[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 30, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2012-H2035]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ADOPTION PROMOTION ACT OF 1997
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 134 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 134
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
[[Page H2013]]
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 867) to promote the adoption of children in
foster care. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for
failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI or section
303(a) or 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are
waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Ways and Means. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways
and Means now printed in the bill, modified as specified in
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each section of the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as modified, shall be considered as
read. Points of order against the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as modified, for failure to comply
with clause 7 of rule XVI or section 303(a) or 306 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
{time} 1130
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms.
Pryce] is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Dayton, OH [Mr.
Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 134 is an open rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 867, the Adoption Promotion Act
of 1997. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute
from the Committee on Ways and Means as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment, modified as specified in the report accompanying
this rule. The modification simply amends the committee's bill so as to
avoid including appropriations language in an authorizing bill. The
rule also provides a limited but very necessary number of waivers to
facilitate the orderly consideration of the bill.
Furthermore, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord
priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments
in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration, and such
amendments shall be considered as read.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions, as is the right of the minority.
Mr. Speaker, let me stress for our colleagues that this is more than
just an open rule. In fact it is a wide-open rule. Any Member can be
heard on any germane amendment to the bill at the appropriate time as
long as it is consistent with the normal rules of the House.
The bipartisan support this bill enjoys is clear evidence that
building stable families by promoting adoption is a goal that both
political parties can and should agree upon.
Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise to my colleagues that the
issue of adoption is very special to me. As an adoptive parent myself,
I know firsthand that adopting a child can be one of life's most
fulfilling experiences.
Every child in America deserves a family and a home filled with love
and security, free from abuse or neglect or the threat of violence. The
sad truth is that today many children do not enjoy that basic human
right, and I am afraid it is these very children who are paying a very
dear price, victimized by a foster care system that was enacted with
the best of intentions but which is failing to look out for their best
interests.
Why are a child's early years so important? New research tells us
that the first years of life are critical to a child's development. We
know that 90 percent of the brain's growth takes place during the first
3 years. So science is revealing what mothers have known always from
the beginning of time, that early life experiences help determine the
way a child thinks, learns and behaves for the rest of his or her life.
That is why it is so crucial for parents and care givers to raise
children in a healthy, happy environment. The first years of life do
indeed last forever.
So here we are today, Mr. Speaker, determined to change the rules of
the game so that more children will have a better start. One way we can
accomplish that aim is to speed up the adoption process, especially for
foster children who have been abused or neglected.
While Government cannot legislate love and compassion, it can provide
the leadership and the tools necessary to encourage the development of
healthy, nurturing families. For example, last year Congress enacted
legislation that created valuable new tax incentives designed to foster
and facilitate adoptions.
In many respects, H.R. 867 addresses what might be referred to as the
other side of the adoption coin. With last year's legislation we tried
to ease the financial strain for hopeful parents. This bill addresses
the frustrating problem of how to promote adoption of foster children
who through no fault of their own are unable to return to their natural
parents and who have languished for far too long in the foster care
system. It is time to stop the revolving door of foster care that sends
children from home to home to home with little or no hope that they
will live with the same families from one month to another.
Mr. Speaker, the most important change we can make is to elevate the
rights of children because too often a foster child's best interests
are abandoned while courts and welfare agencies drag their feet. To
correct this injustice, H.R. 867 places the safety and well-being of
children above efforts by the State to reunite them with biological
parents who have abused or neglected them.
As the legislation itself clearly spells out, a foster child's health
and safety shall be of paramount concern in any effort by the State to
preserve or reunify a child's family.
Under current law, there are no financial incentives to move children
from foster care to adoption, so States continue to receive Federal
subsidies as long as children stay in foster care. This is crazy, Mr.
Speaker. We have created a system that in effect pays States to keep
kids locked in foster care at the expense of adoption.
It is too bad that we have to use cash as an incentive. We would
think the joy of giving a foster child a permanent home would be
incentive enough. But this bill will establish a positive incentive to
reduce the foster care case load.
Mr. Speaker, the facts support the need for this legislation. Of the
nearly half million kids in foster care, only 17,000 entered permanent
adoptive homes. What is more astonishing is that during each of past 10
years more children have entered the foster care system than have left
it. This is simply not acceptable, and we need to take action today to
change it.
The changes called for in H.R. 867 offer workable solutions to some
of the most pressing concerns, and I applaud the work of my colleagues,
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] and the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
I also want to commend the many, many conscientious foster care
parents who have opened their doors and their hearts to foster
children. I am hopeful
[[Page H2014]]
that many of those responsible couples will have a chance to make their
love permanent as a result of this legislation.
As I said before, Congress and the Federal Government cannot
legislate compassion and love for all of the Nation's children, but we
can take reasonable steps to promote family stability and give
children, especially foster children, a fighting chance to see the
loving homes that they deserve. Children simply deserve better than a
here today, gone tomorrow life in multiple foster homes.
In the last Congress we reformed welfare so that low income mothers
and their families would not be trapped in the never-ending cycle of
dependency. We need to do the same thing with the foster care program
that keeps thousands of innocent children trapped in a broken system
that too often places their young lives in danger of repeated neglect
and abuse.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation enjoys strong bipartisan support. Like
the rule before us, it was reported without any amendment by voice
vote. Since being reported, several worthwhile amendments have come up
and this open rule will certainly allow the House to discuss any
concerns or improvements that Members may wish to discuss.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] for yielding me the time.
This is an open rule. It is a fair rule. It will allow complete
debate on H.R. 867.
The bill will continue a series of bills approved by Congress to
encourage the adoption of children. This bill aims to speed up the
adoption process of children in foster homes. In my own State of Ohio,
there are 17,000 children in foster care. Of these, nearly 1,800 are
awaiting adoption. This bill is intended to help these children and
others like them all across the country find permanent homes more
quickly.
The bill also gives States greater flexibility to separate children
from their families when their parents are clearly abusive. And in my
own community of Dayton, OH, we have witnessed tragic consequences of
requiring family unification even when it obviously was not in the best
interest of the child.
Under this rule, amendments will be allowed under the 5-minute rule,
which is the normal amending process in the House. All Members on both
sides of the aisle will have their opportunity to offer amendments. The
rule under consideration waives a number of points of order on the
bill, including the 3-day availability of committee reports. It also
waives points of order on the Committee on Ways and Means substitute.
The process for consideration of the bill has been completely open,
and it has been bipartisan with strong support from both sides of the
aisle. Therefore, the Committee on Rules recommended the waivers by
unanimous vote so that the needed bill can move forward quickly.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this open rule and the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], my colleague on the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I
do so to compliment my friend from Columbus, OH for the leadership role
that she has shown on this issue of adoption which is very important.
