[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 65 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4807-H4822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              ADOPTION PROMOTION AND STABILITY ACT OF 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Morella). The unfinished business is 
the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3286) to help families 
defray adoption costs, and to promote the adoption of minority 
children.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Thursday, May 9, 1996, it is now in order to consider an amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] or his designee. 
Does the gentleman from Florida seek to offer an amendment?
  If not, it is now in order to consider the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].


                amendment offered by mr. young of alaska

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Alaska:
       Strike title III.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from

[[Page H4808]]

Alaska [Mr. Young] and a member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield half of my time to the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] and I ask unanimous consent 
that he be permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alaska?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I claim the 15 minutes in opposition. I 
yield half the time to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren, and I 
ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young, the 
gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Richardson, the gentlewoman from Ohio, 
Ms. Pryce, and the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren, will each 
control 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, this amendment is of great 
seriousness to this body. I hope all of my colleagues pay attention to 
the words that will be spoken today.
  I will be the first one to say that the presentation by Congresswoman 
Pryce and the presentation by Congressman Solomon is from their hearts, 
and I will say they are very sincere attempts to undo what I believe is 
a trust authority of this Congress to the American Indian tribes. I 
want to stress that. Only the Congress has a right to decide who is an 
American Indian or what is a tribe, and no other legal entity or 
judicial body has that authority, and that is our trust responsibility.
  What the amendment that has been put in this bill through the rules, 
which was in fact unanimously with one dissenting vote eliminated in my 
committee, does is take away that trust responsibility of this Congress 
to the American Indians. Again, we are breaking a commitment and a 
promise to the American Indian people. Keep that in mind. We were told, 
and Members held up their hand and swore to uphold the Constitution, 
and this is breaking the constitutional law, so keep that in mind.
  But more than that, I helped pass ICWA, the Indian Child Welfare Act. 
In all the years, in 15 years, there have been 40 cases such as Ms. 
Pryce's and Mr. Solomon's, and I will agree they are atrocious cases. 
But we have tried and we were working and we will continue to work to 
solve this problem legislatively.
  There is a large tribal meeting in the first of June and we told 
them, ``You better come up with a solution.'' If they do not, I will 
write the bill that will take care of these problems. And those lawyers 
have been very dishonest, and they have caused most of these problems.
  We asked Mr. Solomon and Ms. Pryce to wait until the middle of June, 
until we have found out what would be the results of those meetings. 
They chose not to do so. I respect that belief on their side, but I say 
to my colleagues in all sincerity, what we are attempting to do here 
today is right, it is constitutional, it is correct and it should give 
us the time.
  I am asking this body to do the responsible thing and in fact uphold 
the Constitution. I am asking my colleagues to think about this for a 
moment and think about, yes, the 40 cases, yes, I will concede. But 
think of why this act was put in place to begin with.
  We have 40 cases. What about the 50,000 American Indians that were 
farmed out and adopted out to families outside their tribes, without 
any consent of the mother or father or the family or grandpas or uncles 
or aunts? And that occurred. In fact it was more than 50,000. It was 
more like a half a million since 1900.
  And we are talking about 40 cases. Yes, they are bad cases, they are 
atrocious cases. But I am saying to my colleagues, what they are 
attempting to do in this bill, and if they do not adopt my amendment 
today to strike that provision and give us the opportunity, they are in 
fact breaking our trust responsibility to the American Indian. I do not 
think my colleagues want that on their chest.
  In fact, if they do, and, yes, the emotionalism is there, I have seen 
the cases, I have talked to these people, but I am going to suggest to 
them if they do that, they have shirked our duty to the responsibility 
that we are charged with. All I ask is give us the time, let us work 
and let us solve the problem, and we can do it.
  If they continue this effort today in this bill and this amendment is 
not adopted, they in fact have gone back on an act that has worked 
well. It has kept families together, children with their relatives, 
children with their mothers, children with their aunts and uncles and 
not farmed out to places far away from those tribes.
  So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It is the right 
thing to do. It is the best thing to do, and it is our responsibility.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Madam Speaker, the issue before us is not about the rights of native 
Americans. It is about the rights of U.S. citizens to make decisions 
about their own children free from the control of ancestors generations 
removed from them, whether those ancestors be German, French or native 
American.
  If a 14-year-old girl in Atlanta, GA were to get pregnant, we might 
think that it would be up to that girl, her parents, the boy involved 
and his parents as to whether to place that child for adoption and with 
whom to place that baby for adoption. That is true unless one 
grandparent or even one great-grandparent, alive or dead, may have once 
been a member of a native American Indian tribe.
  It does not matter that the girl, the boy, the parents, three out of 
four grandparents, 7 out of 8 great-grandparents were German, French, 
Texan or whatever. If one great-grandparent had been an enrolled member 
of a native American Indian tribe, that tribe may intervene and disrupt 
the adoption placement for that great-grandchild, and countermand the 
decision.
  Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Pryce], and I ask unanimous consent that she may be permitted 
to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1100

  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], who has been so instrumental in 
assisting on this bill.
  (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Young 
amendment.
  Now is the time to improve this 1978 law. The children of Native 
American descent who are harmed by overbroad application of the Indian 
Child Welfare Act can not lobby, they can not write letters and they 
can not wait. It is time to relieve them of the fear of being taken 
away from their mom and dad and it is time to give children without 
parents the chance to be adopted.
  This legislation does not interfere with the Tribal courts 
jurisdiction over a child on a reservation or a child who has even one 
parent that is connected with a tribe. Title III of H.R. 3286 simply 
restores individual freedom to those children and birth-parents whose 
only connection with a tribe is genetic. I urge my colleagues to 
support title III.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from Alaska, my 
friend, I must rise in strong opposition to striking title III.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right about the shameful 
history which required the passage of ICWA in the first place. It was a 
blight on our past, and there is no pride that we as a nation should 
take from it. He

[[Page H4809]]

is right that ICWA has worked, and it is still working. That is why I 
am opposed to efforts for its outright appeal. But we as a Congress 
must realize that it is not perfect. Its vagueness has caused not only 
endless litigation, but also pain, suffering, and heartache for 
children and families all across this wonderful country of ours. And we 
as a Congress have the responsibility to clear up those ambiguous words 
that we created, that we wrote in 1978.
  This is one of the easy ones, folks. So often we are faced with 
social problems we do not have any idea how to fix. But it is not hard 
to see that when some courts and activities can claim that a child with 
no more than one sixty-fourth Indian blood and no connection with 
tribal culture for generations and generations, they can claim that an 
Indian child and then take that child from the only secure family it 
has ever had, it is not hard for me to see what we have to do.
  And what about our country's other rich cultural heritages? If a 
child is almost entirely Hispanic, or African American or Asian or 
Irish American, but has some trace of Indian lineage, under the current 
application of ICWA, these heritages can be denied. They are 
subordinated to one's native American lineage, no matter how minute. 
Someone explain to me why is it any less significant or meaningful to 
be Hispanic, black, Asian or Irish, and why we as a Congress, we just 
cannot allow this to continue.
  The Indian Child Welfare Act on too many occasions has created a 
state of permanent impermanence for the very children it was enacted to 
protect. Since its enactment, there are 25 percent more Indian children 
in foster care and for lot longer times. While widespread litigation 
over ICWA continues, children are being bounced from one foster care 
setting to another for months and sometimes even years, when they could 
and should be with loving parents in stable, permanent homes. Children 
are being grabbed by the overreaching arms of ICWA and removed from 
loving nurturing parents, even under circumstances where the child's 
natural parents were never members of an Indian tribe, never lived on 
or near a reservation, never had any meaningful contact with the tribe 
or Indian culture, voluntarily relinquished their parental rights, 
could only claim a minute degree of native American heritage, and even 
chose the couple whom they wanted to raise their child.
  The Congress of the United States enacted the Indian Child Welfare 
Act, and it is our responsibility to address the unintended and unjust, 
tragic results of it, while still preserving its integrity and respect 
for the proper and intended purpose.
  Madam Speaker, this has been my intention from the outset. Yet my 
request for input and suggestions about how to fix this have gone 
unanswered. Nothing has happened but more litigation, more broken 
families, and more heartbreak.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to put the best interests of 
America's children first by defeating the motion to strike. In title 
III, we propose nothing more than a common-sense clarification. This is 
a small but very meaningful step that we can take to give adoptive 
children the kind of stable, secure, loving homes that they deserve. 
Vote ``no'' on the motion to strike.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, I want to correct what is permeating this Chamber. 
Native Americans are different from other ethnic minorities in that 
they are sovereign tribes, sovereign nations. You cannot equate a case 
of an African-American or Hispanic-American with native Americans. 
Native Americans have treaties with the United States. You cannot 
completely disregard tribal administration, and tribes that have not 
been consulted in this.
  Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration supports the Young amendment. 
They have issued a statement, along with the Department of Interior, 
the Department of Justice, the Federal Bar Association.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Kildee].
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by Mr. Young to strike title III from this legislation. Madam 
Speaker, the bill before us today is an affront to the sovereignty of 
Indians in our country. This provision was written without any 
consultation of the Indian tribes. Members of both sides of the aisle 
on the House Resource Committee, which has sole jurisdiction over the 
Indian Child Welfare Act, recognized that this law has worked well over 
the years. In my home State of Michigan, which has one of the largest 
native American populations in the midwest, the Indian Child Welfare 
Act has been successful by motivating courts and agencies to place 
greater numbers of Indian children into Indian homes.
  Madam Speaker, there may be a need to fine tune this legislation--we 
don't pass perfect legislation on Capitol Hill. It is my understanding 
that tribal and adoption groups are currently meeting to develop 
recommendations to make the adoption process better for all children. 
It is my understanding that these recommendations will be ready next 
month.
  Madam Speaker, before we rush to judgment, let's carefully and 
sensitively review the Indian Child Welfare Act--and do what is best 
for the children.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules and an activist on this front.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I guess I have a special prejudice about this bill, 
because I guess I was one of those kids years ago that was bounced 
around from home to home, without a mother and father. I can still 
recall looking to the other kids and being so envious, and wondering 
what it was like when I went to bed at night when I used to dream what 
it would be like to have a mother and father.
  You know, that is what this debate is all about. We have 600,000 of 
these children that need to be adopted. There are 2 million more beyond 
that that are now in foster homes who need mothers and fathers. It 
means so much to the future of this country.
  Let me say to my good friend, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], 
who I respect more than any other man in this body, because he and I 
fight for property rights day in and day out. Don, you are not going to 
be able to get legislation out of your committee. What you are asking 
is to continue the status quo.
  Let me tell Members what we are doing with this legislation. We are 
keeping good legislation on the books. The ICWA is a good piece of 
legislation. But we are trying to prevent baby snatching, children 
snatching. That is all we are doing.
  What we are saying is that if you are part Indian, not living on a 
reservation, taking advantage of all of the benefits of an American 
citizen, you do not get a tax break, you do not live on the 
reservation; and, let us say you are a man and a woman, unmarried or 
married, and you give that child up for adoption, and a family, like 
Colonel Satler of the U.S. Marine Corps, like his sister, has had these 
twins for 2 years. And then those children are snatched away because, 
retroactively, the Indian reservation said ``Those are our children.''
  All we are saying is you cannot do that retroactively. If you are an 
American citizen taking advantage of the United States benefits, then 
you have to go before the same court that the other Americans have to 
go before. You still have the opportunity to work your case either way. 
That is what this debate is all about.
  I implore Members, I beg you to please vote to improve the 
legislation, not repeal it. And then it the Indian reservations and 
organizations decide to do something in June, let us sit down and work 
in conference to work it out to the benefit of all Americans.
  Please vote against the Don Young amendment.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
America Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega], the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Indian Affairs.
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)

[[Page H4810]]

