeks to promote and encourage 
the practice of adoption. As an adoptive parent myself, I can say quite 
honestly that being able to provide a child with a safe, stable, and 
loving family environment through a successful adoption can be one of 
life's most rewarding experiences.
  Unfortunately, adoption in the United States is all too rare. The 
best available information indicates that roughly 450,000 children live 
in foster care at any given moment.
  Although Federal programs exist to support adoption, foster care, and 
family services, significant obstacles still remain. Adoption costs 
alone present a major disincentive, but in addition, parents are forced 
to think twice out of fear that an adoptive placement may be reversed, 
and a close family unit tragically torn apart.
  The bill, and this rule, reflect our belief that Federal policy must 
be directed toward removing the barriers that currently discourage 
adoption. To that end, H.R. 3286 contains three elements that are 
essential to any successful pro-adoption strategy.
  First, the legislation recognizes that the very costs associated with 
adoption, which can be as much as $15,000 or more in some cases, are a 
significant obstacle. To help families defray these costs, the bill 
includes an invaluable tax credit for up to $5,000 for qualified 
adoption expenses, and recommends specific revenue offsets to pay for 
that tax credit.

[[Page H4767]]

  Second, H.R. 3286 seeks to remove barriers to inter-ethnic adoption. 
The bill would prohibit a State or any other entity that receives 
Federal assistance from denying or delaying a child's adoption because 
of the race, color, or national origin of the child or the person 
seeking to adopt the child. Hopefully, this provision will help ensure 
that more minority children will find their way into loving homes 
across the country, regardless of the race of the family seeking to 
adopt.
  Finally, this legislation addresses a subject which many of my 
colleagues and I believe is critical to preserving the long-term 
protection of children and stability of adoptive placements once they 
are made. Title III of the bill contains provisions to make very modest 
reforms to the Indian Child Welfare Act, which is the 1978 law 
governing the custody of Native American children.
  Let me be clear about one thing, Madam Speaker: I believe the act, or 
ICWA, as it is also known, was well-intentioned legislation, and I 
remain very supportive of its original and intended objective. The 
former practice of placing Indian children outside of their tribes 
merely due to cultural differences was clearly shameful.
  However, the subsequent misapplication of ICWA to overturn and 
disrupt adoptions where the children involved have no tribal 
affiliation and only a minimal degree of Indian lineage, is equally 
shameful.
  Clarification of this law is absolutely essential. The act's overly 
broad interpretation by Government-paid lawyers and liberal courts has 
had unintended and very very tragic consequences for children, adoptive 
parents, and birth parents alike. In many cases, voluntary adoptions, 
consented to by birth parents, have been prevented by courts that have 
misapplied ICWA. And, children with as little as 1/64 of Native 
American heritage have been deemed to be covered under the act, and 
removed from the only homes they've known.
  As a result, the law's broad application has discouraged adoption, 
even of Indian and non-Indian children alike. It has generated 
extensive and expensive litigation, and it has led to the heart-
wrenching anguish of removing children from the only parents and homes 
they have ever known. Indian children are now more likely to languish 
in foster homes because some tribes will not allow their adoption by 
non-Indian parents, or because prospective parents are not willing to 
consider adoption of children who may be subject to ICWA claims at a 
later point in time. This modest proposal removes one more obstacle for 
couples who want to offer loving homes to children, but don't because 
they fear becoming the next front page news story of an adoption 
tragedy.
  Madam Speaker, I know that the distinguished chairman of the 
Resources Committee, Mr. Young, and I have different views on the ICWA 
issue. Under this rule, the gentleman from Alaska will have the 
opportunity to be heard on his amendment to the bill. But, I hope my 
colleagues will understand that the language in title III provides 
nothing more than a common sense clarification of ICWA, to the benefit 
of all children in need of loving, permanent homes, without infringing 
upon the sovereignty and rights of the Native American community.
  My concern is simply that we have lost sight of what is in the best 
interests of the children involved. Children are not chattel, Mr. 
Speaker, nor are they the personal property of Indian tribes or their 
parents. They are individuals who have precious, unique, fundamental 
rights and needs. Above all, they have the right to permanency in a 
loving, nurturing family environment with stability and security. They 
have these rights regardless of their race, as do all American 
children. So, I would ask my colleagues to do what is right for the 
children, and keep this essential title part of the pro-adoption 
package.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, let me urge Members on both sides of the 
aisle to support this resolution. It is an appropriate and fair rule 
which is consistent with our past bipartisan practices. We have the 
opportunity to strengthen the American family by passing this adoption 
legislation today, and I urge every Member to vote ``yes'' on the rule, 
and to vote ``yes'' on the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I include the following for the Record.

 THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 104TH CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                               [As of May 8, 1996]                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 68                 61
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 27                 24
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                 17                 15
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................                104                100                112                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                               [As of May 8, 1996]                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)...........  O................  H.R. 5...........  Unfunded Mandate        A: 350-71 (1/19/ 
                                                                        Reform.                 95).            
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)...........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 17..  Social Security.......  A: 255-172 (1/25/
                                                    H.J. Res. 1......  Balanced Budget Amdt..   95).            
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 101.........  Land Transfer, Taos     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Pueblo Indians.         1/95).          
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 400.........  Land Exchange, Arctic   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Nat'l. Park and         1/95).          
                                                                        Preserve.                               
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 440.........  Land Conveyance, Butte  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        County, Calif.          1/95).          
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............  O................  H.R. 2...........  Line Item Veto........  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                2/95).          
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 665.........  Victim Restitution....  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                7/95).          
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 666.........  Exclusionary Rule       A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Reform.                 7/95).          
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............  MO...............  H.R. 667.........  Violent Criminal        A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Incarceration.          9/95).          
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............  O................  H.R. 668.........  Criminal Alien          A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Deportation.            10/95).         
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 728.........  Law Enforcement Block   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Grants.                 13/95).         
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 7...........  National Security       PQ: 229-100; A:  
                                                                        Revitalization.         227-127 (2/15/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 831.........  Health Insurance        PQ: 230-191; A:  
                                                                        Deductibility.          229-188 (2/21/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)...........  O................  H.R. 830.........  Paperwork Reduction     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Act.                    22/95).         
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 889.........  Defense Supplemental..  A: 282-144 (2/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 450.........  Regulatory Transition   A: 252-175 (2/23/
                                                                        Act.                    95).            
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1022........  Risk Assessment.......  A: 253-165 (2/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95)..........  O................  H.R. 926.........  Regulatory Reform and   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Relief Act.             28/95).         
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 925.........  Private Property        A: 271-151 (3/2/ 
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1058........  Securities Litigation   .................
                                                                        Reform.                                 
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 988.........  Attorney                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Accountability Act.     6/95).          
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)...........  MO...............  .................  ......................  A: 257-155 (3/7/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)...........  Debate...........  H.R. 956.........  Product Liability       A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Reform.                 8/95).          
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)...........  MC...............  .................  ......................  PQ: 234-191 A:   
                                                                                                247-181 (3/9/   
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1159........  Making Emergency Supp.  A: 242-190 (3/15/
                                                                        Approps.                95).            
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 73.....  Term Limits Const.      A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Amdt.                   28/95).         