This legislation, as has been said by both of my friends from Ohio,
is designed to encourage adoption. There is a pressing need out there,
and I believe that this legislation will go a long way toward creating
the kind of incentive that is necessary.
I also believe that it is very good that we are doing this under the
open amendment process, because I understand that there are proposals
that some Members who do not sit on the Committee on Ways and Means
have that they wish to offer. And it is our hope that they will be able
to work those out, and we will be able to continue to move ahead with
bipartisan passage of this legislation.
I would simply like to urge my colleagues to support the rule and to
again congratulate the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] for the
stellar leadership that she has shown on this and a wide range of other
issues.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], and I say thank you to the
gentlewoman and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] and the
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] for so much good work on an important
piece of legislation.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker this rule brings to the
floor something that I think we all knew was important. We enjoyed
working on this issue and its result--that good things can happen when
both sides of the aisle work together to try to solve one of our
Nation's problems. And I could not think of anything better happening
than finding safe, and loving, and permanent homes for abused children.
The conflict between the rights of parents and the needs of children
is perennial and will remain a central dilemma in the field of child
protection. Realizing this, almost a year ago, the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Camp], and I began to talk about drafting legislation to
protect children and promote adoption. We, and our staffs, worked on a
bill together, and throughout the process we sought advice from a wide
range of individuals from across the country, from individuals who had
joined with groups with varying points of view, some absolutely adamant
in protecting the rights of parents, some absolutely adamant in
protecting the rights of children. We heard from all sides of the
issue.
We also worked with the Clinton administration, which has been making
child adoption an increasingly important situation and a top priority.
So I will speak later on the aspects of the bill, but I would like to
say something regarding the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this rule. But I also want
them to realize that although this is an open rule, any Member, of
course, can offer an amendment, this bill has been crafted to address
the careful balance between parents' rights and children's safety.
Many Members interested and very knowledgeable in child welfare have
agreed to hold amendments so that today's legislation could bring forth
a basis for a continuing process concerning the rights of parents and
the safety of children. I look forward to working with these Members,
and working again with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] so that
in fact this whole situation of further protections for children can
grow.
But today the legislation we have before us and the rule brings to us
is a careful balance between many, many, many hours of work. Of course,
there will be amendments, but I do hope that amendments that break this
balance will not come forward. We have so must to do. This is so
important. We do not want to have this bill in jeopardy.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume
to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], subcommittee chair of this
important legislation.
{time} 1145
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, there is one technical change in the Camp-Kennelly bill
that was reported by the committee, and I thought it my duty to come to
the floor and briefly explain this under the rule.
This change simply removes language that was inadvertently included
in the committee bill, that appropriated money for adoption incentive
payments, and substitutes language that authorizes spending on the
payments. Because the incentive payments are so important to increasing
adoptions, and because this provision actually saves taxpayers'
dollars, both the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on
Appropriations graciously agreed to help us write language that
[[Page H2015]]
would, if appropriations are made in any year, adjust both the budget
resolution and the statutory budget caps to accommodate the additional
spending.
Thus, the amended bill does not appropriate money, but the new
provision does make it easy for the appropriators to provide the money
for the adoption incentive payments. Giving States the incentive
payments of $4,000 for each additional adoption will save both State
and Federal tax dollars.
I want to personally thank the chairman and the staffs of the
Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations for their
help with this important provision.
I would also like to tell the Members of the House, in responding to
some of the comments made by our colleague, the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] one of the authors of this bill, that we on
this side, even though this is an open rule, recognize the bipartisan
effort that went into building this bill and also recognize the
tremendous importance and impact this bill is going to have upon some
of the most fragile among us, and that is unadopted kids that are
lingering in foster care.
Because of that, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to work out compromises
on many of the amendments that are being offered or contemplated to be
offered, to see if we might reach a bipartisan solution on acceptance
of those amendments without putting the House to votes that could
possibly tilt the scales away from the bipartisan bill that has been so
carefully crafted by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp], and the
gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Because of that, I would anticipate that if there are any amendments
in dispute, that the committee would, in all probability, object to
those amendments. Even though we might see that they have merit that
should require us to consider them, and even though we personally might
think it might be a better bill, we feel the bipartisanship that has
been brought to this bill to the floor today should survive the day and
that we should report out a bill that should get the unanimous support
of the entire House.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I have a little Buy American amendment,
and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], he said we really do not
need to buy American kids in this, but I want to explain it.
The Traficant amendment has been passed on to many things, and it
says simply, it is a sense of Congress that when funds are expended
pursuant to the passage of these acts and these laws, that when they
expend that money, that the Congress notifies them, wherever possible,
to try to buy American-made products. It does not tie their hands. And
they should give us a report at the end of the year as to how much was
foreign-made so we can get some computerization on what is our
procurement around here.
I want to say this to the Congress. We are at this point, the
delegation from Massachusetts, looking into the fact that our currency,
the paper that our currency is printed on, will be made in Great
Britain. And the Crane Co. of Massachusetts, who has produced the paper
that our currency has been printed on, will come to us from overseas.
We have military troops in Chinese boots.
We have gotten to the point where we have lost sight of our
procurement. I once passed an amendment on a defense bill, I would say
to the gentlewoman from Ohio, that if a foreign country does not allow
American companies to bid, they should not be allowed to bid on our
defense contracts. And both sides of the aisle fought it and then they
finally passed it.
I think it is time to say that wherever possible when we are spending
taxpayer dollars that we try to buy American-made goods. It does not
tie their hands. Taxpayers pay the freight coming down the track, they
have the jobs, they pay the taxes. It seems to work.
It is noncontroversial, but for those who have some doubts, it is
germane and it deals with any funds made available pursuant to the
passage of this act that would be used for procurement purchases.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, in many ways foster care has become a black hole for
America's most needy and vulnerable and precious children. They get
sucked into it through no fault of their own and they end up spending
years bouncing from one foster care family to another, with little or
no hope of settling down to enjoy a stable, loving home environment.
Today we can begin to offer these children a small ray of hope by
agreeing to this open rule and by passing the Adoption Promotion Act.
Mr. Speaker, we just need to change the model. We do not need the
latest poll or focus group to know that it takes a family to build a
stronger America. By protecting the safety and well-being of children,
we can ensure that the neediest and the most neglected and the most
abused foster children are given a real chance, a fighting chance, to
enjoy safe and permanent homes.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the thousands of foster kids living in
America today, I urge my colleagues to support this fair, open rule and
to vote for the Adoption Promotion Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). Pursuant to House Resolution
134 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 867.
{time} 1152
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
867) to promote the adoption of children in foster care, with Mr. Rogan
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] and the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] each will be recognized for 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, the Camp-Kennelly bill that we bring to the
floor today is of vital importance to many thousands of the Nation's
most unfortunate children. These children are the abused, the
neglected, the abandoned. To take these children out of harm's way,
State government removes these children from their families and places
them in foster care.