  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, it is not often that I appear in the 
well to make speeches, but in this instance, I am compelled to do so, 
particularly to note the seriousness of the issue now before us.
  I feel it is very, very unfortunate that we are only given 7 minutes 
to debate a very major issue affecting the lives of some 200 native 
American Indians. Some of our friends have said we are French-
Americans, we are Italian-Americans, we are Irish-Americans. The fact 
of the matter is we have only been granted native American citizenship 
in 1924; 300-some treaties we have broken, every treaty we signed to 
signify the sovereignty of the Indian tribes.
  I would like to remind my friends, there is only one designation 
given in our Constitution to recognize Indian tribes separate and apart 
from French-Americans or British-Americans. We are all Americans in 
that respect.
  Madam Speaker, I support the gentleman's amendment. I ask my good 
friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio, give the Indian tribes a chance and 
the Committee on Resources, which has primary jurisdiction over the 
needs of native Americans, give us a chance to work this thing over. 
The problem cases, 40 cases, that is less than one-tenth of 1 percent 
of the problem that we are dealing with.
  Madam Speaker, the Indian Child Welfare Act works. Support the Young-
Miller amendment.
  Madam Speaker and my colleagues in the House, it is not often that I 
appear in the well to make speeches. But in this instance, I am 
compelled to do so--particularly to note the seriousness of the issue 
now before us.
  H.R. 3286, as authored by the gentlelady from New York is an 
excellent piece of legislation to provide a better means whereby some 
500,000 of our Nation's children are cared for through adoption.
  With one exception, however--and that's title III of H.R. 3286, which 
deals with adoption of children who are of Native American Indian 
ancestry.
  Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Alaska, who is also the chairman of the House 
Committee on Resources. Title III of this bill is the spoiler of this 
legislation, and I ask my good friend, the gentlelady from Ohio to give 
the Indian tribes and the Resources Committee an opportunity to do its 
job for proper hearing and thorough examination of the problem.
  Madam Speaker, for some 18 years now, Congress passed legislation 
specifically to address the plight of Indian tribes and to remedy the 
problem as noted in the 1978 report, that the ``wholesale separation of 
Indian children from their families--is perhaps the most tragic and 
destructive aspect of American Indian life today.''
  Contrary to assertions that the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act has not 
worked, it's not true. In fact it has worked very well. According to 
the 1995 testimony received, ``there may have been only 40 contested 
Indian adoption cases in the past 15 years, which is less than one-
tenth of 1 percent of the total numbers of Indian adoption cases 
throughout the period.''
  And I might note that the vast majority of the problem cases were 
caused by willful violations of the act.
  Madam Speaker, my heart goes out to the families that have had to 
expend their life's fortunes--$75,000 and even some $300,000 in court 
litigation. And I must say the responsibility lies squarely upon the 
shoulders of those adoption attorneys.
  I cannot believe for a second Madam Speaker, that these adoption 
attorneys were not aware of the Federal law governing the adoption of 
Indian children. These adoption laws have been in the books for some 15 
years. Most, if not all the problem cases involving Indian children 
occurred after passage of the 1978 act. Any adoption attorney worth a 
grain of salt should have been aware of such laws--but the problem, 
Madam Speaker, the adoption attorneys purposely would advise adoption 
parents not to reveal the Indian ancestry of these children. And at 
$20,000 a pop for these adoption cases--again, Madam Speaker, the fault 
lies squarely on these adoption attorneys.
  Madam Speaker, it is most unfortunate that the Rules Committee has 
allocated only 7\1/2\ minutes to debate this very important issue. 
Moreover, I must remind my colleagues that it was not until 1924 that 
our Nation ever granted U.S. citizenship to Native American Indians. 
Our Nation also has broken every treaty that was signed with the Indian 
tribes.
  Madam Speaker, the speeches before me said our Nation should not 
distinguish between French Americans, Irish Americans, Polish 
Americans, Asian Americans--we're all Americans. But I must remind my 
colleagues that Native American Indian tribes, is the only ethnic group 
that the U.S. Constitution specifically makes reference to as a 
sovereign entity, for which the Congress of the United States is 
specifically assigned the responsibility of dealing with Native 
American Indians.
  Under the provisions of section 8, article I of the Constitution of 
the United States, it states, ``Congress shall have power to * * * 
regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, 
and with the Indian tribes * * *'' The Native American Indians are 
specifically cited, Madam Speaker, because under our form of democracy 
we have had treaty relations with Indian tribes for the past 300 years. 
So, let's not mislead the American people by suggesting the Native 
American Indians are the same as French Americans, British Americans, 
Irish Americans, Italian Americans, because they are not.
  Again, I ask the gentlelady from Ohio to give the Indian tribes 
throughout America and the House Resources Committee a chance to review 
and provide input in this process. It has been suggested by the 
gentlelady that despite all her efforts, the Resources Committee and 
the Indian tribes were not responsive. The fact is, Madam Speaker, our 
legislative agenda is controlled by the Republican leadership of the 
House, and for whatever reason that the gentlelady's concerns were not 
addressed, I cannot respond other than to say I am willing to work the 
gentlelady at any time to resolve this problem.
  Again, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Young-
Miller amendment by eliminating title III of H.R. 3286.

                    Supplemental Views on H.R. 3286

       We report these supplemental views on title III of H.R. 
     3286, the Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of 1996 (the 
     ``bill''), because of our great concern that this bill, 
     however well-intentioned, will do grave and unavoidable harm 
     to the Indian Child Welfare Act (the ``Act'') and even, 
     perhaps, to the future of Indian tribes and Indian children 
     as well.
       In addition, we write to express our displeasure with the 
     process in which this bill has been introduced, referred, and 
     scheduled for a floor vote. The fact that Title III of this 
     bill was introduced without any consultation with those 
     people it affects the most--Indian parents, children, and 
     tribes--strikes us not only as grossly paternalistic but a 
     recipe for legislative disaster. Indeed, the laws and 
     practices surrounding Indian adoptions are complex and poorly 
     understood. Rather than proceeding rashly into a field armed 
     simply with anecdotal evidence and fierce convictions, 
     perhaps the sponsors should have sat down and gathered 
     empirical information from the tribes and social workers most 
     familiar with the day-to-day workings of the Act. In other 
     words, the bill's sponsors should have at least thought about 
     conducting a hearing on this important measure. Yet none were 
     scheduled or even planned.
       The bill's sponsors had originally planned to bring this 
     bill to the House floor without any Committee proceedings at 
     all. Although the House leadership apparently agreed with the 
     Committee Chairman that there should at least be an 
     appearance of process and therefore granted a six day 
     referral to this Committee, the fact remains that this 
     Committee's role was always viewed suspiciously, and even 
     antagonistically, largely out of concern that the committee 
     membership would be sympathetic to the Indian tribes' point 
     of view. Of course, we have serious problems with the bill, 
     as set forth below. That is because this Committee takes this 
     Nation's Federal trust responsibility towards the more than 
     550 Alaska Native and American Indian tribes seriously.
       This does not mean that the Committee is not aware of 
     problems associated with the implementation of the Act, nor 
     does it mean that the Committee is not willing to take 
     measures to make improvements to the Act. The point is that 
     the Committee members would have been willing to work with 
     the sponsors in a constructive and deliberate manner on 
     legislation that improves and strengthens the Act. But that 
     is not what the sponsors apparently wanted. And that is 
     unfortunate because the remaining adoption titles in the bill 
     have strong merit. It seems odd to jeopardize passage of an 
     otherwise worthwhile bill by burdening it with a 
     controversial, untested, and hastily drafted provision that 
     has merited the strong objection of the Committee of primary 
     jurisdiction and the unanimous opposition of Indian tribes 
     throughout the country.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Turning to the substance of the bill, our objections are 
     manyfold. In order to fully illustrate the depth and nature 
     of our concerns, we believe it is appropriate to first 
     examine the history and purposes of the Act.
       The Indian Child Welfare Act was enacted in 1978, after ten 
     years of Congressional study, in order to protect Indian 
     children and Indian tribes. This Committee, in its 1978 
     Report, determined that ``[t]he wholesale separation of 
     Indian children from their families is perhaps the most 
     tragic and destructive aspect of American Indian life 
     today.'' \2\
       As stated in the Act itself, Congress ``has assumed the 
     responsibility for the protection and preservation of Indian 
     tribes and their resources'' and ``that there is no resource 
     that is more vital to the continued existence

[[Page H4811]]

     and integrity of Indian tribes than their children . . .'' 
     \3\
       Prior to enactment of ICWA, the Committee received 
     testimony from the Association on American Indian Affairs 
     that in 1969 and 1974 approximately 25% to 35% of all Indian 
     children had been separated from their families and placed in 
     adoptive families, foster care, or institutions.\4\ The rate 
     of adoptions of Indian children was wildly disproportionate 
     to the adoption rate of non-Indian children. According to the 
     1978 House Report, Indian children in Montana were being 
     adopted at a per capita rate thirteen times that of non-
     Indian children, in South Dakota sixteen times that of non-
     Indian children, and in Minnesota five times that of non-
     Indian children.\5\ In one House hearing, Chief Calvin Isaac 
     of the Mississippi Band of Choctow Indians explained the 
     cause for the large removal of Indian children:
       One of the most serious failings of the present system is 
     that Indian children are removed from the custody of their 
     natural parents by nontribal government authorities who have 
     no basis for intelligently evaluating the cultural and social 
     premises underlying Indian home life and childrearing. Many 
     of the individuals who decide the fate of our children are at 
     best ignorant of our cultural values, and at worst contempful 
     of the Indian way and convinced that removal, usually to a 
     non-Indian household or institution, can only benefit an 
     Indian child.\6\
       Thus, Congress chose to act to protect Indian tribes 
     against the disproportionate wholesale, and often 
     unwarranted, removal of Indian children from their families 
     and subsequent placement in adoptive or foster homes. 
     Chairman Udall, the Act's principal sponsor, reaffirmed the 
     need for the Act on the House floor, ``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.'' \7\
       We emphasize that Congress enacted ICWA in recognition of 
     two important interests--that of the Indian child, and that 
     of the Indian tribe in the child. In a landmark ruling, the 
     Supreme Court in the Holyfield case expounded on this latter 
     interest, quoting a lower court:
       The protection of this tribal interest is at the core of 
     ICWA, which recognizes that the tribe has an interest in the 
     child which is distinct but on a parity with the interest of 
     the parents.\8\
       Another problem surrounding Indian adoptions that the 
     Congress chose to address was the inability of non-Indian 
     institutions, in particular state courts and adoption 
     agencies, to recognize the differing cultural values and 
     relations in Indian communities.\9\ For instance, state 
     courts and adoption workers usually failed to grasp the 
     powerful role and presence of the extended family in Indian 
     communities.\10\ Thus, Congress structured the Act to counter 
     the tendency of non-Indians to focus solely on the immediate 
     relationship of the Indian children to their parents while 
     ignoring the relationship of the children to their extended 
     family. In fact, that is a glaring shortcoming of the 
     proposed bill which stresses only the relationship of the 
     child's parent to the tribe.
       In order to balance the interests of Indian children and 
     their tribes, Congress set up a carefully tailored dual 
     jurisdictional scheme to provide deference to tribal judgment 
     in cases involving Indian children residing on Indian lands 
     and to provide concurrent but presumptive tribal jurisdiction 
     in the case of Indian children not residing on Indian lands. 
     It is important to recognize that this dual jurisdictional 
     scheme settles jurisdictional and choice-of-law issues in a 
     way that best facilitates the placement of Indian children 
     with families. This is so for the simple reason that tribal 
     courts are generally in a better position than state 
     courts to know whether an Indian child has relatives who 
     want to adopt the child, or whether there are other Indian 
     or non-Indian families who want to adopt the child.
       As a final matter, Congress enacted ICWA to address the 
     social and psychological impact on Indian children of 
     placement in non-Indian families. The U.S. Supreme Court has 
     stated that ``it is clear that Congress' concern over the 
     placement of Indian children in non-Indian homes was based in 
     part on evidence of the detrimental impact on the children 
     themselves of such placement outside their culture.'' 
     Holyfield at 59-50. In particular, the Court noted studies 
     that demonstrated that Indian children raised in non-Indian 
     settings often have recurring developmental problems 
     encountered in adolescence. Id. at 50, n.24. See also, 
     Berlin, Anglo Adoptions of Native Americans, Repercussions in 
     Adolescence, 17 J. Am. Acad. of Child Psychology 387 (1978). 
     Removal of Indian children from Indian families precipitates 
     not only a cultural loss to the Indian tribe but a loss of 
     identity to the children themselves.
       Recent studies indicate that ICWA has worked well in 
     redressing the wrongs caused by the removal of Indian 
     children from their families. A 1987 report revealed as 
     overall reduction in foster care placement in the early 1980s 
     after enactment of ICWA.\11\ A 1988 report indicated that 
     ICWA had motivated courts and agencies to place greater 
     numbers of Indian children into Indian homes.\12\ Testimony 
     received at a May 1995 hearing on H.R. 1448 from Terry Cross, 
     director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association, 
     indicates that, contrary to assertion by non-Indian adoption 
     attorneys and agencies of hundreds or even thousands of 
     ``problem'' Indian adoptions, there may be only 40 contested 
     Indian adoption cases in the past fifteen years, less than 
     one-tenth of one-percent of the total number of Indian 
     adoption cases during that period. As set forth later, we 
     believe that 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.
       Having examined the background of the Act, we turn to 
     reservations about the substance of H.R. 3286.
       Section 301 of the bill would limit the application of the 
     Act to off-reservation Indian children with at least one 
     parent who maintains a ``significant'' social, cultural, or 
     political affiliation with an Indian tribe. A determination 
     of such an affiliation is final.
       Our first objection is that this section is vague. The bill 
     provides no guidance to the courts as to the meaning of 
     ``significant'' or ``affiliation''. The use of ``final'' can 
     be read to preclude appellate review by state, federal or 
     tribal courts. The vagueness inherent in this section is 
     likely to lead to new levels and areas of litigation, 
     contrary to the purposes of the Act and in frustration of 
     efforts to quickly place Indian children with adoptive or 
     foster families.
       Second, the bill needlessly jettisons a simple test for the 
     application of the Act, membership (which is a political 
     test), in favor of a complicated test. Again, this will 
     likely promote rather than curtail litigation involving 
     Indian custody proceedings, contrary to the purposes of the 
     Act.
       Third, the bill would cede back to state courts and 
     agencies the primary role of making placement and 
     jurisdictional decisions. As explained in the history above, 
     Congress chose to give primary jurisdiction over the adoption 
     of Indian children to the tribes precisely because of the 
     states' inability to understand tribal cultural and political 
     institutions. Thus, to give states the role of first 
     determining whether an Indian parent has sufficient social, 
     cultural or political affiliations with a tribe as to warrant 
     tribal court jurisdiction runs contrary to the intent of the 
     Act. To date we have heard no testimony or evidence to 
     support the assumption that there has been any improvement in 
     the state courts' or agencies' abilities to understand tribal 
     values and cultures.
       Fourth, by focusing solely on the relationship of the 
     child's parent to the tribe, the bill ignores the entire role 
     of the extended family in Indian country. Thus the bill 
     operates at the expense of the child's grandparents, aunts 
     and uncles who likely will have the requisite ``significant'' 
     contacts with the tribe and who have a strong familial and 
     cultural interest in the child. It was the inability of state 
     courts and adoptions agencies to recognize this interest that 
     led to the wholesale removal of Indian children from their 
     culture in the first place.
       Fifth, the bill misses the fact that the Act is largely 
     jurisdictional in nature. In other words, the Act transferred 
     jurisdiction in Indian adoption cases to tribal courts from 
     state courts because the tribes were in the best position to 
     act in the best interest of Indian children. But, the Act in 
     no way requires that Indian children be placed with Indian 
     families. The bill, unfortunately, seems driven in part out 
     of fear that tribal court jurisdiction is tantamount to 
     placement in an Indian family. We believe this fear is 
     unfounded.\13\ Rather, we believe that tribal courts remain 
     capable of sound judgment and will place an Indian child with 
     a family, Indian or non-Indian, when it determines that it is 
     in the child's best interests.
       Section 302 of the bill provides that an Indian who is 
     eighteen years of age or older can only become a member of a 
     tribe upon his or her written consent and that membership in 
     a tribe is effective from the actual date of admission and 
     shall not be given retroactive effect.
       This section reaches directly into a core area of tribal 
     sovereignty, membership \14\, and makes written consent a 
     prerequisite for adults. The major problem with this approach 
     is that tribal membership is not, as a matter of practice, 
     synonymous with enrollment. Many tribes, especially smaller 
     tribes, do not have updated enrollment lists. The Department 
     of Interior's own Guideline to State Courts for Indian Child 
     Custody Proceedings point this out.\15\ The provisions of 
     this bill would penalize Indian children and their parents in 
     these tribes. Lack of funds is one reason. Another reason is 
     that Indians often do not enroll until such time as they need 
     Indian Health Service care or scholarship assistance. In 
     addition, we have heard testimony that tribe often simply 
     ``know'' who their members are.
       The result is that many Indians who are part of the Indian 
     community and eligible for enrollment would be excluded from 
     the Act's coverage simply because they have not taken the 
     formal step of enrollment. Thus, we believe the bill is 
     overbroad in this respect because it will exclude children, 
     even full-blooded Indians, whose parents are in fact members 
     of a tribe. This bill exacerbates this problem by placing 
     questions of membership in the hands of the state courts 
     rather than tribal courts. We believe that a minimum, 
     membership is a matter that should be left solely to the 
     tribes.
       This section would also extend to involuntary proceedings 
     and allow state agencies to

