[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.
____________________