Five hundred thousand. That is right, one-half of 1 million. That is
how many children are languishing in foster care as we debate this bill
today. The major goal of Federal and State policy must remain what it
has been since the passage of the vital Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare Act of 1980, and that is to move these children to permanent
placements as quickly as possible.
But today there is a new consensus throughout the Nation: Too many
children are in foster care because too few children are adopted. The
bill we debate today will change that. I have no doubt that if we pass
this bill, within 5 years the number of adoptions in the United States
will increase substantially and the number of children languishing in
foster care will at last decline.
This bill does three big things to promote adoption:
First, Federal statutes now put too much emphasis on providing all
kinds of services to rehabilitate troubled families. Let me be clear
about this. I firmly believe that services for troubled families are
important. Nothing is more important to children than their families.
Thus, if their family has problems, government could and should reach
out a helping hand. But not ten hands.
If families will not or cannot change within a reasonable period of
time, we must, in the interest of the children, be
[[Page H2016]]
willing to terminate parental rights and move expeditiously toward
adoption. So the big thing this bill does is to push the pendulum of
government concern back in the direction of the children.
We do this by allowing States to define what we call aggravated
circumstances that allow them to dispense with services for the family
and get on with the business of finding an adoptive home for the child.
In the case of parents who have murdered another child or lost custody
of other children, States are required to dispense with the services
for the family and to move quickly to terminate parental rights and get
the child adopted.
The second big thing this bill does is require States to move to
terminate parental rights and find an adoptive family if children under
10 have been in foster care for 18 of the past 24 months. There is at
present no national consensus on the maximum time children should spend
in foster care. As a result, some States keep children in foster care
for an average of 3 years. The average stay in foster care across all
States is around 2 years.
Think of that: 2 years, 24 months, 104 weeks, 730 days. For a 4-year-
old child, that is half of his or her life. This must stop. Camp-
Kennelly will take us a giant step toward creating a national
understanding that if families cannot be rehabilitated within 18
months, the State must move to adoption.
These first two provisions of this bill place administrative
requirements on the States, but the third big provision of this bill
takes a different approach. Camp-Kennelly will reward States for
increasing adoptions.
If we want more of something, we simply subsidize it. So let us pay
States to do the right thing. Instead of just subsidizing foster care,
as we do now, Camp-Kennelly will pay the States $4,000 for every child
adopted above the prior year's levels.
Will this approach work? Both the Congressional Budget Office and the
Office of Management and Budget say it will. Not only will the
provision increase the number of adoptions, but it will actually save
money. Members of Congress will seldom have the opportunity to vote for
a bill that both does the right thing for children and saves taxpayers
dollars at the same time.
I am quite proud of this bill, and I am proud of my subcommittee and
the sponsors who have put this bill together. It will help children. It
will increase adoption. It will improve the reputation of government
for effectiveness and efficiency, and it will save the taxpayers money.
I would like to share with the Congress part of the testimony that
was given before my subcommittee. A woman caseworker who had been
involved in many, many adoptions told us of the first words that a
child had after meeting her new parents, and this is a child who was
less than 3 years old, a 2-year-old child. The first words she said in
meeting her new adoptive parents were ``Where have you been?''
``Where have you been?'' Can any of us imagine those words coming out
of a 2-year-old child thirsting for a family? I say to the Congress,
``Where have you been?'' It is time for us to pass this bill, and I
urge all the Members to vote ``yes'' on this vital piece of
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me join with my colleague from Florida
in complimenting the legislators on the committee that worked on this
very sensitive piece of legislation.
It is so difficult for us in the Congress to attempt to regulate or
legislate things that concern love and emotion and separation of mother
and child, and that is why it is so important that those people, who
mean well but want to fine-tune this, might do well to believe that the
Congress cannot, as they have said so often, make one size fit all
according to Federal standards.
I think all of us agree that when it comes to a child that is living
in a dangerous or an abandoned situation, that we all want to do what
is in the best interest of the child.
{time} 1200
We do not have all of the answers here in Washington, even though we
Democrats are accused of trying to provide all of them. But one thing
is clear, that the facts and circumstances surrounding the condition
and the welfare of that child is closer to the State than it is
Washington, DC. So I do hope that those who have particular problems or
have seen it back in their home State might concentrate on trying to
change those provisions at home and kind of leave the work that the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] and the gentlewoman from Connecticut
[Mrs. Kennelly] have put together in a very well balanced way.
It just seems to me that they have taken in consideration the very,
very difficult decisions that have to be made even by social workers.
When is the time that a child should be adopted? When is the mother's
rights terminated? Is there an area of rehabilitation? All we know is
that this bill would at least allow the resources for these very
sensitive questions to be addressed in the proper way. All we can do is
hope the best that we can that we have facilitated in taking children
out of harm's way into loving homes and thereby making a stronger and
more productive country as these youngsters grow up to be productive.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] has every reason
to be proud, and those that have really not spent that much time
discussing this, I hope that they might allow this legislation to go
through as it is drafted and to make certain that their considerations
are brought to the local communities in which they serve, because
situations that we have in New York may not prevail in Los Angeles or
in other parts of the United States, and I really want to protect the
work that has gone into this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time remaining be
turned over to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], the
drafter of the bill, on our side at least, the codrafter, and that she
be given the opportunity to yield the remainder of the time that we
have on this side.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Camp], whose name appears first on this bill.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the
subcommittee for yielding me this time and also for his leadership on
this issue.
Today the Congress has an historic opportunity to improve our child
welfare system with respect to adoption. Under the fine leadership of
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Shaw], past Congresses have already made two important changes,
providing a $5,000 tax credit for adoption expenses and eliminating
racial preferences for adoption. We now have the chance to build on
this outstanding record.
The legislation before us today will help reduce the amount of time
that children spend in foster care and increase the time they spend in
permanent loving homes. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Archer], the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Shaw], the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Rangel], ranking member of the full committee, and the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin], ranking member of the
subcommittee, for their support.
Nearly 500,000 children currently reside in foster care and thousands
more join them each year. These children can spend up to 3 years in
foster care, and since 1982 the number of children in foster care has
increased by 89 percent. For a young child, that is, far, far too long.
For too many children foster care has become a permanent solution to
their problems instead of a temporary answer. These children wait for
permanent loving homes while many parents wait to adopt children.
The names and stories are too familiar: Children returned to homes
only to face continued abuse, and child advocates torn between their
desire to reunite the family and their duty to ensure the child's
health and safety. Children deserve a compassionate but effective
system that works on their behalf, not one that subjects them to
continued abuse.
The legislation before us today strikes the appropriate balance
between parental rights and child safety.
[[Page H2017]]
The bill calls upon States to continue efforts to reunite the family,
but also realizes that in some cases reunification is not in the
child's best interest. In these cases, States are encouraged to follow
concurrent planning in order to ensure the child spends as little time
in foster care as possible.