[[Page H4768]]

                                                                                                                
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95)..........  Debate...........  H.R. 4...........  Personal                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Responsibility Act of   21/95).         
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95)..........  MC...............  .................  ......................  A: 217-211 (3/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1271........  Family Privacy          A: 423-1 (4/4/   
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 660.........  Older Persons Housing   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    6/95).          
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1215........  Contract With America   A: 228-204 (4/5/ 
                                                                        Tax Relief Act of       95).            
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 483.........  Medicare Select          A: 253-172 (4/6/
                                                                        Expansion.              95).            
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 655.........  Hydrogen Future Act of  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1995.                   2/95).          
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1361........  Coast Guard Auth. FY    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1996.                   9/95).          
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)...........  O................  H.R. 961.........  Clean Water Amendments  A: 414-4 (5/10/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 535.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Arkansas.               15/95).         
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 584.........  Fish Hatchery--Iowa...  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                15/95).         
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 614.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Minnesota.              15/95).         
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 67..  Budget Resolution FY    PQ: 252-170 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   255-168 (5/17/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1561........  American Overseas       A: 233-176 (5/23/
                                                                        Interests Act.          95).            
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1530........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY   PQ: 225-191 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   233-183 (6/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1817........  MilCon Appropriations   PQ: 223-180 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                245-155 (6/16/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1854........  Leg. Branch Approps.    PQ: 232-196 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                236-191 (6/20/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1868........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   PQ: 221-178 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   217-175 (6/22/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1905........  Energy & Water          A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       12/95).         
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 79.....  Flag Constitutional     PQ: 258-170 A:   
                                                                        Amendment.              271-152 (6/28/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1944........  Emer. Supp. Approps...  PQ: 236-194 A:   
                                                                                                234-192 (6/29/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 235-193 D:   
                                                                        1996.                   192-238 (7/12/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 230-194 A:   
                                                                        1996 #2.                229-195 (7/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1976........  Agriculture Approps.    PQ: 242-185 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2020........  Treasury/Postal         PQ: 232-192 A:   
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 96.....  Disapproval of MFN to   A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        China.                  20/95).         
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2002........  Transportation          PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       95).            
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 70..........  Exports of Alaskan      A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Crude Oil.              24/95).         
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2076........  Commerce, State         A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       25/95).         
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2099........  VA/HUD Approps. FY      A: 230-189 (7/25/
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95)..........  MC...............  S. 21............  Terminating U.S. Arms   A: voice vote (8/
                                                                        Embargo on Bosnia.      1/95).          
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2126........  Defense Approps. FY     A: 409-1 (7/31/  
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1555........  Communications Act of   A: 255-156 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1995.                   95).            
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 2127........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY  A: 323-104 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1594........  Economically Targeted   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Investments.            12/95).         
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1655........  Intelligence            A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Authorization FY 1996.  12/95).         
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1162........  Deficit Reduction       A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Lockbox.                13/95).         
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1670........  Federal Acquisition     A: 414-0 (9/13/  
                                                                        Reform Act.             95).            
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1617........  CAREERS Act...........  A: 388-2 (9/19/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2274........  Natl. Highway System..  PQ: 241-173 A:   
                                                                                                375-39-1 (9/20/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 927.........  Cuban Liberty & Dem.    A: 304-118 (9/20/
                                                                        Solidarity.             95).            
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 743.........  Team Act..............  A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1170........  3-Judge Court.........  A: voice vote (9/
                                                                                                28/95).         
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1601........  Internatl. Space        A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Station.                27/95).         
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 108....  Continuing Resolution   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        FY 1996.                28/95).         
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2405........  Omnibus Science Auth..  A: voice vote (10/
                                                                                                11/95).         
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2259........  Disapprove Sentencing   A: voice vote (10/
                                                                        Guidelines.             18/95).         
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2425........  Medicare Preservation   PQ: 231-194 A:   
                                                                        Act.                    227-192 (10/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95).........  C................  H.R. 2492........  Leg. Branch Approps...  PQ: 235-184 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (10/ 
                                                                                                31/95).         
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95).........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 109.  Social Security         PQ: 228-191 A:   
                                                    H.R. 2491........   Earnings Reform.        235-185 (10/26/ 
                                                                       Seven-Year Balanced      95).            
                                                                        Budget.                                 
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95).........  C................  H.R. 1833........  Partial Birth Abortion  A: 237-190 (11/1/
                                                                        Ban.                    95).            
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95).........  MO...............  H.R. 2546........  D.C. Approps..........  A: 241-181 (11/1/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Res. FY 1996....  A: 216-210 (11/8/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2586........  Debt Limit............  A: 220-200 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2539........  ICC Termination Act...  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                14/95).         
H. Res. 261 (11/9/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Resolution......  A: 223-182 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2586........  Increase Debt Limit...  A: 220-185 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95).........  O................  H.R. 2564........  Lobbying Reform.......  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                16/95).         
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95).........  C................  H.J. Res. 122....  Further Cont.           A: 229-176 (11/15/
                                                                        Resolution.             95).            
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2606........  Prohibition on Funds    A: 239-181 (11/17/
                                                                        for Bosnia.             95).            
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95).........  O................  H.R. 1788........  Amtrak Reform.........  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                30/95).         
H. Res. 287 (11/30/95).........  O................  H.R. 1350........  Maritime Security Act.  A: voice vote (12/
                                                                                                6/95).          
H. Res. 293 (12/7/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2621........  Protect Federal Trust   PQ: 223-183 A:   
                                                                        Funds.                  228-184 (12/14/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 303 (12/13/95).........  O................  H.R. 1745........  Utah Public Lands.....                   
H. Res. 309 (12/18/95).........  C................  H.Con. Res. 122..  Budget Res. W/          PQ: 230-188 A:   
                                                                        President.              229-189 (12/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 313 (12/19/95).........  O................  H.R. 558.........  Texas Low-Level         A: voice vote (12/
                                                                        Radioactive.            20/95).         
H. Res. 323 (12/21/95).........  C................  H.R. 2677........  Natl. Parks & Wildlife  Tabled (2/28/96).
                                                                        Refuge.                                 
H. Res. 366 (2/27/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2854........  Farm Bill.............  PQ: 228-182 A:   
                                                                                                244-168 (2/28/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 368 (2/28/96)..........  O................  H.R. 994.........  Small Business Growth.  .................
H. Res. 371 (3/6/96)...........  C................  H.R. 3021........  Debt Limit Increase...  A: voice vote (3/
                                                                                                7/96).          
H. Res. 372 (3/6/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3019........  Cont. Approps. FY 1996  PQ: voice vote A:
                                                                                                235-175 (3/7/   
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 380 (3/12/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2703........  Effective Death         A: 251-157 (3/13/
                                                                        Penalty.                96).            
H. Res. 384 (3/14/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2202........  Immigration...........  PQ: 233-152 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (3/21/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 386 (3/20/96)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 165....  Further Cont. Approps.  PQ: 234-187 A:   
                                                                                                237-183 (3/21/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 388 (3/20/96)..........  C................  H.R. 125.........  Gun Crime Enforcement.  A: 244-166 (3/22/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 391 (3/27/96)..........  C................  H.R. 3136........  Contract w/America      PQ: 232-180 A:   
                                                                        Advancement.            232-177, (3/28/ 
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 392 (3/27/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3103........  Health Coverage         PQ: 229-186 A:   
                                                                        Affordability.          Voice Vote (3/29/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 395 (3/29/96)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 159....  Tax Limitation Const.   PQ: 232-168 A:   
                                                                        Amdmt..                 234-162 (4/15/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 396 (3/29/96)..........  O................  H.R. 842.........  Truth in Budgeting Act  A: voice vote (4/
                                                                                                17/96).         
H. Res. 409 (4/23/96)..........  O................  H.R. 2715........  Paperwork Elimination   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    24/96).         
H. Res. 410 (4/23/96)..........  O................  H.R. 1675........  Natl. Wildlife Refuge.  A: voice vote (4/
                                                                                                24/96).         
H. Res. 411 (4/23/96)..........  O................  H.J. Res. 175....  Further Cont. Approps.  A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        FY 1996.                24/96).         
H. Res. 418 (4/30/96)..........  O................  H.R. 2641........  U.S. Marshals Service.  PQ: 219-203 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (5/1/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 419 (4/30/96)..........  O................  H.R. 2149........  Ocean Shipping Reform.  A: 422-0 (5/1/   
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 421 (5/2/96)...........  O................  H.R. 2974........  Crimes Against          A: Voice Vote (5/
                                                                        Children & Elderly.     7/96).          
H. Res. 422 (5/2/96)...........  O................  H.R. 3120........  Witness & Jury          A: Voice Vote (5/
                                                                        Tampering.              7/96).          
H. Res. 426 (5/7/96)...........  O................  H.R. 2406........  U.S. Housing Act of     PQ: 218-208 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   Voice Vote (5/8/
                                                                                                96)             
H. Res. 427 (5/7/96)...........  O................  H.R. 3322........  Omnibus Civilian        .................
                                                                        Science Auth.                           
H. Res. 428 (5/7/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3286........  Adoption Promotion &    .................
                                                                        Stability.                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               