[[Page H4812]]

     remove Indian children from on-reservation homes where 
     neither parent has enrolled in a tribe. Obviously, this is 
     one of the very problems that led to the creation of the Act. 
     We see no need to take such a dramatic step backwards.
       Lastly, we take issue with the assertion that this Act not 
     apply to children who are one-tenth, one-sixteenth, one-
     thirty second, or some other degree of Indian blood. The law 
     is clear in this respect: tribes, as sovereign entities, are 
     free to set membership on any number of criteria, and each 
     tribe has the power to determine whether or not to rely upon 
     degree of blood as such a criterion. As previously stated, 
     Congress has no business intruding upon such central matters 
     of tribal sovereignty.
       Having set forth these criticisms, we suggest the following 
     approach to address the real problem surrounding lengthy 
     adoption disputes, namely the willful failure by adoption 
     attorneys and agencies to comply with the terms of the Act. 
     First, mandate notice to the tribe in all voluntary 
     proceedings. Second, impose sanctions upon willful violators 
     of the Act.
       While it is true that there are rare instances of Indian 
     child custody cases that are painful for the children and 
     families, we believe that most of the problems lie not the 
     Act itself, but rather with the failure to comply with the 
     terms of the Act. For instance, in the Rost case involving 
     the twins from California, the biological father testified in 
     court deposition that he had been counseled to omit any 
     reference to his Indian heritage in order to avoid ICWA 
     proceedings. When the terms of the Act are complied with, the 
     Act works well and facilities the quick placement of Indian 
     children. We are aware of the discrepancy in the Act which 
     gives a tribe a right to intervene in custody proceedings, 
     voluntary or involuntary, at any point, 25 U.S.C. 1911(c), 
     yet mandates notice to the tribe only in involuntary 
     proceedings, 25 U.S.C. 1911(a). We believe that as a matter 
     of policy, the best approach is to provide notification to 
     the tribe in all state court proceedings, voluntary and 
     involuntary, in order to carry out the goals of the Act. We 
     would be glad to work with the bill's sponsors on these 
     changes if they desire.
       In sum, we believe that the Indian Child Welfare Act has 
     been successful as a protection to Indian tribes and 
     families. There will undoubtedly arise, from time to time, 
     difficult adoption cases, but these cases are usually the 
     result of an unintentional or, as is often the case, an 
     intentional attempt to get around the requirements of the 
     Act. We do not believe that the legislation at hand 
     adequately addresses those problems. Such legislation 
     deserved thorough examination by this Committee and input 
     from the tribes it affects or we run the risk of imposing 
     even more big-government paternalistic measures upon the 
     Indian tribes.

     George Miller, M.C.
     Bill Richardson, M.C.
     Eni Faleomavaega, M.C.


                               footnotes

     \1\ To date, the Committee has received letters from twenty-
     two individual tribes, as well as the Intertribal Council of 
     Arizona (representing nineteen Indian tribes), the Bureau of 
     Catholic Missions, the National Congress of American Indians 
     (representing 201 tribes), the Association on American Indian 
     Affairs, the Native American Rights Fund, the National Indian 
     Child Welfare Association, the Indian Child Welfare Law 
     Center, and the United Indians of All Tribes Foundation, all 
     strongly opposing the bill.
     \2\ H.R. Rep. No. 1386, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (hereinafter 
     1978 House Report) 9. H.R. 12533, was introduced in the 95th 
     Congress by Chairman Udall and co-sponsored by a number of 
     committee members including Reps. Miller and Vento.
     \3\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901(2), (3).
     \4\ 1978 House Report at 9.
     \5\ Id.
     \6\ Hearings on S. 1214 before the House Interior and Insular 
     Affairs Subcommittee on Indian Affairs and Public Lands, 95th 
     Cong., 2d Sess. (1978).
     \7\ 124 Cong. Rec. 38102 (1978).
     \8\ Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 
     U.S. 30, 52 (1988) quoting In re Adoption of Halloway, 732 
     P.2d 962, 969-70 (Utah 1986).
     \9\ The Act states that ``the States . . . have often failed 
     to recognize the essential tribal relations of Indian people 
     and the cultural and social prevailing in the Indian 
     communities and families. 25 U.S.C. 1901(5).
     \10\ As stated in the 1978 House Report: ``[T]he dynamics of 
     Indian extended families are largely misunderstood. An Indian 
     child may have scores of, perhaps more than a hundred, 
     relatives who are counted as close, responsible members of 
     the family.'' 1978 House Report at 10. See also Holyfield at 
     35, n. 4.
     \11\ See Note, The Best Interests of Indian Children in 
     Minnesota, 17 American Indian Law Review 237, 246-47 (1992).
     \12\ Id.
     \13\ The Supreme Court has rejected attacks against tribal 
     court jurisdiction founded on claims of bias or incompetence, 
     noting Congressional policy promoting the development of 
     tribal courts. See Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 
     9, 19 (1987).
     \14\ See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 55-56, 
     (1978), citing Roff v. Burney, 168 U.S. 218 (1897).
     \15\ The Guidelines state:
     Enrollment is not always required in order to be a member of 
     a tribe. Some tribes do not have written rolls. Others have 
     rolls that list only persons that were members as of a 
     certain date. Enrollment is the common evidentiary means of 
     establishing Indian status, but it is not the only means nor 
     is it necessarily determinative.
     Guidelines for State Courts: Indian Child Custody 
     Proceedings, 44 Fed. Reg. 67,586 (Nov. 26, 1979).

  Response to Representative Pryce's Indian Adoption ``Horror'' Cases 
                              (H.R. 3286)

       Shonna Bear case (Okla.): Case involves Creek Indian woman 
     who wanted to place her child in the custody of the Clarke 
     family. Rep. Pryce says the tribe used ICWA to overturn the 
     mother and adoptive parent's plans and took baby away from 
     adoptive parents. But this case does not involve a misguided 
     application of ICWA. Rep. Pryce leaves out the fact that it 
     was the birth mother who changed her mind (after only 10 
     days) and decided to keep her baby. Furthermore, ICWA would 
     have been appropriate because both the parents and the baby 
     were Indians. The tribe was involved because the birth mother 
     excluded the father and the father's family from her 
     decisions. This is not a case of the Tribe coming in and 
     using ICWA to take a baby from the non-Indian parents.
       Quinn family case (Wash.): Quinn family, seeking to adopt, 
     Indian child, began relationship with 15 year old birth 
     mother seven months prior to birth. Two weeks after birth, 
     mother changed her mind and attempted to enroll in her tribe 
     even though ``she had no connection with her Native 
     ancestry''. The courts eventually ruled for the Quinns after 
     3\1/2\ years. Rep. Pryce leaves out fact that prior to birth 
     mother had been attempting to enroll in her tribe and that 
     Quinn family knew she and the baby were Indian. Not a 
     misapplication of ICWA. Long custody battle could have been 
     avoided had the attorneys provided notice to the mother's 
     tribe. Under ICWA, there was nothing to prevent tribal court 
     from placing the baby with the Quinn family. The point is 
     ICWA was designed to protect Indian heritage and that is what 
     the mother eventually decided was in her child's best 
     interest.
       Rost Case (Ohio): The Rosts, a couple from Rep. Pryce's 
     district, sought to adopt twin Indian girls (1/32 Indian 
     degree of blood) from California. Birth parents consented to 
     placement with Rosts. Before adoption finalized, birth father 
     changed his mind and the father's mother enrolled the father 
     and the twins in the tribe. California family court, 
     following ICWA, transferred jurisdiction to tribal court. 
     Appellate court reversed and gave custody to the Rosts. Case 
     is on appeal to the Cal. Supreme Court. Rep. Pryce leaves out 
     fact that birth father, on advice of the adoption attorney, 
     attempted to hide fact that he was Indian so as to avoid 
     ICWA. The adoption attorney thought by hiding Indian identity 
     from court, that it would make adoption go smoothly. The 
     whole point of ICWA is to prevent the loss of Indian children 
     by fraud or trickery. It does not matter that children were 
     only \1/32\ Indian. Tribes are free to set their own 
     membership requirements and may or may not rely on blood 
     quantum. Lastly, there is nothing in ICWA to prevent the 
     tribal court from placing twins with Rost family.
       Kayla America Horse Case (Kentucky): Rep. Pyrce states that 
     Indian woman married to native American and had two children. 
     After divorce, woman granted custody. Yet half-brother of 
     father feels he has right to children under ICWA. Rep Pyrce 
     leaves out fact that the tribal court placed Kayla with 
     family on temporary basis, retaining baby as a ward of the 
     tribal court. By express terms of ICWA, tribe retained 
     jurisdiction. Case does not involve retroactive enrollment 
     nor a case where parents or children are not Indian members. 
     Pryce's bill has nothing to do with his situation. As usual, 
     battle is over forum (tribal v. State court) that of custody 
     battle. Tribal court still free to place child with mother.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, adoption has long been 
recognized as a loving arrangement for a woman who conceives a child, 
but is unable to provide her child the care that she knows that the 
baby needs and deserves.
  It seems to me that the last thing that the Federal Government should 
be doing is to create a situation where a woman faces fewer obstacles 
if she aborts her son or daughter than if she chooses to place her 
child in an adoptive fashion. As it is, the consent of the biological 
father is needed for adoption, but not abortion.
  But the Indian Child Welfare Act further exacerbates this treatment 
of the two options. If the baby has even the remotest link to Indian 
ancestry, the tribe can intervene and disrupt an adoption plan, no 
matter how little, if any, contact the mother or father has had with 
the tribe.
  Under the Indian Child Welfare Act, a mother pursuing adoption is not 
in control of whether her child is placed with a family of her own 
faith or background or values, nor is she able to make any other 
important decisions regarding her child's future. If she wishes to 
relinquish her parental rights in order to pursue an adoption plan, she 
may lose control of her child's future, to persons unrelated, and who 
may not even care about that child.
  Madam Speaker, I support this very important legislation that is 
being offered.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Young-Miller amendment to strike.