The bipartisan legislation before us today was drafted, debated and
adopted with the full participation and support of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle. It was approved by the Committee on Ways and
Means by voice vote and enjoyed strong bipartisan support. In addition,
we have held hearings, received much public comment and received broad-
based support for these reforms.
Mr. Chairman, the children of this Nation deserve a fighting chance.
This legislation puts the system in their corner and makes sure that
our children grow up in a permanent loving home. I also want to thank
the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], the co-sponsor of
this bill, for her leadership, her strong support and her advocacy for
this issue.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I too would like to thank the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Shaw] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Levin], ranking member on the subcommittee, and I
also want to say what a delight it has been to work with the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Camp].
Mr. Chairman, every day in America 3 children, 3 innocent, precious
children, die from abuse or neglect, and every day in America 500,000
children wait in foster care for a permanent home. These statistics say
to us we certainly are not doing the best that we can do by our
children.
Today I do not suggest that the legislation before us will eliminate
child abuse for every child, though I wish I could say that, or
guarantee a permanent home for every child in foster care. It will not.
But I do believe this legislation represents a significant step forward
in providing protection and permanency for our Nation's abused and all
too often forgotten children.
I also believe the bill represents what bipartisan cooperation can
accomplish. The tension between the rights of parents and the needs of
children will be a perennial debate when we talk about child welfare.
Realizing this, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] and I began
almost a year ago, reaching out, listening, talking, meeting. Our
staffs spent hundreds of hours trying to look at this question and see
where we could jump start it so we could address some of the concerns
that we have at this very time, thinking there has been some
misunderstanding between the Federal Government and the State
governments in making sure that everything was done to protect
children. And so we ended up with this piece of legislation before us
today.
The bill has two basic goals: Preventing children from being returned
to unsafe homes, and finding safe and loving and permanent homes for
children who cannot be reunified with their families. To accomplish
this goal, our legislation revises the current Federal requirement that
States make reasonable efforts to reunify abused children with their
families. Early on in the 1980's we wrote legislation in this body and
in the other body saying every reasonable effort should be made to
return a child to the family. And in the States, those who were working
very hard to bring this about did not know where to end that. It was
not clear. In short, we are clarifying that reunifying a family is not
reasonable when it presents a clear and undeniable danger to a child.
The legislation provides States with examples of situations where
reasonable efforts are unreasonable efforts, such as when a child has
been abandoned, when a child has been tortured, where a sibling of that
child has been murdered, where there has been chronic physical abuse,
where there has been sexual abuse.
Let me say that in the best of all worlds, we all agree that the best
place for a child is with his or her parents. But we must also
recognize there are times when a child's safety is threatened by living
at home. Every one of us in this body can turn to and refer to
headlines in their papers, the terrible, heartbreaking case with little
Emily in Michigan, other cases across these United States, headlines
telling us the very worst can happen. This legislation is not only a
reaction to these kinds of situations; this legislation is on the floor
today so these situations will not make headlines, that that quiet
child locked in that terrible situation will not be forced to stay
there or will not be returned to that situation.
But it is not enough to really prevent children from returning to
dangerous homes. We must also do more to find permanent homes for
children who cannot return to their birth families. Our foster care
system, and I want to make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, is an extremely
valuable safety net, but it should not be in any way a way of life for
children.
Unfortunately, not only have the number of children in foster care
homes almost doubled in the last 12 years; what we are seeing is
younger and younger children going into that system. However, let me
say today that foster care has provided that safety net for those
children and in 1995 half the children adopted were adopted by their
loving foster care parents.
In this legislation we propose four solutions to this problem. First,
we call on States to pursue reasonable efforts to place children for
adoption when reunifying families is not possible. Second, we propose
expediting the review of foster children by requiring a permanency
hearing after 12 months, not waiting for 18 months. Third, for younger
children who have spent the last 18 months in foster care, we require
the States to consider terminating parental rights so a child can be
freed for adoption. But, of course, the courts would still have the
final word on whether termination is the best solution. And finally, we
advocate giving States financial incentives if they increase the number
of children leaving foster care for adoption.
Our legislation would provide $4,000 for every additional child that
is adopted, and $6,000 for every hard-to-care-for child in the foster
care system.
Mr. Chairman, some may say this bill does not go far enough in one
direction. Others say we certainly have not put enough financial assets
into it. I fully acknowledge that the child welfare system could use
more resources. However, I think we will find a wide consensus from the
left, from the right and all of us in between that the legislation
before us will help protect children and promote adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York [Mrs. Kelly].
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Adoption
Promotion Act, H.R. 867, and I ask that all Members do the same.
Quite simply, this measure represents Congress' commitment to
children. According to the Children's Defense Fund, in 1995, 3.1
million children were reported abused or neglected and 818 children
died as a result of abuse and neglect. Furthermore, that same year over
1.8 million youths were arrested for various crimes, over 100,000 of
which were violent crimes.
At issue here is America's future. We are failing our children if we
do not provide them with positive role models. While foster care and
those who assist in that care are doing a world of good, it will go to
waste without some sense of stability for the child. We should be
embracing and assisting those families that are willing to care for
this country's most precious resource, our children. That is what this
bill is all about. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 867.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin], the ranking member of the
subcommittee that brought forth this bill.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I very much support this bill and am glad to
rise in support of it. It is a common sense proposal that hopefully
will bring to fruition the goal of a permanent home for kids in foster
care.
This is a balanced, activist approach. Right now there is stagnation.
Kids stagnate or sometimes just move from place to place while they are
stagnating. Family reunification is the primary goal, but a recognition
that in
[[Page H2018]]
some circumstances this is not workable and beneficial for the child.
In some circumstances, such as abandonment, chronic abuse or sexual
abuse, efforts to keep the family together, those efforts do not serve
the interest of the child.
So there is a redefinition of the requirement of reasonable effort to
make sure that the child's interest is primary.
{time} 1215
The bill also requires more frequent status reviews for children in
foster care, and it gives foster parents the opportunity to be heard at
the hearings.
I want to thank, if I might, and express on behalf of so many the
appreciation to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] and to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] for their work and the
efforts of the chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw]. I hope
we will keep our eye on the ball here and not go overboard one way or
the other, but keep a balanced position here. That is what will keep in
mind the key goal, the interest of the child. Making termination of the
parental interest occur too soon will not help the child. On the other
hand, going the other way is not going to help the kid.
Also we have to remember the importance of the services that are
necessary to help these children and the parents; to delete the
provisions in this bill that relate to those services would also be a
mistake. This has been carefully crafted, and I hope we will maintain
it.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Burton].
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, last year I was very pleased to
have played a part in making sure that the adoption credit was passed.