                              {time}  2030

  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio, Ms. Pryce, for 
yielding me the time. I recognize the very special importance this bill 
has to my Ohio friend.
  House Resolution 428 is a modified closed rule which will allow 
consideration of H.R. 3286, the Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of 
1996.
  As my colleague from Ohio described, this rule provides 1 hour of 
general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  It provides for only two amendments. Representative Gibbons or his 
designee may offer one amendment to title II of

[[Page H4769]]

the bill. Representative Young of Alaska or his designee may offer the 
other amendment.
  The rule provides for one motion to recommit, which may include 
instructions, if offered by the minority leader or his designee.
  H.R. 3286 provides a tax credit to parents of an adopted child of up 
to $5,000 to cover certain adoption-related expenses. H.R. 3286 aims to 
bring more children from foster homes into loving families, which 
should be an important goal of our Nation.
  Under the rule, no floor amendments may be offered to titles I and IV 
of the bill. This continues the custom of closed rules for tax-related 
bills from the Ways and Means Committee.
  However, neither title II nor title III deals with tax matters, and 
title III falls under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee. For 
these reasons, titles II and III should be subject to an open rule and 
fully amendable on the House floor.
  Unfortunately, the Rules Committee chose to make only two amendments 
in order.
  Madam Speaker, this bill makes an important contribution to 
strengthen American families by promoting adoption. I regret that under 
this rule, the House will be denied the full opportunity to amend the 
bill and add to the contribution that the bill makes.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], my good friend who has been such 
a big help on this bill and the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I certainly thank the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Pryce] for yielding the time and I commend her for her 
leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor, along with the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] and others, like the gentleman 
from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], because without all of this effort this bill 
would not be here today. It is so terribly, terribly important to the 
children of this Nation, Madam Speaker, that are really the future 
backbone of our Nation.
  Madam Speaker, I am not going to bother to explain the rule and the 
contents of all of this legislation, except to say that there is one 
section in this bill, title III, that addresses what I consider overly 
broad interpretations of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, and that 
needs to be clarified because its broad interpretations has prevented 
even voluntary adoptions by birth parents to other families. That is 
the part that is so sad.
  This has caused the removal of children already settled in caring, in 
secure adoptive homes because the child may have as little as \1/32\ 
Native American blood or even \1/64\, and that is such a shame because, 
Madam Speaker, the Indian Child Welfare Act was passed in response to a 
terrible problem that existed back at that time because of unwarranted 
removals of children from public and private agencies.
  Madam Speaker, this was clearly an unjust situation that needed to be 
corrected in order to protect the sanctity of the Native American 
family. But the way the Indian Child Welfare Act has been implemented 
has been, even voluntarily, extremely difficult. As a matter of fact, 
it has been impossible.
  Therefore, this bill would fix that problem, and this is so important 
if Members are listening back in their offices, or whenever they are, 
because by exempting from tribal court those Indian child custody 
proceedings involving Indian children whose parents do not maintain 
significant social, cultural, or political affiliation with the tribe 
of which the parents are members, whether it is reining in government 
spending, providing tax breaks for families, or providing a healthy 
home life for all American children, this Congress has not lost its 
focus on ensuring a prosperous future for our children and our 
grandchildren.
  Madam Speaker, let me speak from a personal experience just briefly. 
I almost never do this, Madam Speaker, but my dad walked out on me and 
my mom when I was born and we never laid eyes on him again. This was in 
1930, back in the very beginning of the Depression.
  Because of extenuating circumstances, I was separated from my mother 
for many, many years, 15 years. I can recall being shuttled from one 
home to another. But the thing I noticed the most was when I went to 
some other children's house and there was a mother and father there, I 
looked at them with such envy.
  And then I look today at all of these children, 600,000 of them today 
that live in foster homes, and Madam Speaker, there are 2 million of 
them that are homeless that need homes, not just 600,000. And only 10 
percent of those in foster care today have any kind of chance at all of 
being adopted.
  Madam Speaker, that is not right. This legislation will correct that 
from the $5,000 tax credit, from the interracial problem that we are 
straightening out, and by saying to Indian children, even if you are 
registered with a tribe, that is fine. But you cannot come 6 months or 
5 years later and snatch the children away from these loving, caring 
parents. That is not what is right. That is what we are trying to 
correct here today.
  Madam Speaker, I say to my colleagues, please, please come over here 
and vote for this rule. But more important than that, vote against the 
amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], my 
dear friend, that would leave things exactly as they are, leave the 
status quo, and nothing would improve for all of these homeless 
children in America for another 4 or 5 years. We cannot let that 
happen.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], our very distinguished minority leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Madam Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support 
this rule and to support this bill to make it easier and more 
affordable to adopt a child in this country.
  We talk a lot about the issue of families in this Chamber, and what 
we can do to strengthen them, support them, and help them. This is a 
bill with broad bipartisan support that will actually make it easier to 
create families.
  Too many precious young children grow up in foster care, shuttling 
from foster home to foster home without even one real parent to raise 
them to teach them basic values and decency, indeed to love them.
  Right now, there are more than 5,000 children in foster care in my 
State of Missouri, over 1,100 in St. Louis city and County alone. But 
the simple fact is that there are parents longing to adopt them and 
care for them who simply cannot afford or think they cannot afford to 
do it.
  Imagine this, that there are couples who are desperate to open their 
homes to children without families, yet they simply cannot meet the 
price tag. An adoption can cost as much as $20,000 in this country. I 
do not know of many families who can afford that kind of money. If we 
as a society really believe in family values, if we really want to put 
families first and fight for the children who will inherit this 
country, we have got to do all we can to encourage adoption to make it 
cheaper and to make it easier.
  This bill will not solve all the problems, but it is an important 
start. A $5,000 tax credit could make the crucial difference for many 
middle-class families, families trying to get in the middle-class who 
want to adopt a child. By voting for this bill, we put our money where 
our mouths are. We create thousands of loving families where today 
there are shattered dreams. If you ask me, these are the kind of votes 
that we ought to have in this Chamber.
  So, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, support this bill, and 
give children a chance at the kind of family life they need and so 
richly deserve.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentlewoman from Utah [Ms. Greene].

