[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 65 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H4806]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             TITLE III OF H.R. 3286 BAD FOR INDIAN CHILDREN

  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, in 1978, Congress enacted the Indian 
Child Welfare Act to prevent ``[t]he wholesale separation of Indian 
children from their families * * * perhaps the most tragic and 
destructive aspect of American Indian life today.'' H.R. Rept. No. 95-
1386. The law recognizes that Congress, which has ``responsibility for 
the protection and preservation of Indian tribes,'' believes ``that 
there is no resource that is more vital to the continual existence and 
integrity of Indian tribes than their children.'' The U.S. Supreme 
Court in 1988 wrote that ``[t]he protection of this tribal interest is 
at the core of the Indian Child Welfare Act which recognizes that the 
tribe has an interest in the child which is distinct but on a parity 
with the interest of the parents.''
  But title III of H.R. 3286 would significantly undercut this 
important law. Title III contains provisions that would add a new race-
based Indian identity test focusing upon a child's significant 
cultural, social, and political contacts instead of tribal membership, 
would ignore the important role of the extended family in Indian 
culture, would lead to increased litigation, and would have the effect 
of excluding tribal members from coverage of the Indian Child Welfare 
Act.
  These provisions were written without any effort to discuss or meet 
with Indian tribes, which are not only the people whose culture and 
interests are at stake, but are sovereign governments. I reiterate: 
there have never been hearings on these provisions.
  Democrats and Republicans alike on the Resource Committee, which has 
jurisdiction over the Indian Child Welfare Act, strongly disapprove of 
railroading this bill through the House without adequate consideration, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote to strike title III that amends the 
Indian Child Welfare Act.
  Contrary to opponents' assertions, studies since passage of the 
Indian Child Welfare Act indicate that it has worked well by motivating 
courts and agencies to place greater numbers of Indian children into 
Indian homes. Testimony we received in 1995 indicates that there may 
have been only 40 contested Indian adoption cases in the past 15 years, 
less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the total number of Indian adoption 
cases during that period. The vast majority of those problem cases are 
the direct result of willful violations of the act and can be addressed 
by changes to the law that promote greater notification and sanctions 
for violations.
  I am prepared to work on amendments to the act in a careful and 
deliberate manner. But title III of H.R. 3286 is neither careful nor 
deliberate; it is irresponsible legislation in response to isolated 
anecdotes, and given the lack of even superficial consideration of its 
impacts, it does not belong to H.R. 3286.
  I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to strike title III on 
the House floor.

                          ____________________