This credit helped make adoption more affordable for numerous parents
who could not afford adoption costs.
However, it is evident that costs are not the only problem of
adopting. In fact, it is the very system that was created to help
children either be reunited with their families or be adopted that has
turned out to be the problem.
In the last decade child welfare has grown into an enormous
bureaucratic system that is biased toward preserving the family at any
cost. Consequently, foster care has become a way of life for thousands
of children while agencies continue to try and, quote, fix the problem.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend my dear colleagues, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] and the gentlewoman from Connecticut
[Mrs. Kennelly] for all their hard work on the Adoption Promotion Act
of 1997.
For years, foster care has been a black hole for thousands of
America's children. The current system has failed to help the very
children it was intended to help. Today it is estimated that over
500,000 children are in foster care while 50 to 80,000 are legally free
to be adopted. The average child is in foster care for 3 years, while 1
in 10 children remain in State care for longer than 7\1/2\ years.
The time is right to make some fundamental changes to the child
welfare system because too many children are simply wasting away. This
is a responsible bill that seeks to speed up the adoption process, in
particular for those children that have been abused or neglected.
This bill represents an important philosophical shift from the
Federal policy that makes every effort to reunite children with their
biological families to one that defines when reasonable efforts shall
not be made and determines when those children shall be placed in
permanent, loving, adoptive homes. I strongly believe that this
legislation moves in the right direction by defining reasonable
efforts, placing timelines on permanency decisions and filing for
parental termination and providing incentives to States to hasten
adoption. However, I believe that there are ways that we can strengthen
and improve the bill so that it thinks of what is best for the children
and for their well-being.
Mr. Chairman, we finally have the opportunity to help thousands of
children, and we should ensure it is an effective bill. Originally the
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] and myself were hoping to introduce
two separate amendments; however, instead Mr. Tiahrt and I will be
speaking about one separate amendment. Before that amendment is
debated, I would like to discuss one of the amendments we are not
dropping that I believe deserves thorough discussion and consideration
in the future. This amendment, once it is determined that a child shall
not be returned to his home and parental rights are to be terminated,
the State shall place the child with a family who is qualified and
willing to adopt. If the State has failed to find an adoptive home
within 90 days, then the State must contract out with a private agency
to find a family within 90 days. After that child is with the
preadoptive family for 4 months, the family would have the right to
petition for an expedited hearing to terminate parental rights and
adopt the child.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this arrangement would greatly expedite
the movement of children that are free to be adopted into permanent
homes. Currently States often take months to find parents in spite of
thousands of parents waiting to adopt. Groups such as Adopt a Special
Kid, the Dave Thomas Foundation, Institute for Justice, Adopt a
Network, and Children with AIDS say they have hundreds of parents
waiting to adopt a child.
Private agencies have proven to do a much better job because they
have the experience and are not bogged down by numerous other demands
and the financial disincentives to adopt a child and they have one
mission, to get the child into a loving adoptive home. For example,
Michigan has a successful program with the private sector, is involved
in placement of the child into a permanent home, and adoptions in the
State have doubled, and adoptions of African-American children are up
121 percent.
Kansas, which has contracted out most of its services to private
agencies, has all children, regardless of age, in permanent placement
at the end of 1 year. According to Patrick Fagan of the Heritage
Foundation, private adoption services are more efficient and more
effective than State agencies where adoption is concerned, as
illustrated by the track record of Detroit's home for African-American
children.
Mr. Chairman, there is a desperate need to get kids into permanent
and loving homes. Children are waiting too long for a permanent home.
According to a report by Dr. Carol Beevan, children wait an average of
2\1/2\ years for courts to terminate parental rights. Each month, each
day that a child spends in care, is extremely detrimental to his or her
mental and physical development and also has great cost to our society
in the forms of welfare numbers, out-of-wedlock children, and problems
with the criminal justice system.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this proposal
with my colleagues. While it will not be voted on by the House today, I
would hope that we can work with the Committee on Ways and Means, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp], the gentlewoman from Connecticut
[Mrs. Kennelly] and other interested parties to see if it can be
discussed at the conference or in future hearings.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to salute the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp],
and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] for their hard work on this
very important bill that I am an original cosponsor of. So often with
legislation around this body, we scratch the surface of trying to solve
problems. This bill goes to the heart and soul and potentially will
save thousands of lives of our Nation's children.
Right now, Mr. Chairman, we have two major problems in our foster
care system. Because of the 1980 law, oftentimes, and this has been
documented over and over and over and over in a compelling series by
the Chicago Tribune on children, that we would reunite our children
with their families only to find catastrophe to happen later on that
week or that month when that child was abused again or hung in a
bathroom and killed, and because of that 1980 law, reunification became
something that was done in too many terrible instances resulting in
catastrophic consequences for that child. This bill helps address that
problem.
[[Page H2019]]
The second problem is now we have too many children languishing in
foster care situations. Five hundred thousand children in this Nation
are in foster care. We need to develop a way to get them through a
fairly judicious and compassionate yet efficient adoptive process. This
bill helps do that.
Yesterday on the front page of the New York Times, and I would ask
that this article be entered into the Record, we find that families are
finding ways to make sure that they protect their children, when in
this article, as it articulately details, that the caseworkers had to
sit out in front of a house for 10 hours to make sure that those people
were not the kind of people that should have that child back. Please
read the article in the Record.
The article referred to is as follows:
Priority on Safety Is Keeping More Children in Foster Care
(By Peter T. Kilborn)
Richmond.--Years after their drug-addicted mother walked
out, a Juvenile Court judge in July 1996 decided to award
custody of three children--ages 10, 6 and 4--to the
grandmother of two of them.
The grandmother, whose son fathered two of the children,
seemed to have everything going for her. She had a new house,
a prominent lawyer and the power of her appeal to keep the
family intact.
But city caseworkers were skeptical, and the decision was
appealed. What they did next reflects a monumental change in
the way cities are dealing with children from troubled homes.
``We hired a private investigator to watch her house,''
said Hunter Fisher, a lawyer who is manager of human services
for the Richmond Department of Social Services. ``And in
court, we introduced 10 hours of tape showing a hundred
people entering and exiting each of two nights. Children were
coming and going, too.''
Since most of the traffic occurred in the middle of the
night, the city convinced an appellate court that the house
was being used for illicit activities, including drug
dealing, and the children remained in foster care.
Overturning the long-held premise that keeping families
together is the best policy, child-welfare officials here and
across the country have been doing everything possible to
delay or avoid the return of neglectful families. The result
is that more children are spending longer periods in foster
care. And that, in turn, is contributing to what is already
one of the biggest problems facing the child-welfare system:
a ballooning foster care population.