[[Page H4813]]

  Madam Speaker, I want to quote to you from a young man sitting beside 
me today, who is a Navajo adopted child. He said to me, ``I more than 
anyone else understand the importance of ICWA, that the best interests 
of an Indian child include being part of his culture. I cannot stand 
people,'' he says, ``telling Indian people, including my tribe, what is 
best for Indians like me.''
  The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] is right. The Indian people are 
the only U.S. citizens who carry dual citizenship. He is right, they 
are the only people who are fully protected as a special class under 
the U.S. Constitution. Since ICWA in 1978, we know of only 40 contested 
Indian adoption cases, and those were almost all the result of willful 
violations of the act.
  What is happening today is we are trying to change ICWA to protect, 
to protect, incompetent lawyers. The ICWA amendment ignores the 
important role of the extended family in Indian culture, and it will 
result in massive litigation.
  Madam Speaker, this legislation has not had a day of hearings. I urge 
my colleagues to vote for the Young amendment and vote for the U.S. 
Constitution.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises today to express his 
opposition to the proposed changes to the Indian Child Welfare Act.
  I would grant that changes are needed, but this proposal was written 
with no consultation with American Indian tribes or organizations or 
the House Resources Subcommittee on Native American and Insular 
Affairs. You may be surprised to know that no tribe or Indian 
organization supports this provision. If there is a need to amend the 
Indian Child Welfare Act, hearings should be held, and tribes and 
Indian organizations should be consulted. The original law was written 
with great care and any potential amendments should be written in the 
same way.
  The proposal is just too broadly written, giving State courts 
subjective authority to define who is a member of an American Indian 
tribe, rather than the tribe, in child custody and adoption cases. The 
proposal amends the Indian Child Welfare Act to require the child's 
biological parent or parents of Indian descent to maintain a 
``significant social, cultural, or political affiliation'' with his or 
her Indian tribe. A State court would determine what comprises the 
definition of this term. Additionally, the measure does not take into 
consideration extended members of the child's family. Generally, in 
adoption, foster care, or child custody cases, it is agreed to be 
better for the child to be placed with a relative than with total 
strangers, if possible. This proposal seems to give preference to total 
strangers rather than members of the child's own family.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, you should know that this Member is a very 
strong supporter of adoption and is in fact himself an adoptive parent. 
However, this provision, if left in the bill, subject to extensive 
litigation will only serve to needlessly delay adoptions of Indian 
children.

                              {time}  1115

  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], an adoption advocate for this 
country who works so hard on the issue.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Madam Speaker, did my colleagues know there has been an increase in 
the number of Indian children in foster care to the tune of 25 percent 
since ICWA was passed? I submit that one of the reasons is because of 
the uncertainty of an adoptive parent, whether or not they are going to 
have litigation problems and maybe lose that child a year or two after 
they adopt them.
  Can my colleagues imagine wanting to adopt a child and they say, 
well, this child has one sixty-fourth Indian blood in them and because 
of that they may have a problem down the road with the tribe. And so 
the parent says, well, I want to adopt a child desperately, but am I 
going to have to pay $200,000 or $300,000 down the road to keep this 
child? Am I going to have roots grow in the family and love and cherish 
this child and have it taken away after 2 years?
  And I tell Members, that happens. That actually happens. We had a 
case, I would say to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], at a 
hearing we had this week, we had a family that adopted two children, 
and they did not even know these children had one sixty-fourth Indian 
blood, one sixty-fourth. And after 2 years, the tribe said we want 
those children back. The children had established roots, the parents 
loved the kids, the kids loved the parents, and here they were taking 
the kids away.
  That family has spent $300,000. They have almost lost their home 
because they had to mortgage it. And the case goes on and on and on, 
and those parents live in a nightmare, a living hell because they may 
have their kids taken away from them. That is wrong.
  Now, I understand what my good friend, the gentleman from Alaska, Don 
Young, is trying to do. He wants to protect the Indian tribes. But 
there is a bigger issue: the adoptive parents and the kids. I was in a 
guardian's home. I know what it is like to watch these kids go into 
foster care and spend years without hope and I can tell my colleagues, 
it is a hell.
  For us to say to parents that adopt a child, we are going to take 
your kids away after 2 years because they are one sixty-fourth Indian, 
is dead wrong. And to ask them to spend $200,000 or $300,000 defending 
themselves and still lose their child is wrong. This amendment needs to 
be defeated.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy], a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Resources.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Madam Speaker, the American Indian 
nations, to a nation, are opposed to this bill in its current form if 
we do not support the Young-Miller amendment to strike section 3. To a 
nation. This, to me, represents a shameful day if this Congress 
continues the shameful pattern of ignoring and stepping on the rights 
of native Americans in this country.
  Madam Speaker, there is a reason why this bill did not come in the 
current form that it is in from committee, because the Committee on 
Resources, who has jurisdiction over this issue, decided that we need 
to make sure that we consult with native American nations on what is 
their sovereign issue when it comes to this issue.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, please support the Young-Miller 
amendment.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale].
  Mr. McHALE. Madam Speaker, it is obvious from the comments that have 
been made in the past few minutes on both sides of the aisle that there 
are compassionate, well-intentioned Members arguing on each side of 
this case. I rise in strong opposition to the Young amendment and in 
support of title III of the Adoption Promotion and Stability Act as 
currently written.
  This title seeks to provide protection and stability to children once 
they have been placed in loving adoptive families. Madam Speaker, I 
abhor the prejudice suffered by native Americans, and I am sympathetic 
to the safety net necessary to protect the rights of children which 
prompted Congress to enact the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. This 
program was desperately needed at the time that it was enacted.
  However, Madam Speaker, it is abundantly clear to me that the Indian 
Child Welfare Act is failing the very children it was intended to 
protect. The unfairness of this issue was brought home to me in the 
case of twin Native American children adopted by the sister of a 
personal friend. The birth parents, unmarried at the time, signed all 
relevant paperwork surrendering their rights to the children. They also 
signed sworn affidavits to the effect that neither they nor their 
children were members of an Indian tribe.
  When they went to finalize the adoption after the requisite 6-month 
waiting period, the children's tribal parents decided they wanted to 
exercise their custodial rights. These twin girls are almost 3 years 
old now, and the case is still in litigation pending before the State 
supreme court.

[[Page H4814]]

  This case happened even though the children are only one thirty-
second native American, Madam Speaker, because one of their great-
great-great grandparents was in fact native American. As a result, 
these children may be taken away from the only home that they have ever 
known. This case is tragically indicative of the heartbreak and 
emotional suffering which many adoptive parents and children endure 
under this misapplied law.
  Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, recognizing that Members of good faith and motivated by 
compassion can reach a different conclusion, I urge Members on both 
sides of the aisle to oppose the Young amendment and to sustain title 
III as written in the bill.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Speaker, I rise to suggest that, first of all, 
these atrocious cases that are pointed out as the rule are really the 
exception, and that if there had been a hearing, then we would know 
that we should not take this action.
  I rise in support of the Young-Miller amendment, and I think that in 
respect to our responsibilities to respect the sovereignty of the 
Indian nations and their relationships with our Government, that we 
should tread lightly as we go forward here. And even though they may be 
well-intentioned, the proponents of this effort may be well-
intentioned, it is misguided, at best.
  Madam Speaker, I would hope that the Members of this House would 
honor our responsibility and oath to the Constitution and respect the 
agreements and the laws of our country as relates to our relationships 
with the sovereign Native American nations.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I just want to make it very 
clear that I am urging Members of this Chamber to vote no on the motion 
to strike and to support the underlying language, the Pryce language, 
that is included in the bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp].
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Young amendment to 
strike title III. Congress, in a long line of case law, provides Native 
American tribes with sovereign control of their affairs, and that 
includes the care and protection of their children. It is the tribes 
themselves who can best determine when children are native American and 
when the protections of the Indian Child Welfare Act apply.
  Tragic adoption cases are far more common in non-Indian settings, but 
the solution is not to reverse a long line of precedent. Keep Indian 
families together, support the Young amendment to strike.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining on all 
sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Morella). The gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Richardson] has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Pryce] has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining; and the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young] has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my 
time.
  (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 and 
we should all support it, but we should support the Young amendment 
because the Young amendment basically says to the Indian people and 
Indian children and Indian families that we are going to consult with 
them; that we want their views on the future of their children.
  The gentleman has pledged in June to deal with this legislation. This 
is not about white people not being able to adopt Indian children. That 
can happen. A tribal court can designate any kind of child with any 
family. Members are citing horror stories as if the horror stories are 
only with Indian courts. There are horror stories are only with Indian 
courts. There are horror stories in State courts; in all courts.
  Madam Speaker, we have a special relationship with Indian tribes. 
They are sovereign nations within our borders. They serve in the 
military. They pay taxes. What we have is an unbridled attempt, 
regrettably, unintentional, I believe, to take away their sovereignty 
by saying that we, non-native Americans, are going to deal with your 
family values. We are going to decide your future.
  Some of my colleagues may have heard about the young man who is the 
Navajo counsel to the Committee on Resources. He feels that he lacked 
the connection to his tribe because of the adoption. He supports the 
Young amendment. Let us consult with the tribes. There are 538 tribes, 
and not a one has been consulted about this bill. They oppose this 
provision.
  Madam Speaker, the right thing to do, so that we do not have 
litigation, so that we do not have this bill tied up in knots and make 
lawyers rich, is to support the Young amendment. It is the right thing 
to do.
  Madam Speaker, I rise because I believe in the right of Indian 
children and Indian tribes to be heard. As we have moved forward with 
this legislation, their voices have been distinctively absent.
  No one wants to see drawn out, hostile, and tragic adoption cases 
involving Indian children. But we need to think carefully about what 
we're doing and how it will affect not only the Indian children but the 
tribes themselves and future generations of Indians. So far we have not 
done so, and that is why the Resources Committee that I serve on voted 
to strike title III from the bill. And that is why I urge my colleagues 
to vote for this amendment.
  We did not strike these provisions lightly. Rather we did so for two 
reasons, both of them critical.
  First we struck title III because it goes to the heart of the act--
the survival of Indian cultural and the future of their children. But, 
in an amazing act of presumption, not a single tribe in the country was 
ever consulted. Certainly you understand that we have a trust 
responsibility to protect Indian tribes and their resources. Congress 
in passing the Indian Child Welfare Act, and the Supreme Court in the 
1988 Holyfield case, both recognized ``that there is no resource that 
is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes 
than their children.''
  Yet we are being asked to make major changes to the act without any 
tribal consultation whatsoever or even a single hearing. Every tribe in 
the country opposes this bill. Indian tribes don't want to see tragic 
adoption cases any more than you do and are willing to work in a 
deliberate and constructive manner to prevent them from happening. But 
they resent being told in a paternalistic manner that they should 
simply sit back and accept what is good for them. This legislation, 
which is a reflection of that attitude, is straight out of the era of 
the Great White Father and the Indian tribes want none of it.
  Second, the committee disagreed with title III because it adds 
additional requirements for Indian parents to meet before the 
protections of the act, namely tribal court jurisdiction, kick in. I 
think it is especially important to remember that while the act sets up 
adoption preferences it gives tribal and State courts great latitude to 
make any placement they want, including placement with non-Indian 
families, as long as there is good cause. In fact, that is exactly what 
happened in the 1988 Holyfield case. I disagree with the assumption 
that tribal courts are bound to make wrong or misguided decisions in 
these case.
  We were also concerned that changing the coverage requirements is not 
only going to exclude certain bona fide Indian children from the act's 
coverage, but will move the determination back from tribal courts into 
state courts. We passed the act in 1978 in response to the State 
courts' inability to grasp the nature of Indian culture.
  We also disagree with title III because it would tie membership and 
coverage to written consent and enrollment when Indian tribes 
themselves do not. By focusing on the degree of Indian blood, the 
sponsors miss the fact that Indian tribes, as sovereign governments, 
have the right to set membership requirements on their own terms.
  The title's heavy reliance on the parents' contacts with the tribe 
entirely misses the important role of the child's extended family. In 
Indian culture the extended family has a special role in caring for 
Indian children. They are the first line in representing the tribe's 
interest in that child and in nearly every instance when they have 
knowledge of a case are willing to adopt Indian children when their 
natural parents can't take care of them. This is a major point--unlike 
other minority adoption cases where there are often no prospective 
adoptive families, in Indian country there are more than enough 
relatives and families who are willing to assume custody of Indian 
children.
  ICWA passed because we recognized that there should be someone to 
speak for the tribe, and for the child's interest in his or her