                             {time}   2045

  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
rule and of the Adoption Promotion and Stability Act. This rule 
provides for fair consideration of these important issues. The House 
has traditionally considered legislation affecting revenues under a 
structured rule. This rule continues that tradition, and it also 
provides for a clear up or down vote on proposed changes to the Indian 
Child Welfare Act.
  Madam Speaker, this bill will help eliminate the financial barriers 
that discourage families from adopting children. As an adopted child 
myself, I am

[[Page H4770]]

very grateful that my parents had the means to complete the adoption 
process. But unfortunately, there are too many children today who need 
loving homes and who could be adopted but whose prospective families 
cannot afford the associated expenses, which can total $10,000 or 
$15,000 or more per adoption. This bill will give willing families the 
financial assistance they need to adopt children into stable, caring 
homes.
  In addition, this bill will help ensure that more minority children 
are adopted. Currently about half of all children eligible for adoption 
in our country are minorities. Too often, current practice regarding 
racial preferences stands in the way of these children becoming part of 
a loving family. This bill will ensure that a child's adoption cannot 
be denied simply because of that child's race or national origin.
  Finally, this bill will address some of the unintended consequences 
of the Indian Child Welfare Act. That act was established to correct 
the egregious situation of Native American children being forcefully 
removed from their homes without due process and for unwarranted 
reasons.
  Unfortunately, however, the Indian Child Welfare Act has not always 
served the best interests of the child. The act has been applied beyond 
its intended purpose of protecting Indian children and their families, 
resulting in tragic consequences as the rights of prospective children 
and parents are made subordinate to tribal claims. This has had a 
chilling effect on adoptions. Most tragically, we see the anguish of 
children being removed from the only homes they have ever known.
  I believe this bill will help clarify the scope of the Indian Child 
Welfare Act so that we can prevent these tragic situations and promote 
the adoption of children whose parents have no significant affiliation 
with the tribe.
  I urge my colleagues to give more children the benefits of a loving 
home and parents that I had. I urge adoption of the rule and the bill.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  I commend the authors of this legislation for bringing it to the 
floor. I have spent almost my entire public life trying to make it 
easier for children to be adopted and to try to find permanent 
placements for children in foster care. The tax provisions of this 
bill, the tax credit here will obviously be very helpful in helping 
those families defray the cost of adoption, which for all too many 
families is in fact a very real barrier to adoption.
  Madam Speaker, I am also happy with the changes that have been made. 
Unfortunately, they continue to be necessary on the interethnic 
adoption. I joined Senator Metzenbaum and others a couple of years ago 
to try to reduce these barriers and get rid of these barriers so that 
race would not become a barrier to adoption for those children.
  As was stated here, we have some 450,000 children in adoption, most 
of whom are looking for permanent placement. We know the impacts of 
permanent placement on these children. They do much better in permanent 
placement, in a loving situation, than bouncing from foster home to 
foster home where their interests very often are just simply not taken 
care of in spite of the hundreds of thousands of wonderful foster 
parents that take children in, sometimes in the middle of the night 
with little or no notice.
  Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to take issue with title III of this 
legislation that would take from Indian tribes of this Nation and of 
those Indian nations jurisdiction over the adoption of those Indian 
children. It would do so in the most egregious fashion under this 
legislation. While we have spent the last 14 months talking about 
devolving authority back to the State Governments and to local 
governments, in one fell swoop in this legislation what we would do is 
we would federally describe what is membership in a tribe. We would do 
that even in the case of where half of the largest tribe in this Nation 
probably could not meet that membership test.
  But that is not a membership qualification for us to set. It is very 
difficult for people to understand that the Indian tribes in this 
country are sovereign nations. What the Indian Child Welfare Act sought 
to remedy, and that is not to suggest that it did it perfectly and that 
it cannot be improved, but what it sought to remedy was the invasion of 
those sovereign nations and their children being drained away from 
their nations, those children being adopted outside, out of sight of 
the tribe, far in excess of their numbers.
  But it does that now to suggest that somehow, if the parent does not 
meet a two-part test, that the tribe has no interest in that child and 
maybe even the grandparents have no interest in that child, no matter 
how loving those grandparents might be of that child, because perhaps 
their child left the reservation, went to live in the city, maybe for 
whatever reasons got married, did not get married but had a child. We 
are now going to test the interest of that child and that tribe and 
those grandparents against the actions of the parent of that child. We 
are now determining who is and who is not a member of a tribe for the 
purposes of the enforcement of tribal laws, customs and heritage.
  We do not do that with adoptions in the State of California, the 
State of Ohio, the State of Indiana, State of Florida. We do not do 
that. But the suggestion here is that somehow the tribes have 
mismanaged this or somehow the tribes are not doing a decent job or 
somehow the tribes are coming and yanking children out of adoptions 
when they are finalized. That is not the case.

  Madam Speaker, the case that has been cited very often in pursuing 
this amendment is one where one of the adoptive parents simply engaged 
in fraud during the adoptive process. We all have copies of the 
documents. He chose not to notify the tribes and chose to conceal his 
Indian background, however limited.
  That was the intentional effort to engage in fraud. So now in 
reaction to that, what we are suggesting is we are going to wipe out 
the qualifications for memberships that tribes may set for their own 
members and may have set for decades or for hundreds of years. We are 
going to impose some notion of our sense of percentage of blood to 
satisfy us as opposed to what the tribe makes a determination of what 
an enrolled member is or is not. I am deeply concerned about that. I am 
deeply concerned because it is an invasion of that sovereignty.
  This is not to suggest that somehow there are not loving parents, 
there are not loving grandparents, there is not extended family on the 
reservations who want those children, who adopt those children and in 
fact do it all of the time. But their rights are completely destroyed 
by our interpretation of the parents' actions with respect to the birth 
of that child, whether they chose to enroll that child immediately or 
did not. We now negate the interests of all of the other family members 
around that tribe.
  Madam Speaker, we would not do this to grandparents anywhere else. We 
would not do this to grandparents. We would not destroy their standing, 
their ability to compete, to have the tribe represent them, to try to 
see whether or not they could take that child, perhaps as opposed to 
another placement. Yet that is what it is.
  The gentlewoman and others have raised legitimate concerns about the 
administration of this act. In fact, the tribes of this Nation that 
were not consulted with this amendment are meeting in June to discuss 
how to better administer this act. We have been holding off legislation 
to let the tribes come together in June and make those determinations. 
But what we in fact now have is a rush to judgment here about the 
future of these children, about the interests of the tribes, about the 
membership in those tribes that far exceeds, far exceeds the problems 
that have been raised with this act.
  I would hope that the chairman of the committee tomorrow, in the 
debate on this amendment and elsewhere, will commit to reporting out a 
bill. But it ought to have the airing, and it ought to be run by the 
tribes that are affected. This has not been. This has not been.
  So I raise these concerns because this is most serious. It is most 
serious. It ought not to be rushed to. The rest of this legislation is 
important and good and valuable, and we ought to get on