Since 1985, this population has almost doubled--to 500,000
children from 276,000--as an epidemic of crack cocaine use
and other drug and alcohol abuse has torn families apart. The
children stay in foster homes for three years, on average, as
overwhelmed caseworkers try to help the parents with the
problems that made them abusive or neglectful.
priority on safety means a surge in foster care
In fiscally tight times, the Federal cost of such support,
which the states match, has leaped to $3.3 billion annually
from $546 million, in large part because of the soaring cost
of treating children born with a variety of ailments because
of parental addictions.
Concern over costs, and the welfare of the children, has
led to a push for more and faster adoptions--most often by
foster parents themselves--and for permanent placements in
foster homes when adoptions cannot be arranged.
This year, two bills racing through Congress with wide
bipartisan support would urge juvenile courts to make
children's safety, rather than family preservation, their
paramount concern. The bills would offer states money for
increasing the number of adoptions from foster care. That
would mean being quicker to terminate parental rights and
would free children for adoption when preserving the family
would pose a greater risk to children's safety.
The shift in Federal policy began last year, when Congress
approved a $5,000 tax credit for each child adopted by a
family with an income below $115,000. It also removed most
barriers to interracial adoptions, making it easier for black
children to be adopted by white families.
a growing need for adoptions for foster children
Late in 1996, President Clinton ordered the Department of
Health and Human Services to find ways to double the number
of adoptions of foster children, now 27,000 a year, by 2002.
But some child-welfare experts say these changes--the move
away from keeping families intact and the push for foster
care and adoption--may go too far in the other direction.
``There has been a backlash against family preservation,''
said Susan J. Notkin, director of children's programs for the
Edna McConnell Clark Foundation in New York. ``If you have a
child at risk, you have an obligation to do something. But I
believe many children are removed because we have not taken
the time to determine what the parents need.''
Providing families with intensive services, including
therapy and drug-abuse treatment, is also much cheaper than
putting a child into foster care, Ms. Notkin said.
Adoption is not an easy answer, either. Children who have
suffered abuse and neglect often need professional help,
wherever they live, and many potential adoptive parents are
reluctant to take them on.
All the hopes, scars and frustrations of children from
abusive homes and the parents who take them in are on display
in Vickie and Tim Ladd's five-bedroom brick ranch house, with
a pool, a trampoline, a swing set and a basketball hoop in a
tranquil development just south of Richmond.
As their three foster children recounted their earliest
memories, it was easy to see why they no longer resided with
their biological parents.
``There was a lot of drinking,'' said Dawn, 17. ``My
stepfather would attack me so I'd run away.''
Her foster brother, Lonnie, 14, sweaty after jumping on the
backyard trampoline, said that when he was 8 and 9, he would
slip out into the night to look for his mother in bars.
In a heart-shaped frame in her room, Stephanie, 13, wiry
and a little fidgety, has a picture of her mother, who went
to jail briefly for beating her.
``She'd bring up her fist and hit me on the side of the
head,'' she said, mimicking the whack. ``I have A.D.H.D.,''
she said. ``That's attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
I take medicine. It calms me down.''
Calm, direct and settled after three years here, Dawn has
recaptured two lost years of school, is on the honor roll and
starts community college in the fall.
``I draw,'' Lonnie said, ``I'm going to be a comic
artist.''
Stephanie said no child of hers would need foster care.
``After I get married,'' she said, ``I want one kid. Just
one. I want a girl, but whatever God gives me, I'll deal with
it. I'm going to be strict but not too strict. She's going to
have a curfew.''
The prospects are not so clear for two children the Ladds
have adopted, Steven, 13, and Jason, 14.
When the Ladds took him in at age 4, Steven had been
sexually molested in another foster home. ``He never
forgot,'' Ms. Ladd said.
Jason came to them at 2, two years after the Ladds had
married and were told that they could not have children of
their own.
``He had been severely beaten,'' Ms. Ladd said. ``He had
broken bones. He had mental retardation and fetal alcohol
syndrome.
``He's a beautiful child,'' she said, picking up a framed
photograph.
But in November, Jason had to be moved into a group home
for children with behavioral problems. After 14 years of
marriage, Ms. Ladd had become pregnant with Zachary, and
Jason was beating her.
In communities like Richmond, with many abused and
neglected children like these, the big issue for child-
welfare officials is not so much adoption or family
preservation, but the immense and rising costs of caring for
the children. Officials say they are overworked, understaffed
and underfinanced.
The Richmond Department of Social Services has 35
caseworkers dealing with 870 foster children, about twice the
number it says it can readily serve. Staffing levels like
this in many cities have led to a lack of oversight and
failures to prevent abuse by foster parents themselves,
critics of the foster care system say.
``The crunch of children backed up in foster care is more a
statement of how damaged these children are than of the
willingness of people to adopt,'' said Michael A. Evans,
director of the department. ``There are people who are
willing to adopt healthy children. But crack mothers don't
have healthy children.''
Frederick Pond, the manager of Virginia's adoption and
foster care services, said hopes in Washington for any
increase in the number of adoptions of troubled and abused
children were way too optimistic unless the Government took
on some costs and responsibilities.
The State of Virginia, for instance, offers one of every
three adoptive parents the same $262 to $388 per child it
gives foster parents each month. And some parents get
subsidies for their children's therapy.
Even then, Mr. Pond predicted, more and more adoptive
parents will return their children to the state because of
problems.
Life has been tough, but satisfying, for Denise and
Beauregard Evans, the foster parents of Pamela, Lakisha and
Kenneth. The children have been with them since soon after
their births, and they hope to adopt them.
The Evanses are rearing 10 children, including 4 of their
own, in a split-level house on a cul-de-sac with a driveway
cluttered with children's plastic vehicles. Still in their
30's, they have sheltered 129 children for months or years.
All but their own four, who range in age from 1 to 17, have
various disabilities, including retardation, speech
impediments and hyperactivity. One was born to a girl who was
12. Another needed a blood transfusion at birth and weeks in
a hospital to start purging the crack cocaine from her body.
After school, the Evanses' house is a warren of children
doing homework and playing. Kenneth is in a tent in the
living room with a floor full of plastic balls. He was born
addicted to cocaine, Ms. Evans said. ``He's a little delayed
for a child his age,'' she said. ``Lakisha too.''
After the custody battle in the courts, Ms. Evans said, the
girls needed therapy. But
[[Page H2020]]
Pamela seems settled now. Shy and skinny, with straight, long
black hair, she is in the fourth grade and said she liked
spelling and math.
But she remembers her visits with relatives in the past.
``They were on drugs,'' she said. ``They'd act weird. I'd
go and look at TV in the other room.''
Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying this bill is revenue
neutral, it is compassionate, it will move thousands of children
through the foster care system to loving families, and instead of just
having one option of going to another country to adopt, which is a
great option, let us provide more Americans both options, to go to
another country such as China, Korea, Argentina, but also to adopt
through a more efficient yet compassionate system here at home.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp], the prime sponsor of the bill, and
I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to say that I
think this is a tremendous step in the right direction, and I want to
congratulate the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] and the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] for this great effort on moving us in
the right direction in moving kids out of a situation where they are
trapped in a system and wanting to get into the arms of loving parents
who would provide for them, and also I would like to congratulate the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], subcommittee chairman, and the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], chairman of the full committee, too,
because this is long overdue.
There are very dire circumstances that occur once in a while in the
State of Kansas. We had one young man who at the age of 14 had been in
130 foster care homes. He had been trapped in a system for 11 years
because the State would not give up on trying to rehabilitate his
parents, and they pursued one service after the other, one counseling
session after the other, and it became a focus on the parents rather
than a focus on the child.
I think that this legislation moves us to a positive situation where
we are promoting the fact that we are going to focus on children now
and that we are going to allow parents the opportunity to get their
lives in order and become good parents because I truly do believe the
best situation is when we have children in the loving home of their
birth parents. But occasionally we are unable to do that. People get
hung up on drugs, their lives are ruined by crime, and it is at times
best for children to move into a situation where they are adopted.
Adoptive homes have very positive records. Children have adjusted very
well to new parents and live very successful lives and contribute
greatly to our society, and I think that is the goal of this bill:
trying to focus on the children and move them on.
Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple of exceptions that I will discuss
fully, but I think that this bill is such a magnificent step in the
right direction that regardless of what happens today that we are going
to do a wonderful thing for the children in this country.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this
time to me, and I commend her and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Camp] for their wonderful work in bringing this legislation together
and to the floor today for our consideration. I believe this is
extraordinarily important legislation and addresses in an overdue,
albeit ultimately very important way, I think, the pendulum that the
State, that we have to deal with, as we wrestle with dysfunctional
families and the children of those families.
The 1980 Child Welfare Act clearly made the priority reunification of
families. Obviously that is a critical goal and one that is
appropriately sought out through our child welfare processes. But it
certainly is not the only priority or necessarily the overriding
priority. I think the overriding priority has to be the best interest
of the child, what is in the best interests of the children of these
families, and I think sometimes under the 1980 legislation that has
been relegated to a secondary status. We can all agree that there ought
to be no higher priority than the health and safety of children, the
children of these families.
{time} 1230
So, as this act before us does, putting that as the clear priority,
overriding the unification of families, if there is even an issue that
the health or safety of the child might be threatened by reunification
is a very important step to take.
A little more difficult, and I think one that the bill addresses in a
balanced and thoughtful fashion, is how long do we give the process
time to work before we give up on reunification and pursue full speed
ahead on getting the child placed in a permanent family arrangement.
The shorter timeframes which this bill would move forward, I also
think, are terribly important. We have unacceptable circumstances of
children languishing in foster homes, or maybe a series of foster
homes, while social workers patiently try to work with parents who just
have not been able to grow up and deal responsibly with their parental
responsibilities.
There comes a time when the child is hurt from this attention to
reunification, and that is not acceptable. The child's interests have
to be paramount, and I believe the shorter timeframes will help us in
this regard.
Let me tell my colleagues just a for-instance that happened to me. I
was watching a lovely little boy, about 18 months, wander around a
shop, and I was speaking with him, about the age of my son. I spoke
with who I thought was the mother of this child. She indicated that she
was in fact a foster mother. She had had this boy from the time he was
6 months old; she had had him 1 year.
There was no question from the interaction between the child and the
mother that the child thought that this woman was his mother, and yet
they were in this indeterminate foster care status while they waited
for unification.
We cannot let these things languish. As I wrap up, I support this
legislation, commend its sponsors. Let us put interests of the children
first, as advanced by this legislation.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Kentucky [Mrs. Northup].
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I think on the floor today when we think
about how much time we spend discussing building roads, building
schools, building businesses, it is really wonderful to take a day and
talk about building families.
Families with children are created in two ways. The children come by
birth and they come by adoption. In our family, my husband and I have
six children. Two of those children, our third child and our fifth
child, are hard-to-place children that came to our family years ago.
They have brought such wonderful gifts to this family. They have
brought such diversity, diversity of talents, diversity of interests,
and diversity of race.
It is a team of six children that are full of life, full of noise,
full of interests. I wish those two children that have brought such a
wonderful presence to our home could be with us here today and that I
could introduce my colleagues to them.
Twenty-one years ago, when my husband and I adopted the first of
those two children, we had a lot of love and energy. We had a ready-
made family. We had no money. So it was quite a decision, quite a
strain, to make the decision that we could, in fact, adopt that child.
The bill that is before us today will give to families across this
country the opportunity to have the wonderful gifts that adopted
children bring to families. In fact, it makes me very emotional to
think of the special blessings that will come to so many families
because of this bill.
There will be no building that we can do in this Chamber any time
that will be more important than the building of families that are part
of this bill.
[[Page H2021]]
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], and I thank the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Camp] as well on the Republican side. This is clearly a
bipartisan, nonpartisan bill.
My colleagues before me have spoken on the priority, the premise, the
focus that was articulated in 1980, and that was that we ought to unify
families. My wife, who supervised early childhood education in Prince
George's County, and I talked about this because of a case that was
reported in the Washington Post of a young man named Dooney Waters. He
was a young man who lived in a crack house. He was a young man who was
not fed for days at a time. He was a young man whose bedroom was
unavailable to him because it was being used to light up.
There is a recent story that my colleagues may have read, those of
them who serve here, about a 5-year-old in Montgomery County, reunited
with his father after his father had physically abused him. Judges with
whom I have talked have been concerned about the premise of the Federal
statute which said that we must reunite unless we can make an
extraordinary finding to mitigate against that conclusion.
Previous speakers have said, the premise must be, and this bill
adopts that premise and furthers that premise, the best interests of
the child. There is no excuse for society to return or to allow a
helpless, defenseless child to be subjected to abuse by those who
society believes ought to be that child's major protector. This bill
accelerates a process of placing the child in a safe and nurturing
home.
I am very pleased to rise in support of this legislation for all the
Dooney Waters of this country and for our future, which will be made
better by making children safer.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support on H.R. 867, the Adoption
Promotion Act.
Our child welfare system too often protects parents' rights rather
than children's rights. Severe child abuse quadrupled between 1986 and
1993. Thirty-nine percent of the children who died of abuse or neglect
between 1989 and 1991 were known to agencies before they died. Monday's
Montgomery Journal reported that hundreds of children in Montgomery
County will be reunited with parents who abused them. Putting a child
back in their parent's home can be deadly.