[[Page H4815]]

heritage. It should be clear that tribal courts, not state courts, are 
going to be in a better position to recognize this as well as be in 
contact with a child's relatives. The reason this is so important is 
because that knowledge will promote quicker foster care or adoptive 
placements of Indian children, something directly in their best 
interests.
  Although I feel that the rate of troubling cases involving Indian 
adoptions is being overstated, I believe that even one such case is 
more than enough. But most of these cases have to deal with people 
trying to avoid the law and circumvent the equally important interest 
of the tribe in the child. That interest is central to the act and must 
be preserved. I know that the committee and the Indian tribes are 
willing to work with the bill's sponsors, but at the same time I cannot 
ignore this Nation's trust responsibility to Indian tribes and agree to 
legislation like this.
  Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the following information:

                                The Secretary of the Interior,

                                      Washington, DC, May 7, 1996.
     Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon,
     Chairman, Committee on Rules,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In a letter to the Speaker, the 
     President has stated his strong support for H.R. 3286 and its 
     purpose of encouraging the adoption of children. However, in 
     our role as trustee for Indians and Indian tribal 
     governments, we would have serious concerns if an amendment 
     were offered to H.R. 3286 for the purpose of amending the 
     Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (Public Law 96-608). These 
     concerns are addressed below.
       The United States has a government-to-government 
     relationship with Indian tribal governments. Protections of 
     their sovereign status, including preservation of tribal 
     identity and the determination of Indian tribal membership, 
     is fundamental to this relationship. The Congress, after ten 
     years of study, passed the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 
     1978 (P.L. 96-608) as a means to remedy the many years of 
     widespread separation of Indian children and families. The 
     ICWA established a successful dual system that establishes 
     exclusive tribal jurisdiction over Indian Child Welfare cases 
     arising in Indian country, and presumes tribal jurisdiction 
     in the cases involving Indian children, yet allows concurrent 
     state jurisdiction in Indian child adoption and custody 
     proceedings where good cause exists. This system, which 
     authorizes tribal involvement and referral to tribal courts, 
     has been successful in protecting the interests of Indian 
     tribal governments, Indian children, and Indian families.
       The ICWA amendments proposed in Title III of H.R. 3286, as 
     introduced, would effectively dismantle this carefully 
     crafted system by allowing state courts, instead of tribal 
     courts with their specialized expertise, to make final 
     judgments on behalf of tribal members. Such decisions would 
     adversely affect tribal sovereignty over tribal members as 
     envisioned by the ICWA and successfully implemented for the 
     past 18 years.
       We therefore urge the committee to disallow the 
     reintroduction of Title III into this bill.
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there 
     is no objection to the presentation of this report from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program.
           Sincerely,
     Bruce Babbitt.
                                                                    ____

                                            Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 1996.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: This letter presents the views of the 
     Justice Department on H.R. 3286, the ``Adoption Promotion and 
     Stability Act of 1996.'' We strongly support H.R. 3286 
     without the inclusion of title III. We also recommend that 
     title II be modified to address the concerns below.
       Title II: Section 201(a) of H.R. 3286 would allow any 
     person denied the opportunity to be an adoptive or foster 
     parent on the basis of race, color or national origin by a 
     State, or any person aggrieved by a State's discrimination in 
     making a placement decision in violation of the Act to sue 
     the State in Federal court. To ensure that the immunity from 
     suit granted States by the Eleventh Amendment does not 
     prevent individuals from vindicating this right, we suggest 
     that the bill include a provision clarifying that section 201 
     is enacted pursuant both to Congress' authority under section 
     5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and to its spending power under 
     article I of the Constitution. Alternatively, section 201 
     could be modified to expressly require a State to waive its 
     Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits brought pursuant to 
     H.R. 3286, as a condition of receiving Federal payments for 
     foster care and adoption assistance.
       Title III: A. Detrimental Impact on Tribal Sovereignty. The 
     proposed amendments interfere with tribal sovereignty and the 
     right of tribal self-government. Among the attributes of 
     Indian tribal sovereignty recognized by the Supreme Court is 
     the right to determine tribal membership. Santa Clara Pueblo 
     v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978). Section 302 of H.R. 3286 
     provides that membership in a tribe is effective from the 
     actual date of admission and that it shall not be given 
     retroactive effect. For persons over 18 years of age, section 
     302 requires written consent for tribal membership. Many 
     tribes do not regard tribal enrollment as coterminous with 
     membership and the Department of Interior, in its guidelines 
     on Indian child custody proceedings, has recognized that 
     ``[e]nrollment is the common evidentiary means of 
     establishing Indian status, but is not the only means nor 
     is it necessarily determinative.'' \1\ Through its 
     membership restrictions, H.R. 3286 may force some tribal 
     governments to alter enrollment and membership practices 
     in order to preserve the application of the ICWA to their 
     members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Guidelines for State Courts: Indian Child Custody 
     Proceedings, 44 Fed. Reg. 67,586 (Nov. 6, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       B. Detrimental Impact on Tribal Court Jurisdiction. H.R. 
     3286 would amend the ICWA to require a factual determination 
     of whether an Indian parent maintains the requisite 
     ``significant social, cultural, or political affiliation'' 
     with a tribe to warrant the application of the Act. Title III 
     fails to indicate which courts would have jurisdiction to 
     conduct a factual determination into tribal affiliation. To 
     the extent that State courts would make these determinations, 
     H.R. 3286 would undercut tribal court jurisdiction, an 
     essential aspect of tribal sovereignty. See Iowa Mutual Ins. 
     Co. v. La Plante, 480 U.S. 9, 18 (1987). Reducing tribal 
     court jurisdiction over Indian Child Welfare Act proceedings 
     would conflict directly with the objectives of the ICWA and 
     with prevailing law and policy regarding tribal courts.
       The President, in his Memorandum on Government-to-
     Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments 
     (April 29, 1994), directed that tribal sovereignty be 
     respected and tribal governments consulted to the greatest 
     extent possible. Congress has found that ``tribal justice 
     systems are an essential part of tribal governments and serve 
     as important forums for ensuring public health and safety and 
     the political integrity of tribal governments.'' See Indian 
     Tribal Justice Act, 25 U.S.C. 3601(5). Retaining ICWA's 
     regime of presumptive tribal jurisdiction is crucial to 
     maintaining harmonious relations with tribal governments, to 
     ensuring that the tribes retain essential features of 
     sovereignty and to guarding against the dangers that Congress 
     identified when it enacted ICWA in 1978.
       Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. If 
     we may be of additional assistance, please do not hesitate to 
     call upon us. The Office of Management and Budget has advised 
     that there is no objection to the submission of this letter 
     from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Andrew Fois,
     Assistant Attorney General.
                                                                    ____

                                                  State of Nevada,


                                            Executive Chamber,

                                     Carson City, NV, May 8, 1996.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker, The House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing in opposition to H.R. 3286, 
     which is designed to amend the Indian Child Welfare Act 
     (ICWA). This legislation strives to redefine which off-
     reservation child custody cases should be considered under 
     the Indian Child Welfare Act. As the Governor of a state that 
     has taken several proactive steps to guarantee efficient 
     enforcement of the ICWA, I feel compelled to express my 
     opposition to this legislation.
       As you know, the ICWA grants tribal governments the option 
     to hear Indian child custody cases for families they 
     recognize as having a relationship to the tribe but do not 
     live on the tribe. It is the intent of the ICWA to give 
     Indian children every opportunity to maintain their cultural 
     background and give them the ability to grow up as Indian 
     people. Trying these cases in Indian courts is a significant 
     measure for ensuring these goals.
       H.R. 3286 changes the definition of off-reservation 
     families who may be able to have their case heard by a tribal 
     government. Under this amendment, one of the parents of the 
     child must be of ``Indian descent.'' In addition, the 
     amendment requires a subjective ``significant social, 
     cultural, or political affiliation with the Indian tribe.'' 
     It would no longer be up to the Indian family and the tribe 
     to determine if a bona fide relationship between the two 
     exists. Instead, state and private custody workers would have 
     to interpret the guidelines outlines in H.R. 3286 to 
     determine if the case could be heard in a tribal court. This 
     interpretation will undoubtedly be challenged in court. 
     Rather than decreasing litigation under the ICWA, this 
     amendment will likely increase litigation.
       When fully complied with, the ICWA effectively places 
     Indian children with caring families. The State of Nevada has 
     worked hard to ensure that the ICWA is complied with, and 
     proper compliance has successfully placed Indian children in 
     proper homes, I do not support the passage of H.R. 3286, 
     which will complicate the placement and adoption of Indian 
     children.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Bob Miller,
     Governor.
                                                                    ____


         Why Title III of H.R. 3286 is Bad for Indian Children

       Title III of H.R. 3286 is bad for Indian children and the 
     future of Indian tribes. The

[[Page H4816]]