[[Page H4771]]

with it because there are parents who are waiting for the opportunity 
and families who are waiting for the opportunity that the rest of this 
bill provides.
  With respect to the custody of Indian children and the adoption of 
Indian children, we ought to just pause for a minute, because we are 
speaking in much broader terms here, much broader terms than can be 
justified under the most difficult cases.
  I just want to say, in closing, let us not pretend that somehow the 
State courts do adoptions right, that people do not show up late in the 
process, that parents do not change their mind. So we are not going 
from an imperfect system to a perfect system. We are going to a process 
that we all know pains us all. It is a most difficult process.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton], who does so much work for the cause of adoption.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the 
gentlewoman from Ohio for her participation and hard work on this. I 
know she has done yeoman service.
  Let me just say that we also ought to thank a fellow who started with 
nothing, who became one of the greatest entrepreneurs in the world, 
started at 15 as an orphan, almost, Dave Thomas of Wendy's. He came up 
here on the hill a number of times and testified. Without his help, I 
am not sure we would be here tonight with this bill. So, Dave, if you 
are watching, thanks a lot for all your help.
  I spent some time in the Marian County Guardians Home. Kids who are 
in foster care in a guardians home want to get out. They want a loving 
home, and they want loving parents. And to keep them incarcerated, 
incarcerated in foster homes for long periods of time is just dead 
wrong.
  We had a hearing this week and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] 
brought in a gentleman to testify. I want to tell you a story, a 
practical story about what happens because of the problem we are having 
with the tribes as far as adoption is concerned.
  This fellow adopted a child who was \1/16\, I believe, 2 children, 
twins that were \1/16\ Indian. He had complete cooperation from the 
parents. I do not think he even knew at that time that they had any 
Indian blood in them. Nevertheless, he adopted them. Two years later, 2 
years later actions were taken to try to take those children away from 
him because they were \1/16\ Indian.
  Let me tell you what happened to that family. He has spent $300,000 
trying to keep his children; the children love him. He loves them. The 
mother loves the kids. They love her. And the children are in constant 
danger of being taken away from that family. The family is just about 
bankrupt. I think they have even mortgaged their home.
  That is not right. That has to be changed. There ought to be some 
constraints, some limits on how long any Indian tribe or any group has 
to take a child back in that kind of a case.
  I tell you, to take a child that has its roots established like a 
tree in that family for 2 years out of that family is just absolutely 
unconscionable. So this law needs to be passed in its entirety right 
now. It does not need the amendment.
  I love the gentleman from Alaska, Don Young. I have great respect for 
the gentleman from California. But we need to think about the families 
who adopted these kids. We need to think about the children who we want 
to get out of foster care into loving homes and after 2 years and 
$300,000 and taking a second mortgage on your home and losing 
everything and still have the possibility of having those children 
taken away from you is wrong.

  People across the country who watch television, who have seen these 
heart-rending cases where children are taken out in the middle of night 
by sheriffs because of a law in one State or another or because of a 
tribal law, people in this country do not like that. They want to 
change it.
  This is a good law. It needs to be kept intact. I love Don Young. He 
is a good friend of mine. We are working on other legislation. But, 
Don, you are wrong on this one. Let us let this thing as it is.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Morella). The Chair must remind all 
Members that remarks in debate should be addressed to the Chair and not 
to the viewing audience.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I just want to say to the 
gentleman from Indiana, we ought not to base this on those hard 
anecdotal cases. We all witnessed a young child in State court where TV 
cameras were there and as she was screaming for her adoptive parents, 
screaming and taken away and put in a car. That was in State court. We 
know that adoptions are tough and difficult and people change their 
minds and now you have got unrelated parties.
  This is about the forum. There is nothing that prevents the Indian 
court from awarding the child to those individuals. I just think you 
have got to be very careful here. This is not about who is right or 
wrong. It is about being careful with respect to what we are doing.

                              {time}  2100

  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], the coauthor of title III of this legislation.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio 
for spearheading this effort. I really appreciate her efforts for the 
children who I think are the most neglected Americans, the children 
without parents.
  Madam Speaker, I think this bill is very important because it does 
remove the barriers that have hampered us from placing children out of 
foster care into loving homes. I support the three major provisions of 
this bill: The $5,000 adoption tax credit, and also the portion that 
removes interracial barriers from adoption so the kids are not trapped 
in foster care, waiting for a like racial home. But I think probably 
the most controversial part and the one that I most strongly support is 
the reform to the Indian Child Welfare Act.
  I know there was a grave need for this act, and I think it has just 
gone beyond the scope of it. In the State of Kansas where I am a 
Representative, we have seen Kansas State courts try to put some 
boundaries on the Indian Child Welfare Act and bring some common sense 
into it. For example, we heard testimony Tuesday of a young woman who 
is 13 years old. She had been placed in this home since she was 8 
months old. It is like she is dangling over the fire. She is worried 
about being withdrawn from this home into an institutional setting or 
into foster care instead of staying with loving parents.
  Let us not just base it on one example. I have seen so much debate 
occur on this floor based on one limited example. But there is story 
after story after story where these children are at risk of being 
pulled out of their loving homes. I think it is time, if we want to 
encourage adoption in America, that we remove some of these legal 
barriers, remove these financial barriers, and make it easy to 
transition them out of child care or out of foster care into loving, 
warm homes where they have a bright future.
  There are many tremendous success stories. I think of Representative 
Ben Reifel, who was an adopted child, who represented the State of 
South Dakota in the early 1950's and early 1960's. Because he had warm, 
loving parents who took him in, gave him a bright future, he served 
this body right here on the floor of this House. I think there are 
other wonderful stories out there waiting to be created if we can only 
remove the barriers that exist today in this adoption language and 
adoption law.
  Madam Speaker, I support this rule, I support the bill, and I am 
anxious to pass it in whole, and not take out any part.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, first of all, this is a good bill. We 
are doing the right thing by passing this bill. I commend the authors.
  Madam Speaker, I am going to vote against the rule because of the 
provision on Indian adoptions. First of all,

[[Page H4772]]