     title would limit the ability of tribal courts to place 
     Indian children in loving families and would allow state 
     courts to take over the placement of Indian children against 
     the wishes of Indian tribes. Lost in the controversy is the 
     voice of the Indian children. We need to speak up for them.
       Procedural problems: Title III goes to the heart of the 
     Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the protection of Indian 
     children, yet its sponsors did not bother to consult with 
     even a single Indian tribe before trying to rush it through 
     the House. Congress has a trust responsibility to protect 
     Indian tribes and their resources. Congress passed ICWA 
     because ``there is no resource that is more vital to the 
     continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their 
     children.'' Not a single tribe in the country supports this 
     bill. Indian tribes do not want to see tragic adoption cases 
     any more than the rest of us and are willing to work in a 
     constructive manner to prevent them from happening. But 
     Indian tribes resent the sponsors' paternalistic attitude, 
     straight out of the era of the Great White Father, and that 
     is why the Resources Committee struck Title III. Would 
     Congress pass an adoption law affecting California without 
     first consulting the state?
       Substantive problems: Congress enacted ICWA to stop the 
     removal of Indian children from their tribes and to ensure 
     the long-term cultural survival of those tribes. To do so, 
     ICWA guards not only the interests of Indian children but 
     also the interests of Indian tribes in those children. Title 
     III harms the former and ignores the latter.
       ICWA works well. Indian children have been placed in loving 
     homes and the removal of children from their culture has 
     diminished. Unlike other minority cases, there is no shortage 
     of families willing to adopt Indian children. Less than one-
     half of one-tenth of all Indian adoption cases since passage 
     of ICWA have caused problems. Focusing on a handful of cases 
     ignores the fact that most of these ``problem'' cases are the 
     direct result of willful violations of ICWA and can be solved 
     through greater notification requirements and sanctions.
       Title III eliminates tribal court jurisdiction in off-
     reservation adoption or foster care cases unless a parent is 
     a member of a tribe and can prove ``significant social, 
     cultural or political affiliation'' with that tribe. Focusing 
     on the parents' contacts with the tribe entirely misses the 
     importance of the extended family in Indian culture. The 
     extended family has a special duty to care for that child. If 
     given notice, in 99% of the cases there is always a relative 
     who is more than glad to raise an Indian child when his 
     parents cannot. Title III misses that point that those 
     relatives have strong or significant ties to the tribe.
       By limiting tribal court jurisdiction in off-reservation 
     cases, Title III will slow down the adoption process for 
     Indian children. ICWA was passed because tribal courts are 
     naturally in a better position than state courts to know whom 
     an Indian child's relatives are and can thus more quickly 
     assure the placement of Indian children in caring families. 
     The ``significant affiliation'' test gives back to state 
     courts the primary role in off-reservation cases.
       Title III's vague terms are likely to cause an increase in 
     litigation further delaying Indian adoptions. In addition, 
     replacing a simple objective political test--membership--with 
     a complex and subjective cultural identity test may be 
     unconstitutional.
       Eliminating retroactive enrollment will exclude certain 
     bona fide Indian children and parents from the Act's 
     coverage. Few tribes have the funds to enroll children at 
     birth and many Indian parents are teens who have not enrolled 
     because they have not sought Indian Health Service care or 
     BIA scholarships.
       In nearly every case cited by Rep. Pryce, the real issue is 
     not custody but whether the proper forum for the dispute is 
     in tribal or state court. Her premise is that a tribal court 
     will abuse ICWA and only place Indian children with Indian 
     families. That is not the law nor is that what tribal courts 
     have done as a matter of practice.
       Degree of Indian blood is not an issue. Indian tribes, as 
     governments, have the right to set membership requirements on 
     their own terms. The second largest tribe in the country, the 
     Cherokee Nation, does not use blood quantum for membership.
       Rep. Pryce's allegations assumptions are erroneous. For 
     instance, ICWA does not give tribes ``final say'' in adoption 
     proceedings. Contrary to her assertions, ICWA was intended to 
     apply to voluntary proceedings. It is not true that there are 
     judicial abuses of ICWA in every member's district. And her 
     changes to ICWA are anything but ``minor''.
       Indian tribes have already suffered enough loss. Why can't 
     Congress work on making their lives better rather than taking 
     even more away from their culture? When ICWA is followed by 
     all of the parties and when tribal concerns are taken into 
     account in determining the best interests of the child, ICWA 
     works for Indian children. We should not let passage of this 
     title turn back the clock to the point where we once again 
     see tragic stories of Indian children taken away forever from 
     their culture.
                                                                    ____

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 1996.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


      H.R. 3286--The adoption Promotion and Stability Act of 1996

       The Administration strongly supports H.R. 3286, without the 
     inclusion of Title III. Today, families who seek to adopt 
     children face significant barriers, including high adoption 
     costs and outdated assumptions. The Administration is deeply 
     committed to removing these barriers and making adoption 
     easier. The Administration strongly supports the bill's 
     $5,000 per child adoption tax credit. The tax credit will 
     alleviate a primary barrier to adoption and enable middle 
     class families, for whom adoption may be too expensive, to 
     adopt children. The Administration also supports the adoption 
     and foster care provisions in Title II of the bill. These 
     provisions are consistent with the Administration's current 
     policy.
       The Administration strongly supports passage of a Young 
     amendment, which has bipartisan support, to strike Title III 
     from the bill. Title III would allow State courts to pre-empt 
     tribal governments in decisions regarding the custody of 
     Indian children. These provisions raise serious concerns 
     because they would impinge on Indian tribal sovereignty, 
     including the right of tribal courts to determine internal 
     tribal relations.
       The Administration will work with Congress to identify more 
     suitable offsets to the lost tax receipts resulting from the 
     bill's adoption tax credit. The Administration opposes the 
     offset provision that would repeal the income exclusion for 
     utility payments to businesses for energy conservation 
     investments; the provision would effectively increase the 
     taxes on these investments. By ending an important market-
     based incentive to conserve energy, the provision would 
     undercut our ability to achieve clean air and energy 
     security. The bill's other offset--tightening the reporting 
     requirements for U.S. holders of foreign trusts--is included 
     in the President's balanced budget proposal for purposes of 
     deficit reduction.

                         Pay-as-you-go scoring

       H.R. 3286 will affect receipts; therefore it is subject to 
     the pay-as-you-go requirement of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1990. OMB's preliminary scoring 
     estimate is presented in the table below. Final scoring of 
     this legislation may deviate from this estimate.

                         Pay-as-you-go estimate

                         [Receipts in millions]

                                                               Receipts
1996..............................................................+$110
1997...............................................................+318
1998...............................................................+224
1999...............................................................+154
2000................................................................+99
2001................................................................+56
2002................................................................+16
1996-2002..........................................................+977

                                      Federal Bar Association,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 1996.
     Re proposed Indian Child Welfare Act Amendments, H.R. 3286 
         (Title III) and H.R. 3275.

       Dear Congressman Young: On behalf of the Indian Law Section 
     of the Federal Bar Association, I would like to register the 
     Section's opposition to the amendments to the Indian Child 
     Welfare Act of 1978 that have been proposed in Title III of 
     H.R. 3286, and in H.R. 3275. It is our understanding that 
     H.R. 3286 was introduced yesterday, and that a floor vote 
     will be taken later on this evening.
       While the Indian Law Section may, in the future, articulate 
     a position regarding the substance of the amendments that 
     have been introduced, at present the Section adamantly 
     opposes passage of the legislative amendments simply because 
     the manner in which they have been introduced is wholly 
     inappropriate--and dangerous. It is our understanding that 
     members of the House of Representatives have introduced these 
     amendments without notifying Native American leaders of the 
     proposed amendments, and without offering the Native American 
     community, and those attorneys and other individuals who work 
     on behalf of Native American children, an opportunity to 
     offer testimony to the Congress regarding the impact that 
     these amendments will have on those Native American children. 
     If, in fact, members of the House of Representatives are 
     truly concerned with amending the Indian Child Welfare Act so 
     that it more adequately addresses all of the needs of those 
     Native American children who must be removed from their 
     families, it would be more appropriate that Congressional 
     representatives conduct hearings regarding any proposed 
     amendments--rather than acting emotionally in response to a 
     few cases that have received national press. It is imperative 
     that our Representatives in Congress act responsibly, and 
     responsively, when making decisions of such import on behalf 
     of any children. It cannot be disputed that informed 
     decisions--ones that reflect careful and considerate 
     thought--require tremendous commitments of time, and 
     necessitate gathering information from all sectors of the 
     community who have information relating to the matter at 
     hand. I am particularly bothered by the fact that decisions 
     affecting children--decisions that will affect those 
     children's lives, and the lives of their own children, and 
     their children's children--are being made in such haste. As 
     someone who has litigated literally hundreds of Indian Child 
     Welfare Act cases over the years, I am not unaware that there 
     are problems that could be addressed by amending the Act. 
     Yet, as a children's advocate, I am appalled that anyone 
     within the House of Representatives believes that these 
     problems could--and should--be addressed without careful 
     consideration.

[[Page H4817]]

       We implore you to persuade your colleagues to refrain from 
     voting in favor of these proposed amendments, and to offer 
     the community an opportunity to respond intelligently and 
     thoughtfully to these issues.
           Sincerely,

                                           Donna J. Goldsmith,

                                               Deputy Chairperson,
     Indian Law Section.
                                                                    ____


  Support the Young-Miller Amendment--Strike Title III From H.R. 3286

       Title III is a major rewrite of the most important 
     provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act done without a 
     single hearing or discussion with even one of the 557 Indian 
     tribes this bill affects!
       The Administration strongly opposes this title.
       Do not be misled. ICWA works. ICWA protects the rights of 
     Indian children and the future of Indian tribes. Under ICWA, 
     thousands of Indian children have been placed in caring 
     Indian and non-Indian homes.
       We should not rewrite a good law simply because of a 
     handful of unusual cases. Tragic adoption cases are far more 
     common in non-Indian settings. States have a terrible record 
     in adoptive and foster care placements. Yet that is where 
     title III's sponsors want Indian cases to go.
       Amost all of the tragic cases are the direct result of 
     willful violations of ICWA by attorneys, not because of 
     problems with ICWA.
       Unlike other minority cases, there is no backlog of Indian 
     children waiting in foster care. In Indian culture, extended 
     families have a special duty to children and in 99% of the 
     cases a relative will agree to assume custody.
       ICWA has nothing to do with a tribe taking away Indian 
     children from their parents. The real issue is which court--
     state or tribal--is in best position to make a placement 
     decision. Title III assumes tribal courts cannot make fair 
     decisions. That is not the case. Any court, state or tribal, 
     is free to place an Indian child with a non-Indian family 
     with good cause.
       Title III will slow the adoption of Indian children. ICWA 
     was enacted because tribal courts are in a better position 
     than state courts to identify an Indian child's family and 
     quickly place them in permanent homes.

     George Miller.
     Don Young.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the 
great State of Texas, Mr. Tom DeLay, our Republican whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this 
amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young]. He is a vigorous advocate for his constituents and I know he 
has the best intentions with his amendment, but I urge my colleagues to 
support the provision of the gentlewoman from Ohio and vote against 
this amendment.
  History has been cruel to many Native Americans, and there is no 
doubt that the past treatment of American Indians still plays on the 
minds of the people who support this amendment. But today we must not 
only look at the past but also to the future. More specifically, we 
must look to the future of the children who have been victimized by the 
well-meaning regulations stemming from the Indian Child Welfare Act. 
Reform of this act is necessary. Simple fairness dictates that 
conclusion.
  I look forward to continuing to work with all concerned parties in 
conference where we can work out our differences, but the Young 
amendment is the wrong approach to finding that agreement in 
conference. Children who have no significant affiliation with any 
particular tribe and who are adopted by loving parents should not be 
unfairly taken from those parents.
  Prolonging any child's stay in foster care, when there are moms and 
dads just waiting to care for that child, simply because they may have 
a fraction of ethnic blood different from that of the parent, is just 
plain wrong.
  A member of my staff was adopted after being in various foster homes 
for the first 6 months of her life. It was later discovered that she 
had one-sixteenth Indian blood. Had the Indian tribe interfered with 
her adoption, she would have ended up trapped in foster care, bounced 
around from one temporary home to the next, and possibly been prevented 
from ever having a stable and loving family to help care for her. She 
was one of the lucky ones. Many others are not so lucky.
  My friends and colleagues, these adoption reforms are based on 
fairness. It is time that we start making the children's welfare our 
top priority. Vote no on the Young amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of Chairman 
Young's effort to strike title III of this bill.
  Title III is a classic case of legislative overkill and an attempt to 
circumvent standard House procedures at a time when this body is 
dedicated to avoiding both those legislative sins.
  Title III was included in this bill without any substantive hearings 
and over the strong bipartisan objections of the committee of 
jurisdiction. More importantly, it was pushed forward without any 
consultation with any Indian tribes, such as the Oneidas in my 
district, even though the tribes are the entities most directly 
affected. Contrast that with the numerous hearings and scrupulous 
research that went into drafting ICWA, and you can see why we try to 
have standard procedures around here.
  The proponents of title III complain about ICWA's unintended 
consequences--which are rare--but they say nothing about the unintended 
consequences of their own provision--which are systemic. Title III 
would complicate adoption proceedings, and could return us to the 
problems that led Congress to pass ICWA in the first place--State 
courts taking away Indian children.
  Madam Speaker, no one can gainsay the emotional damage done in the 
cases cited by title III's proponents. But title III goes far beyond 
what is necessary to correct those problems. Title III is clearly an 
instance where a hard case has made bad law. Vote to strike title III.

                              {time}  1130

  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, there has been much talk about circumventing the 
committee process and no hearings and no input. Madam Speaker, I tried 
for over a year to consult with the committee to try to get input from 
the tribes and their organizations. I have written letters. I have held 
meetings to which nobody appeared.
  Madam Speaker, it was very obvious that we cannot get this through 
the committee. That is why it did not go that way.
  Congress made this mess 20 years ago. It is up to us to pass this 
very minimal change in ICWA to correct it. If it does not pass now, we 
will have the status quo for another 5 years.
  I pledge to the chairman, if this passes today, I will work with him 
through the conference process to get this ironed out so that it can be 
satisfactory to all involved, when I finally can have the input of the 
committee and the Indian nations so that we can come to the correct 
solution to this terrible tragic problem.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Morella). The gentleman from Alaska 
[Mr. Young] has 45 seconds remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, this issue is a divisive issue that we 
are debating here on the House floor. There is no one single Utopian 
answer for the problems that we are now experiencing. The history of 
America's involvement with Native Americans has been rife with hatred, 
violence, bitterness, limited streams of compassion, and it has all 
rested on the pillars of apathy.
  The children that the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] represents 
should stay with that family. Anybody that is like that situation 
should stay with the family. We should have no problems with people 
piling up in foster homes because of limited connections with anybody, 
even American Indians, Native Americans. What we need to do as a body, 
as a Congress, is have some sense of knowledge on this subject.
  I will tell the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] and the gentleman 
from Alaska [Mr. Young] that I will work in the intervening month 
between now and when the Indians meet in about a month to ensure that 
there are corrective changes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Morella). The time of the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] has expired.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 
an additional minute.

[[Page H4818]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is unable to entertain that 
request. The time is controlled pursuant to House Resolution 428.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, I will assure Ms. Pryce that we will 
work to make sure those particular incidents, no matter how few or no 
matter how many, are corrected.
  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
  (Mrs. CHENOWETH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
strike title III.
  I understand the Indian Child Welfare Act originated out of concern 
that there were large scale efforts to remove Indian children from 
their homes and place them for adoption for unwarranted reasons.
  Unfortunately, the interpretation of this law has resulted in tragic 
consequences for children across this country. In my district, a non-
Indian woman and Indian man gave their child up for adoption to Leland 
and Karla Swenson of Nampa.
  Even though the Indian father's parental rights were terminated by 
the court, his tribe, the Oglala Sioux of South Dakota, intervened in 
the adoption case and appealed the adoption.
  Idaho Legal Aid, which is funded by Legal Services Corporation, 
stepped in to represent the tribe, which turned into a 6-year nightmare 
for the adoptive parents, who have sold their home, their farm, and 
their belongings to fight this case. The non-Indian mother never 
challenged the adoption, and in fact, objected to the tribe 
intervening.
  It's important to keep one thing in mind--in this case, the Indian 
father abandoned his child. He never appeared for any of the hearings 
relating to the adoption and subsequent tribal action. It was the 
tribe, not the Indian father, who continued to appeal the adoption 
through the tribal and State courts, at enormous taxpayer expense. Just 
whose interests were they serving? Certainly not the child's.
  I applaud Ms. Pryce's efforts to try to correct the inequities in 
this act, and my heart goes out to the family in her district that have 
had legitimate adoptions disrupted because of the Indian Child Welfare 
Act. I have been contacted by Native Americans in Alaska and Montana 
that agree that the Indian Child Welfare Act needs to be amended.
  After a long, heartwrenching battle, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled in 
favor of the Swensons keeping the child.
  This is not an anti-Indian bill, it's a pro-child bill. Ms. Pryce's 
bill intends to correct the tragic abuses of adoption that are 
occurring across the country, and I applaud her efforts.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I offer my support to the Young 
amendment to H.R. 3286 which would strike title III, a provision which 
makes significant changes to the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act.
  ICWA was designed to prevent the wholesale separation of Indian 
children from their families, and was only passed into law after 10 
years of careful study and close cooperation between Indian tribes and 
Congress.
  Unfortunately, title III will add a new subjective determination of 
who is, and who is not, an Indian by allowing courts to decide what 
constitutes being culturally, politically, and socially affiliated with 
a tribe. It will also ignore the important role of the extended family 
in Indian culture.
  In addition, these provisions were written without input from Indian 
tribes and without hearings held in the Resources Committee under whose 
jurisdiction ICWA falls.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Young amendment and allow us time 
to carefully consider any changes to the Indian Child Welfare Act.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to my good friend and colleague from Alaska's amendment to 
strike the Indian Child Welfare Act reforms from this bill.
  The dismal numbers on adoption make it clear that our laws have 
created severe roadblocks for adoption in this country. No one 
disagrees with that.
  Roughly 55,000 adoptions are finalized each year in this country--
down from 89,000 in 1970. Yet 500,000 kids languish every year in 
foster care. Many of them are not special needs kids or at least they 
were not, before they entered the system. Many of them are children 
who, at one time, could have easily been placed with the estimated, 2 
million couples that are currently waiting to adopt a child. These 
numbers didn't just happen by accident. It was bad laws that failed 
these kids.
  One of the worst examples of this is how the Indian Child Welfare Act 
has been misused to promote a political theory at the heartbreaking 
expense of some very real children and families, as well as the entire 
institution of adoption.
  It is tragic, unenlightened and unnecessary.
  Some of you may have read about the Swenson case. Shortly after his 
birth, Casey Swenson's birth mother, who is not native American, placed 
Casey for adoption. This woman courageously made the decision to place 
her child in the care of a couple who, among other things, shared her 
faith in the LDS Church.
  Casey's birth father is Oglala Sioux but he has never sought custody 
of Casey. He has had nothing to do with the boy from day one. He has 
totally abandoned the child. The tribal counsel, also, never voted to 
seek custody.
  A tribal bureaucrat, however, whose job is to administer Indian Child 
Welfare Act grant money, decided to expand his turf and seek custody of 
the child for the tribe--in opposition to the birth mother's wishes. He 
enlisted the help of Idaho Legal Services for the job.
  Mercifully the Swensons prevailed. But it took 6 years of 
litigation--all the way to the Idaho Supreme Court--and over $100,000 
in legal fees. The Swensons lost their home and farm too; not to 
mention many cruel, sleepless nights for the child, his sister, the 
birth mother, and his adoptive parents.
  Keep in mind one thing which we know from actual case histories. When 
a birth mother, who falls under the Indian Child Welfare Act, but does 
not want her child raised by a tribe, hears of these adoption 
nightmares it sends a very clear message: Adoption may present a long 
and hard court battle with no ultimate control over the outcome. 
Abortion or single parenting, on the other hand--her other two 
options--present total control over the ultimate custodial arrangement.
  Why this legal disincentive to adopt when it presents such an 
enriching option for the child? The extraordinary power of the tribes 
to veto adoptions has reached children with as little as 1/64 Indian 
blood. A vote for the Young amendment is a vote for a legal incentive 
to abort or single-parent.
  It is insane to allow this. Tribes are important cultural and 
political institutions but not so important that they should trump a 
mother's interest in who will raise her children in the event that she 
cannot.
  Not a single person here would tolerate a law which mandated that, in 
the event of your own incapacity, you could not place your child in the 
care of a close friend who shared many of your religious or cultural 
views on parenting--simply because your ethnicities did not match.
  The Indian Child Welfare Act now means as much. To say that because 
you come from, say, Irish descent and your friend is Polish, or 
African-American, then the Government can exclude them from 
consideration for custody is obscene. Would any of us tolerate such a 
law for ourselves? No. So don't vote for this one. This is supposed to 
be America and the Indian Child Welfare Act was never meant to cover 
voluntary adoptions.
  It is the height of hypocrisy to legislate for others what you would 
not tolerate for yourself. Lets not do it here. Defeat the Young 
amendment. Keep the Pryce provisions in this bill for the good of all 
children and parents who may at some point need sensible adoption laws.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the 
Young amendment to strike title 3 from H.R. 3268.
  Yesterday, I met with the principal chief of the Eastern Band of 
Cherokee Indians, Joyce Dugan, from my district. While title 3 is being 
pushed to rectify a very small number of problematic Indian adoption 
cases, the Indian Child Welfare Act, in fact, works quite well.
  Very few cases are contested and out of the thousands that have been 
processed, only 40 have been litigated. Until now.
  Title 3 would limit the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act 
to certain Indian children whose parents have maintained a significant 
social, cultural or political affiliation with an Indian tribe.
  Title 3 will create a whole new layer of redtape on adoptions, and 
leaves implementation to the courts.
  State courts will now have to hold additional hearings on what sort 
of affiliation certain Indian children's parents have had with a tribe.
  Courts will have to decide what is significant and what is not.
  Courts will have to decide what amounts to affiliation and what does 
not.
  Courts will have to decide what affiliation can be expected of a 16-
year-old mother or of a 16-year-old father. And then they'll have to 
reconsider the same question for a 30-year-old set of parents.
  The one thing you can count on is that title 3 will be litigated and 
litigated and litigated.
  Title 3 is an adoption lawyer's dream come true. More litigation, 
more proof, more time in court arguing about whether the law says this 
or that or more redtape. More billable hours. More expenses.
  Everybody loses except the lawyers.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the Young amendment and delete this 
redtape from the bill.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule 
and the bill H.R.

[[Page H4819]]

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 then 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.
  Tragically, this number has been dropping since the 1970's. During 
the last quarter century we have experienced a dramatic rise in numbers 
of children born out of wedlock, children being raised by single 
parents, and children entering the foster case system because of abuse 
and neglect. At the same time there has been a decrease of almost 50 
percent in the number of formal adoptions.
  As we continue to see the disintegration of the family, it is 
incumbent upon those of us in Congress to enact legislation which 
promotes and encourages adoption. We need to make it easier and more 
affordable.
  The average cost of adopting a child is $20,000. This legislation 
provides for a $5,000 tax credit to help offset the costs of adoption 
as well as a $5,000 tax exclusion for employer-sponsored adoption 
assistance.
  Perhaps more significantly this bill will go a long way toward 
assisting the adoption of children currently in the foster care system. 
Today there are approximately 500,000 children in the custody of 
various State foster care programs.
  Unfortunately, many States have enacted laws and regulations which 
allow agencies to delay placing a child in an adoptive home on the 
basis of cultural or ethnic differences. As a result 40 percent of 
African American children spend more than 4 years waiting to be adopted 
while only 17 percent of white children wait that long.
  H.R. 3286 would prohibit State and private agencies from delaying or 
denying the opportunity to become an adoptive parent on the basis of 
race, color, or national origin of the child or the applicants.
  There is also a myth that families only want to adopt healthy, 
newborn children. In fact, Mr. Speaker, many families adopt special 
needs children. The National Down's Syndrome Adoption Exchange reports 
a waiting list of over 100 couples who would like to adopt a child with 
Down's syndrome--more than enough to accommodate parents who want 
Down's children given up for adoption.
  Several weeks ago I had the opportunity to meet with representatives 
of the Arkansas Department of Human Services. They discussed with me 
the success they have had in placing special needs children. One of the 
adoption specialists told me that in the last 16 years she has made 357 
placements in a seven-county area of northwest Arkansas--over 75 
percent of them special needs children. I was told of one family who 
already had two birth children when they adopted a sibling group of 
two, a sibling group of three, and two African American infants with 
spina bifida. Several of the children have emotional or behavioral 
problems, and several are learning disabled.
  Another family was unable to have birth children. They adopted a 
child privately and then added two African American children with 
disabilities.
  Still another family, with grown children, adopted an African 
American foster child with many physical and developmental disabilities 
and have sacrificed a comfortable middle age to meet this child's 
needs.
  These are only a few of the many families in northwest Arkansas who 
have opened their hearts and their homes to children in need.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, the subject of adoption is one that hits very 
close to home for me. My legislative director is herself adopted. She 
described her feelings of adoption to me in the following way:
  ``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. WELDON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for H.R. 3286, the Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of 1996. Since 
the late 1960's, the number of children who have been adopted has 
declined by at least 33 percent, while the number of children born to 
unwed mothers has increased 400 percent over the same period. In light 
of these startling statistics, Madam Speaker, some action must be 
taken. Legislative support for families that wish to adopt and children 
that wish to be adopted is long overdue.
  I believe that the tax credit to defray the overwhelming cost is a 
major step in making adoption possible for more families. Phased out at 
incomes over $75,000, this tax break is specifically targeted to help 
those who most need it. Furthermore, for every child adopted because of 
this tax credit, the American people save the $20,000 to $30,000 it 
takes every year to support a child in Federal, State, or foster care.
  The second major step this legislation takes is prohibiting State and 
local entities from denying or delaying a child's adoption because of 
race, color, or national origin. As much as 49 percent of America's 
500,000 foster children are minorities, Madam Speaker; there is no 
reason for them not to find a place in the many loving, permanent homes 
waiting to adopt them.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3286. As a member 
of the Congressional Coalition for Adoption, I will continue to support 
legislation to ease restrictions and encourage adoption. As a Member of 
Congress, I will continue to support anything that makes the American 
family stronger.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 
3286, the Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of 1996.
  It is a sad reality that there are far too many potential adoptive 
parents who can handle the day-to-day expenses of raising a child, but 
who can't afford the initial adoption costs which are often in excess 
of $5,000. While insurance covers health care costs for adopted 
children, it fails to address the skyrocketing costs of adoption fees. 
this is essentially discriminatory because insurance covers the costs 
of maternity stays, but fails to address the similar needs of adoptive 
families.
  H.R. 3286 ensures equity for adoptive parents by providing a $5,000-
per-child tax credit to offset adoption costs. The bill also encourages 
the adoption of foster children by requiring States to adhere to a 
nondiscriminatory policy in matching children with parents. Currently 
there are 450,000 to 500,000 children in foster care, so moving these 
children into loving, adoptive families must be a top priority.
  I introduced similar legislation, H.R. 1819, at the beginning of the 
104th Congress which also would have provided tax relief for adoptive 
families with an even larger credit going to those who choose to adopt 
a foster child. I am pleased that H.R. 3286 addresses the concerns of 
my legislation, and I strongly supported the passage of this landmark 
legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my 
support for H.R. 3286, the Adoption Promotion and Stability Act. 
Families wishing to adopt today face a number of barriers, including 
prohibitive costs, complex regulations, and outdated assumptions. This 
bill will make it possible for more families to provide permanent, 
stable, and loving homes for children in need by providing tax credits 
to adoptive families and employers, and by ensuring that adoptions are 
not delayed or denied because of a child's race, ethnicity, or national 
origin.
  Adoption costs now constitute a major disincentive to adoption. The 
cost of adopting a child in the United States ranges from $10,000 to 
$20,000, and in the case of an international adoption, the cost may 
reach $35,000. This legislation would provide a $5,000 nonrefundable 
tax credit for qualified adoption expenses and an exclusion of up to 
$5,000 for amounts received by an employee for qualified adoption 
expenses under an employer adoption assistance program, thus providing 
needed assistance to middle- and low-income families willing to adopt.
  According to the American Public Welfare Association [APWA], a total 
of 657,000 children were in the Nation's foster care system during 
1993, about half of whom are minorities. A 1-day count of children in 
foster care in 1993 showed 445,000 children in foster care and other 
group care settings--an increase of about two-thirds over the 1-day 
count 10 years earlier and this number has continued to increase. Five 
States--Texas, California, Illinois, Michigan, and New York--together 
account for almost half of all children in foster care.
  Clearly, we must do something to decrease the number of children in 
foster care and group homes and increase the number of children in 
loving and permanent homes. 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. 
Studies have shown that minority children wait longer to be adopted 
than do white children. According to the National Council for Adoption 
[NCFA], African-American children constitute about 40 percent of the 
children awaiting adoption in the foster care system and these children 
wait twice as long--in some jurisdictions four times as long--as white 
children for adoptive homes.
  This legislation would prohibit States and entities receiving Federal 
funds from delaying or denying the placement of a child for adoption or 
foster care on the basis of race, color, or national origin. While I do 
not believe that