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Alaska [Don Young] chairs the 
Committee on Resources. In our committee, we unanimously, Republican 
and Democrat, took out the provision that deals with Indian adoptions. 
The last time I checked, the Committee on Rules does not have the job 
of creating American Indian policy. The rule dictates to 557 sovereign 
Native American nations what is best for their children.
  I think what we are doing here with respect to Indian adoptions is a 
tragic mistake. There are 20 glaring cases and they are tragedies, and 
I am sure they will be discussed here, but that should not dictate what 
we impose on tribes. Tribes care for their children. Not one Native 
American tribe was consulted on this provision.
  Can Members imagine first Americans, sovereign nations; we have 
sovereign treaties with them. Yet, not one tribe is supporting this 
provision. I think that is a lack of respect. What we are doing here, 
Madam Speaker, is affecting the Indian family, the Indian culture. The 
extended family has a special role in caring for Indian children. In 
nearly every instance when the extended family has knowledge of a child 
needing care, they are willing to adopt that child. Unlike many other 
minority adoption cases, in Indian country there are more than enough 
relatives and families who are willing to assume custody of children.
  The provisions included in this rule undermine the basic rights of 
Indian tribes to ensure the survival of Indian culture and the future 
of their children. If we are going to have family values in Indian 
country, it is best for Indians to make those determinations.
  Madam Speaker, we have a trust responsibility with our tribes. I am 
not saying that the current system works. We need to improve it. The 
gentleman from Alaska [Don Young] has called for hearings and new 
legislation. A lot of the tribes were told, ``Let us make June the 
month that we come up with legislation that deals with some of these 
very egregious cases that very clearly have been pursued by those that 
are authoring this bill.'' But let us not jeopardize this legislation, 
which will be contested by the tribes; it will go all the way to the 
Supreme Court; the entire bill may be jeopardized. I hope not. But this 
is not a good provision, and we should defeat the provision tomorrow.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Ohio for yielding time to me.
  Madam Speaker, we heard the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
say, do not give me anecdotal information. Remember when he said that? 
What in a sense he is saying is, do not give me the facts. The speaker 
before me said that this program is not working. We have here for the 
first time a program that is going to work. That is why I support the 
rule. I would like to commend all those who are involved for all the 
hard work they have done on this bill.
  I think it is now important that we pass this rule and move on to 
this legislation. It will bring stability into the lives of almost 
500,000 children who are currently in the foster care system waiting to 
be adopted, waiting for a family. When children needlessly languish in 
foster homes and close to 2 million couples are desperately seeking to 
adopt, it is clearly apparent that the current adoption system is not 
working, and clearly, the current system ignores the best interests of 
the children. By implementing the simple changes we have in this bill, 
we will provide children with loving parents, a healthy home 
environment, and something that every child needs and deserves.
  Madam Speaker, let us enable couples to create secure American 
families by easing the burdensome costs and complex regulations now 
associated with the option. I think this clearly does it with this 
bill. We all know that the American family is the backbone of our 
Nation, so we should encourage the creation of American families, not 
impede them. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, this is a closed rule. Therefore, I am 
opposed to it. I do support the adoption bill, but it simply does not 
go far enough. What about the 400,000 children in foster care who are 
not candidates for adoption?
  As David Liederman of the Child Welfare League writes in today's New 
York Times: ``Many foster children have emotional and physical 
disabilities. The adoption of these kids will require more than just a 
one-time tax credit.''
  Madam Speaker, I proposed several amendments to the Committee on 
Rules that would have helped build important bridges between foster 
care and adoption. My amendments would have streamlined the 
bureaucracy, which too often keeps children languishing in foster care 
when there are people ready to adopt them. My amendments would have 
strengthened the ability of caring relatives and standby guardians to 
step in and care for and, in some cases, adopt foster children.
  I favor a bill to expedite adoption. This is a good first step in our 
efforts to move children from the care of the State to the care of 
loving families, but a simple tax credit is not the whole answer. It 
would be a tragedy if we did not use this important oppportunity to 
move forward and reform a foster care system that is and that leaves 
thousands of children in difficult and dangerous environments.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
  Mr. GANSKE. Madam Speaker, prior to November 1994, as a practicing 
physician, I counseled parents who were seeking to adopt. Many times 
they would come to me with a letter and a photograph of a child that 
they were going to adopt who might have a birth defect. Many of these 
children were from overseas. It always struck me as a wonderful thing 
for those families when they would bring those children to the United 
States and we would work with them to make them whole.
  But I also saw a lot of children in foster care, so while I was 
seeing the children that were being brought into the country for 
adoption, I was wondering, why are these children who are in foster 
care not getting homes? Foster care many times is a wonderful thing. 
The foster parents do a good job. The tragedy is that some of them do 
such a good job that they attach, they form attachments to those 
children, and the children also, but it is a temporary situation, and 
then they are torn apart.
  So part of what we are doing is this bill, and I speak in favor of 
the rule and in favor of the bill, this is a happy bill, is that we are 
doing to address one of the impediments, and that is the issue of race 
matching that I think has kept many of those children who are in foster 
care from getting the permanent homes that they need. I am very, very 
pleased that this bill is coming to the floor. It is one of the best 
things we have done in Congress.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I want to say, preliminarily, that I 
certainly have the highest respect for the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. 
Pryce, as we have tried earnestly to find a middle ground and see how 
we can resolve this very important issue.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to title III of H.R. 
3286 which amends the Indian Child Welfare Act. If enacted, title III 
will harm helpless Indian children, damage the Federal relationship 
with Indian tribes, and allow States to decide who is and isn't Indian.
  In 1978, Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act to stop the 
hemorrhage of Indian children being separated from their families. This 
act was passed after long and careful deliberation which included all 
affected parties. Hearings were held, drafts were circulated, and 
questions were asked. On the other hand, the provisions before us today 
have never been given a comprehensive hearing and not one Indian tribe 
was consulted or included in any discussion. The proponents of the 
language are taking a shotgun approach in reaction to a couple of badly 
handled adoptions.
  Democrats and Republicans alike on the Resources Committee rejected 
the method and the language used in this

[[Page H4773]]

title by striking the language from the bill before reporting it. The 
Resources Committee has the jurisdiction and the expertise over Indian 
matters yet the Chairman had to fight just to have the bill referred to 
the committee for only 6 days. The original leadership plan was to once 
again bring an important piece of legislation to the floor without 
benefit of Member or committee involvement. The Resources Committee 
takes the Federal trust responsibility toward the more than 550 Alaska 
Native and American Indian tribes very seriously. As I said the 
committee overwhelmingly supported removing the offensive language that 
was reinstated in the floor package before us today.
  Title III of this bill would require that a child's significant 
cultural, social, and political contacts with a tribe determine his or 
her ``indian-ness'' instead of tribal membership. It ignores the 
important role of the extended family in Indian culture and would lead 
to increased litigation.
  The outrage that prompted the passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act 
were numerous. Prior to its enactment, the rate of adoptions of Indian 
children was wildly disproportionate to the adoption rate of non-Indian 
children. Indian children in Montana were being adopted at a per capita 
rate 13 times that of non-Indian children, in South Dakota 16 times 
that of non-Indian children, in Minnesota 5 times that of non-Indian 
children. The act's principal sponsor and my good friend Chairman Mo 
Udall, said during the floor debate, ``Indian tribes and Indian people 
are being drained of their children and, as a result, their future as a 
tribe and a people is being placed in jeopardy.''
  I realize that there are problems with the Indian Child Welfare Act. 
I know that one problem is with adoption attorneys who pressure parents 
not to acknowledge their Indian heritage on adoption forms. But I also 
know that there have only been problems with less than one-half of 1-
percent of the total number of Indian adoptions since the act was 
passed.
  Let us work together to solve any problems with the current act. 
During the last several decades this body has worked hard not to be 
paternalistic toward Indian tribes. We must allow tribes to be involved 
when we move to amend an act of such magnitude. I implore my colleagues 
to strip the Indian language from this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to strike out title III of this legislation.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
leadership on this very important issue.
  Madam Speaker, before I was elected to Congress, I was a practicing 
attorney in Spokane, WA.

                              {time}  2115

  I estimate that I have handled well over 1,000 adoptions and well 
over 1,000 children of those adoption cases. Certainly it is the most 
important thing, I believe, any human being can do for another, and 
that is to adopt a child and provide a stable, loving home for that 
child. An environment of stability is extremely important.
  I have handled not only foreign adoptions, I have handled many, many 
Indian child welfare cases, and my experience is this: The Indian Child 
Welfare Act needs adjustment.
  Many of the Indian Child Welfare Act cases I handled were handled 
perfectly, and the Indian tribe's heritage and the interest of the 
Indian tribe was fully protected, but there were many cases that I have 
handled where there were not only problems that prevented a final 
adoption but problems that resulted in delays. For a child who is 
waiting to be adopted and waiting to have the finality of an adoption 
and a loving home, the wait is as bad as anything. The uncertainty for 
a young child is extremely detrimental.
  What we have to keep our eyes focused on, I believe, today on this 
particular legislation, which I think is good legislation, provides an 
appropriate adjustment to the Indian Child Welfare Act, we have to keep 
our eyes on who is most important here. Is it the child and the 
interests of the child, or is it the tribe?
  There is no reason that the Indian Child Welfare Act should impede a 
loving family placement in a non-Indian home or perhaps with an 
adoptive parent who is maybe not of the same affiliation, tribal 
affiliation. My experience is that many adoptive parents have 
recognized that Indian child welfare connection and the tribal 
connection.
  This is a good bill, a good rule, and we should support it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, how much time do we have remaining 
on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Morella). The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hall] has 9\1/2\ minutes, and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] has 
5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
  (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the time, and I rise in strong support of not only the rule but the 
bill, as well.
  I think it is gratifying to know that finally we are doing something 
to make adoption easier and more affordable. A child who does not go 
home with his or her birth parent, they are very lucky to be given a 
home with a loving mother and father, people that want to be parents, 
who want to give that child a happy and a healthy environment to grow 
up in.
  I know how lucky such children are because I am one of them. I had 
the good fortune to be given a home with two people who have been very 
wonderful, loving parents; in their eighties, they are retired today on 
the farm and I hope enjoying it.
  But as we have heard tonight, there are about half a million kids out 
there that are waiting for the chance right now. We know that only 
about 10 percent, 50,000 of them, are going to get that chance, and one 
of the biggest reasons they are not getting that chance is because of 
the high cost of adoption, up to $20,000 or more.
  It seems to me when there are so many children that are waiting and 
there are so many parents who want these children, why should we not 
remove the roadblocks and let it happen? We as a society pay a far 
greater human cost in allowing those children to languish and those 
parents to agonize than anything that we could ever put in a checkbook.
  And as a result, I think that no child should be kept from being 
placed in a home in which that child could thrive. It should not be 
held up because there may be some ethnic difference between that child 
and the prospective adoptive parents. If there is love and there is 
understanding and there is a desire to work together, what difference 
does it make what color their skin is?
  So I would like to thank Susan Molinari for offering this piece of 
legislation, Deborah Pryce for her leadership in the Committee on 
Rules. I think it proves that Republicans and Democrats can work 
together to come up with a good solution to a very difficult problem, 
and I urge strong support of not only the rule but the bill, as well.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in the strongest support for H.R. 3286, the 
Adoption Promotion and Stability Act. It is gratifying to know we are 
finally doing something to make adoption easier and more affordable. A 
child who does not go home with his or her birth parents is very lucky 
to be given a home with a loving mother and father who want to be 
parents and want to give that child a happy and healthy environment in 
which to grow up. I know how lucky such children are because I am one 
of them. I had the good fortune to be given a home with two people who 
have been wonderful, loving parents.
  But I know there are about 500,000 children in this country who are 
waiting for that chance right now. But they are not getting that chance 
because so many couples cannot afford the average $20,000 cost 
associated with adopting. And nearly half of those children are 
minority children who will wind up waiting twice as long to find a 
home. When there are so many children waiting, no couple should be kept 
from taking those children in simply because of cost. We as a society 
pay a far greater human cost when we stand in the way of putting needy 
children in loving homes. And no child should be kept from being placed 
in a home in which that child would thrive simply because of the ethnic 
group to which the child and prospective adoptive parents belong. It is 
in all our best interests to get those children to parents who will be 
responsible, loving, and attentive. This bill is very much needed. This 
is one of the best ways we can show that we

[[Page H4774]]

do care about children and that we are able to work together, Democrats 
and Republicans, to really make a difference. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support this measure and I thank Ms. Molinari for 
bringing this measure in front of the House and I thank the leadership 
for bringing this bill to the floor so quickly.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, 15 years ago or so, I proposed legislation to help 
with financial cost of adoption. I was very modest in proposing a tax 
deduction for adoption. Before us today is a bill that provides a very 
generous $5,000 tax credit. It is a long step forward and it is very 
good. It is very needed.
  I was very disappointed, though, that the Committee on Rules did not 
make in order my proposed amendment to equalize the paid leave 
provisions of the family medical leave act for birth families and 
adoptive families. I listened with great interest, captivated by the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules speaking with such passion and 
giving such personal witness. I do not think he has ever spoken so 
warmly and so convincingly about his own experience.
  So I think clearly with three committees involved, clearly my 
amendment could have been made in order, but we will make an effort to 
go back to the Committee on Educational and Economic Opportunities and 
try to work it in that aspect.
  What I am really disappointed about, though, is that this language I 
proposed was not made in order. There is language, title III, made in 
order, that I have heard from the reservation leadership in my 
district, of which I have six tribal councils, all calling this an 
affront to the Indian community. Let me put it in their words, not my 
words.
  Marge Anderson, who is chairman of the Blacks Band:

       For years the BIA put Indian children into boarding schools 
     to cleanse them of their Indian identity. These children have 
     become lost souls as a result of the effort to assimilate 
     them into the white community. They often become alcoholics.

  Myron Ellis, the chairman of the Leech Lake Tribal Council, said:

       The Indian Child Welfare Act has stopped the raids on 
     Indian children. It is bringing stability to Indian families. 
     It is strengthening the future of Indian tribes. Title III 
     language would turn back the clock on those efforts and 
     result in more prolonged litigation to the detriment of 
     innocent Indian children.