[[Page H4820]]

race should be the sole criteria in determining the placement of a 
child in an adoptive home, I do believe that it must play a role in 
determining placement. States and entities must make an effort to 
ensure that prospective adoptive parents of a child from a different 
race are sensitive to the child's cultural background.
  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 minority children are sensitive to the 
issues that may arise as the child gets older, including dealing with 
discrimination and questions the child may have about his or her 
cultural background. I believe that our native Americans should have 
the right of utilizing their cultural heritage in the sensitive issue 
of adoption and foster care for Indian children. I supported the Young 
amendment.
  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.
  Federal policies should encourage and facilitate, not hamper, 
adoption efforts. The Adoption Promotion and Stability Act sends a 
signal to prospective adoptive parents that our Nation encourages 
adoption and will help to make adoptions possible and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. ROEMER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3286, the 
Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of 1996. Knowing of the importance 
adoption plays in the lives of American families, Congress should do 
more to help facilitate and promote its benefits.
  Unquestionably, this legislation would tear down the financial burden 
imposed on adoptive parents. These expenses can add up to $20,000 in 1 
year, and continue to be the primary disincentive to middle-class 
families. While families who have children born to them often enjoy the 
costs of birth covered by health insurance, adoptive families have no 
such support. H.R. 3286 offsets this imbalance and makes the process a 
more financially viable option for middle-income parents to build 
families through adoption.
  Madam Speaker, few can argue that adoption does not result in moving 
children out of foster homes and providing the benefit of a solid home 
and possibilities for a bright future. The benefits of adoption exist 
not only with the adopted child, but with the biological mother and 
society as well. Adoption can help break the cycle of abortion that too 
often takes place with young girls having babies out of wedlock. By 
choosing adoption, women can make the right decision--not to have an 
abortion.
  At the same time, adoption can help break the cycle of single 
parenting. More than 80 percent of all females born to single mothers 
under the age of 16 become teenage mothers themselves. By choosing 
adoption as an alternative to single parenting, these women might 
continue their education, develop job skills and a sense of 
independence, and live the rest of their lives knowing they were not 
forced to choose abortion over single parenting.
  Madam Speaker, this is a matter of fairness to adoptive families. 
H.R. 3286 is good public policy and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the 
Adoption Promotion and Stability Act. As a mother and grandmother, I 
can tell you that adoption creates families where we would otherwise 
have children languishing in foster care and couples denied a heartfelt 
desire to raise a family.
  Due to the costly nature of adoption, it is only right that we 
provide families with some financial relief. The average cost of an 
adoption is $20,000. The $5,000 tax credit helps to alleviate the 
financial pressures and may make the real difference in a couple's 
decision to adopt.
  This legislation also provides a commonsense clarification of the 
Indian Child Welfare Act without infringing upon the rights of the 
Native American community. A child with no significant cultural, 
social, or political affiliations should be allowed to be put up for 
adoption if it is the wish of the birth parents. When I chaired the 
Youth and Family Services Committee in the Washington State Senate, I 
had extensive experience with the Indian Child Welfare Act. While I 
respect the original intent of the act, I believe that standing in the 
way of a child's welfare due to the arbitrary decision of a tribal 
court is egregious. The only result has been heartbreak for countless 
families.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Adoption Promotion and Stability 
Act. It is pro-child and pro-family.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Young amendment 
which would strike title III from H.R. 3286, the Adoption Promotion and 
Stability Act.
  Last week, my colleagues and I who sit on the Resources Committee 
voted unanimously to strip title III from this legislation. 
Regrettably, it was reinserted by the Rules Committee.
  Title III of H.R. 3286 amends the 1978 Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 
which gave tribal courts jurisdiction over Indian child custody 
proceedings. Title III would transfer this jurisdiction to State 
courts.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent portions of eight tribes, including the 
Navajo Nation, which is the largest reservation in the United States. 
As a result, I am mindful of our treaty obligations to sovereign Indian 
nations. I believe that removing adoptions from the jurisdiction of 
tribal courts in favor of State courts would violate these important 
treaty agreements.
  Furthermore, proponents of title III assume that tribes act 
arbitrarily and not in the best interests of the children involved. The 
record shows otherwise. Over the last 15 years, less than one-tenth of 
1 percent of adoption cases have been contested.
  I urge my colleagues not to turn back progress that has been made by 
Indian nations to become more independent. Support the Young amendment.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleagues for 
bringing to the floor a bill that would assist loving, caring Americans 
who are willing to open their homes and provide permanent, loving, and 
stable homes for adoptive children.
  In an era when adoption costs can reach upward of $20,000, we must 
send a message that the Government is truly proadoption. Providing a 
$5,000 nonrefundable tax credit to middle- and low-income families for 
qualified adoption expenses, is a small step in this direction. This 
bill also includes another important policy that encourages and 
promotes adoption.
  It is an unfortunate fact that African-American children wait almost 
twice as long and sometimes four times as long to be adopted than do 
white children, simply because of their skin color. This bill will 
prohibit any federally funded agency from delaying or denying the 
placement of a child into a foster home or adoptive home on the basis 
of the race, color or national origin of the adoptive or foster parent 
of the child involved.
  This commonsense policy is badly needed to ensure that our Nation's 
future, our most vulnerable children do not remain separated from a 
loving adoptive family one day longer than necessary. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I don't think there is 
anyone anywhere who would not agree that we would wish for every child 
that they be a part of a willing, safe, secure, nurturing and loving 
family.
  Unfortunately, that is not the reality for hundreds of thousands of 
children across America today. Many of those children are the victims 
of abuse or neglect. Many have special needs that make the parental 
dream of a perfect child difficult to achieve.
  For instance, last year there were over 49,000 children in foster 
care in Illinois; 39,000 of those children were from the Chicago/Cook 
County area. During that same time last year in Illinois, only 1,850 
were formally adopted.
  It is the goal of this Adoption Promotion and Stability Act to make 
it possible for more children, who are not able to be reunited with 
their biological families for one reason or another, to be adopted by 
families who are willing and able to give them the love, safety and 
security that all children need.
  H.R. 3286 contains a provision to allow a Federal tax credit up to 
$5,000 for qualified adoption expenses. Testimony to the Congress has 
suggested that such a tax credit will allow middle-income families to 
adopt children for whom adoption might otherwise be prohibitive. I 
believe it may also allow families of not-so-middle incomes to open 
their homes and hearts to children who need a safe, secure and 
nurturing family.
  Too often the high legal costs associated with an adoption make it 
beyond the reach of families who could otherwise open up their heart to 
another child. This tax credit is designed to offer valuable support to 
those families with so much love to give.
  What we have seen by the numbers of children in the foster care 
system for years, denied that nurturing, loving environment of a 
family, is that many people still have prejudices that stand in the way 
of providing those children with a safe, secure and stable family.
  In reality, there aren't enough families able or willing to adopt 
children in need of families in our country today. Well-meaning 
attempts to match willing families to children are keeping those 
children from having any family at all.
  It is because of my deeply held belief that all children should be 
safe, secure and loved in a willing family that values children, and 
has a deep commitment to providing the best possible in love and 
stability, that I support this bill. I encourage my colleagues to vote 
for the children and vote for passage of this bill.
  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Adoption 
and Stability Act of 1996.
  Adoption, as Albert Hunt noted in the Wall Street Journal, is not a 
panacea for abortion

[[Page H4821]]

 or child abuse or foster care. But it certainly can help. A woman 
facing an unintended pregnancy may be influenced by the knowledge that 
her child could be expeditiously adopted. Social workers may find their 
task of protecting foster children somewhat easier, resulting in fewer 
children--1,166 in 1993--who die of child abuse at the hands of foster 
parents.
  In a successful adoption, everyone wins--the dearly wanted child, who 
is brought into a loving home; the adoptive parents, who have welcomed 
the child into their lives; and the birth parents, who know that their 
child is well-cared for. Unfortunately, there are barriers which reduce 
the number of successful adoptions, including high adoption costs and 
complex, ineffective regulations.
  As a result, roughly one in seven children in foster care is waiting 
for adoption, and will wait for between 4 to 6 years. Potential 
adoptive parents find they cannot pay the costs of adoption--which 
ranges from $10,000 to $15,000 for a domestic adoption--and are denied 
the opportunity to provide a loving and healthy home for a child. 
Minority children must wait two to four times as long as white children 
for adoptive homes. Families which are financially able to adopt must 
wait for years before a child can join them.
  Fortunately, Congress has recognized that promoting adoption is an 
important public policy goal. The Adoption and Stability Act of 1996 
facilitates the adoption process, so that more children can be united 
with loving families.
  You know the essential details of this bill, it provides families 
with a $5,000 tax credit for one-time adoption expenses, and prohibits 
entities from delaying adoptions due to race, color, or national 
origin. These provisions will provide enormous assistance to would-be 
adoptive parents, and should help those who are presently overwhelmed 
by the cost to fulfill their dreams of being an adoptive parent. It 
will also help eliminate the appalling fact that minority children wait 
so much longer to be adopted as white children, even though there is no 
shortage of adoptive parents.
  This bill will not resolve all of the problems with our Nation's 
adoption laws, but it is an admirable first step, and I encourage all 
of my colleagues to support passage of this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 195, 
nays 212, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 164]

                               YEAS--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--212

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Longley
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Baker (LA)
     Berman
     Bevill
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Hayes
     Herger
     Holden
     Jefferson
     Laughlin
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Paxon
     Portman
     Roberts
     Schroeder
     Tanner
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams

                              {time}  1156

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Herger against.
       Mr. Dicks for, Mr. Paxon against.

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG and Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. LEVIN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Morella). Pursuant to House Resolution 
428, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 393, 
noes 15, not voting 25, as follows:

[[Page H4822]]

                             [Roll No. 165]

                               AYES--393

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--15

     Abercrombie
     Baesler
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Dellums
     Fattah
     Furse
     Hilliard
     Kennedy (RI)
     Meek
     Mink
     Thompson
     Waters
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Baker (LA)
     Berman
     Bevill
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Hayes
     Herger
     Holden
     Jefferson
     Laughlin
     McDade
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Paxon
     Portman
     Roberts
     Schroeder
     Tanner
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams

                              {time}  1216

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Herger for, with Mr. Dicks against.

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________