  I think we ought to listen more to those who are on the front line, 
those whose families, whose lives and livelihoods, whose children are 
caught up in this adoption issue, those of the Indian tribes 
themselves. I put their words out, not mine, not anecdotal stories, 
because I think they are the ones who understand their situation best.
  I will support the effort by the Committee on Resources tomorrow to 
strike this language and to hopefully ameliorate the bill.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule 
and the bill, H.R. 3286, a measure which would help families defray 
adoption costs and promote the adoption of minority children.
  Today, there are more couples who want to adopt and more children in 
need of a loving home than ever before. According to estimates by the 
National Council for Adoption, at least 2 million couples would like to 
adopt. Yet only about 50,000 adoptions occur annually.
  Madam Speaker, the subject of adoption is one that hits very close to 
our office. My legislative director is herself adopted. She described 
her feelings on adoption to me in the following eloquent words:

       Mom and Dad took me home, gave me their name, their 
     protection and their love. They shared with me their family--
     brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents--who 
     claimed me as their very own. Together they provided a 
     foundation from which I have been able to return a small 
     portion of the abundant love and care that they have given me 
     to the world in which I live.

  Madam Speaker, would that every child in America be able to make such 
a statement. I urge the swift passage of H.R. 3286.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill with a very 
unique association with the subject matter. On February 3, 1993, after 
a frantic day as a Member of Congress representing the State of North 
Dakota, I went to National Airport, met my wife who also had gone to 
the airport, and we eagerly, anxiously awaited the arrival of our soon-
to-be daughter, an infant born in Korea, flown over and placed with us 
and now an adopted part of our family.
  To tell my colleagues that this has so profoundly, fundamentally 
changed and improved our lives is a hopeless understatement of the 
glory we have experienced as adoptive parents, and I am very pleased to 
tell the House tonight that we are within two weeks or three weeks of 
going back to National Airport and coming home with a son, also born in 
Korea.
  As I looked at what the legislation before us is trying to accomplish 
in terms of breaking down barriers of interracial adoption, as the 
parent of a daughter who is a member of another race, I cannot speak 
passionately enough in terms of the importance of breaking these 
barriers down. Children need families. Families need children. Some 
notion of political correctness that would leave people languishing in 
foster homes rather than reach across racial barriers for parents who 
will love them, love them as their very own, has got to be ended and I 
am so pleased with this facet of the legislation that puts an end to 
it.
  Second, the financial burdens of adoption can keep many beautiful 
families from enjoying this experience. I have had people in my home 
State tell me that looking at foreign adoption costs now running 
between $10,000 and $20,000, they just cannot manage. I know they would 
be beautiful homes and that the children would be immeasurably enriched 
by being placed with them, and they would in turn be immeasurably 
enriched by the children. We have to help with the affordability of 
adoptions. I am very pleased with the facet of the bill that addresses 
that.
  I have some difficulty with the way the Indian Child Welfare Act has 
disrupted certain prospective placements. On the other hand, I must 
acknowledge difficulty with the provisions of the bill that would amend 
this act in a way so offensive to the four reservations that I 
represent. I will support the motion to strike, but I will continue to 
work for evaluating where this law has failed children who need 
families and moving forward the changes in the law necessary to make 
certain that Native American children needing families do not have 
that, their precious right, frustrated by application of this statute.
  In summary, this is very, very positive legislation. This is the kind 
of legislation where the two parties so often at loggerheads in this 
Chamber can arm-in-arm step forward and do something positive for the 
people of this country, and I am very proud to support the legislation, 
commend Deborah Pryce for her leadership on the bill.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I would simply say that this is a 
good proposal. It is a good bill. The rule is somewhat restrictive, but 
occasionally we do support a closed rule and in this particular case I 
do. I think it is important that both sides come together on this. We 
need to do more of this and be for things that we can be for, and some 
of the things we cannot be for, try to set them aside. But this is one 
of the things where we have good bipartisan support.

                              {time}  2130

  Madam Speaker, I support the rule and the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the words from the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Hall].
  Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. It will do good things. The 
changes to the Indian Child Welfare Act are common sense and minor. 
They keep fully intact the original well-meaning intention of 
protecting Indian culture and heritage.
  But, Madam Speaker, the Congress wrote this law, and it is morally 
responsible for correcting it in this minor way, to avoid the 
continuous

[[Page H4775]]

disastrous tragedies of broken homes and children languishing in foster 
care. This is not just a handful of stories. There are many, many, many 
from all across the country.
  Madam Speaker, this issue did not just develop overnight. I have been 
trying since the beginning of this Congress to get the Committee on 
Resources and the native American community to help me to address this 
issue. If the Indian community is affronted, I am sorry. I wish they 
would have answered my letters and come to my meetings. But, as it is, 
we did the best that we could to try to develop a fair solution.
  Madam Speaker, as was said before, this is a happy bill. It is a good 
day for this Congress. I would urge all my colleagues to cast a vote in 
strong support of adoption and in support of keeping loving families 
together. Vote ``yes'' on the rule and the bill, and vote ``no'' on any 
attempt to weaken this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns regarding the 
modified closed rule for H.R. 3286. While I applaud the fact that this 
legislation would make it possible for more families to provide a 
loving and permanent home for adoptive children, I am concerned that 
this bill might not recognize that cultural sensitivity, without 
delaying adoption, is important to give the child the full measure of 
their background.
  Madam Speaker, approximately one-half of the children awaiting 
adoption today are minorities. In my home State of Texas, the number of 
children under the age of 18 living in foster care in 1993 was 10,880. 
This represents an increase of 62.4 percent from 1990, and the number 
continues to climb. Similarly, the number of children living in a group 
home in 1990 was 13,434. Approximately one half of these 13,434 
children are minorities. There are wonderful foster care parents but 
these numbers of children in nonpermanent homes are way too high.
  The sponsors of this legislation argue that current law, which states 
that race cannot be used as the sole factor in making an adoption 
placement but can be used as one of multiple factors in the decision, 
has resulted in adoptions being delayed or denied because of race. This 
of course is the result of local agencies misinterpreting the law. 
Should we not penalize directly the agencies incorrectly using the law? 
According to the sponsors, because of the inherent bias among many 
social workers, the real-world outcome of current law is that race ends 
up becoming the sole factor when placements are made. I have worked 
with social workers and they consistently overall try to work in the 
best interest of the child.
  While I do not believe that race should be the sole criteria in 
adoption placements, I do believe that we should be sensitive to 
cultural backgrounds. Had I been permitted, I would have offered an 
amendment to this bill which would have required that in making 
adoptive parent placements, the State or appropriate entity shall make 
every effort to ensure that a prospective adoptive parent is sensitive 
to the child's ethnic or racial background. It should not, however, 
delay drastically such adoption.
  Adoptive parents and children need not be of the same race. However, 
it is important that adoptive parents are sensitive to the cultural 
backgrounds of the children they adopt. It is important that such 
children grow up in an environment that is respectful and appreciative 
of the child's heritage. Unfortunately, our society is not color blind, 
and therefore States and agencies must ensure that adoptive parents of 
a different race from the minority and Indian children are sensitive to 
the issues that may arise as the child gets older, including 
discrimination and questions the child may have about his or her 
cultural background.
  In no way, however, should this policy result in children languishing 
in foster homes for extended periods of time or in adoptions being 
delayed or denied when loving, caring parents are ready to adopt.
  I urge my colleagues to consider these issues so that we can make 
better adoptions for all children, including minority children, while 
not delaying or denying adoptions.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________