You may remember a child named Dooney Waters. The Washington Post ran
a series of stories on him in 1989. Dooney was raised in a crack house
in Prince Georges County, MD. Dooney spent days at a time hiding behind
his bed. All he ate were sandwiches his teachers sent. The bathrooms in
Dooney's house did not work. Dooney was burned by boiling water and his
hand was singed by a can used to heat crack cocaine. Dooney begged his
teachers to take him home with them. Prince Georges County Social
Services investigated Dooney's case, but did nothing. Eventually,
Dooney's father removed him from the crack house.
H.R. 867 speeds up the adoption process for children who have been
abused and neglected. The bill requires expedited terminated of
parental rights in chronic cases of abuse or neglect, such as Dooney's.
Mr. Chairman, America must strengthen its commitment to the child
victims of neglectful parents: both custodial and noncustodial. We made
a number of improvements to child support enforcement in last year's
welfare reform law. We can do even more. Soon I will introduce
legislation to strengthen Federal criminal penalties for noncustodial
parents who neglect their child support obligations. In the meantime, I
urge my colleagues to remember Dooney Waters and support the Adoption
Promotion Act today.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
Connecticut for yielding me this time.
With an abbreviated time frame, let me simply applaud the work of the
committee and the leadership on this legislation, because this is pro-
children. I would hope that, as we proceed with this general debate, we
will have an opportunity at a later time when I will be discussing on
the floor of the House a sense of Congress, to add discussion regarding
protection for the children under this act, and that would include
background checks for foster parents and adoptive parents.
It would also include the issue of dealing with early drug treatment
for any parents who may have that problem who have our children in
their care. Certainly I would argue that, though, no cultural
difference should be a prohibition for adoption for foster care but a
cultural sensitivity to those who are adopting the foster care of our
children.
The most important thing that this legislation does is that it
supports moving our children to a loving home. For that reason, I
support this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank and commend my colleague, Barbara
Kennelly, for the exemplary work that she has done in bringing this
much needed legislation to the floor.
I know that Congresswoman Kennelly shares my passion and commitment
to our Nation's children and has worked diligently to bring this
legislation before the full House for consideration.
In 1995, 494,000 of our Nation's children lived in the foster care
system. According to the American Public Welfare Association [APWA],
about 450,000 children live in foster care at any given moment, and as
many as 600,000 children live in foster care during the course of any
given year.
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 a 123 percent increase from 1983 and the
number still 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.
These children need and deserve the comfort, love, and protection of
a family, therefore it is right that this Congress should do all that
is within its power to assist them in this need.
There are a few issues, however, that I would like to raise. In the
Senate, Senators Chafee and Rockefeller have offered S. 511,
legislation very similar to that we have before us today. There are a
number of provisions in that bill that I think are very important.
The Senate version of this legislation has requirements for criminal
records checks for prospective foster and adoptive parents and group
care staff. This provision will go a long way to ensure that adoptive
parents are prepared and suitable parents for children.
Today we will case votes to influence the lives and fortunes of our
Nation's most vulnerable citizens--our children.
They cannot vote and they do not have resources to influence this or
any political process, but each of us have a special place in our lives
for children. I would like to request on their behalf that we ensure
that adoptive children are offered the extra protection of substance
abuse treatment for their adoptive parents or caretaker parents.
During the screening process foster care or adoption parents and
caretakers should be and must be carefully screened, but we should also
provide resources should the problem of substance abuse become evident
after a child has been placed.
This measure's inclusion in the final version of this legislation
would ensure that the prospective adoptive parents were sensitive to
the child's ethnic or racial background as a requirement for adoption.
An area that I believe is of utmost importance is the preparation of
foster or adoptive parents for the reception of a child from a
different race or culture.
The real differences that separate people in our society can be the
building blocks for bringing them together. If we aid the adoptive
parents to instill a foundation which is pro-sharing and pro-caring
regarding the diversity of the new family unit then we can aid these
families in developing a strong support system for their adopted child.
If a child is Italian, Native American, Greek, Polish, African-
American, Asian, Indian, or Hispanic, or many of the other diverse
cultures or peoples that make up our great Nation, their culture is
rich with history and customs that the child should not be robbed of
through adoption or foster care.
It is extremely important that adoptive parents are sensitive to the
cultural backgrounds of the children they adopt.
In no way should the racial or ethnic identity of the parents
prohibit adoption, but developing an understanding of the child's
heritage will contribute toward the overall development and stability
of the child in later life.
H.R. 867 is a major step in the right direction and I look forward to
working with my colleagues on this issue in the furtherance of
legislation that is pro-child and pro-family.
[[Page H2022]]
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Adoption
Promotion Act, and I want to commend my colleagues, the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Camp], for their unyielding efforts to ensure that all of our children
have a chance to settle into a loving, and into a permanent home.
Every child deserves the chance to grow up healthy and happy, ready
to learn and to be able to succeed in life. Every day, children are
growing, not only physically, but emotionally and intellectually. These
years are too precious and too important to spend in abusive or
unstable care.
But in today's foster care system, it can take years before a child
is adopted and settled into a permanent and caring home.
This bill accelerates the process for adoption proceedings. It makes
sure that foster children who come from a life of abuse can be removed
from these situations into a loving and a caring environment. Finally,
it helps States to help children and families by providing financial
assistance to increase the number of adoptions.
The bill takes an important step toward balancing the rights of
parents with the rights of children to loving and caring and stable
homes. We need the bill now. Our children cannot wait. I urge my
colleagues to vote for the Adoption Promotion Act.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Michigan has been aggressively pursuing better rules and regulations
and laws under the guidance of our Lt. Gov. Connie Binsfeld, to work in
this area of making adoption laws more practical, more realistic, and
more helpful for those children that need it. I would like to commend
my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Camp, for working and passing this
exceptional legislation that is going to help not only the State of
Michigan but all of our States and all of our children in this country.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman [Mrs. Kennelly]
for yielding me this time.
I would just like to say over the years I have been here there has
not been a more aggressive advocate for children than the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], and I want to compliment her today on
the achievement of bringing this bill to the floor. I want to
compliment the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] who has also done a
fine job, and also the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] who has worked
previously to try and help children all through our country.
Two things concern me. Many people back in our district back in the
Youngstown area have gone overseas and spent $30 to $40,000 to adopt a
child from Russia or other countries. I think that we must do
everything possible to promote the adoption of our own children,
American children.
Now, my amendment that I am offering to this bill today is pretty
consistent with my focus here. And to make sure that everybody
understands it, it is not a buy-American-child amendment. It just
states, for any funds ultimately expended to procure products and goods
pursuant to this act, that the Congress recommends, not mandates, that
they buy American-made goods so our kids would have a home where the
parent is getting a paycheck who could then pay taxes to keep this
train coming down the track. That is simply what it is. It gives us a
handle on the type of procurement we got. It does not mandate that we
buy American kids.
Mr. Chairman, I would say this. We have had an awful lot of Americans
going overseas expending thousands and thousands of dollars to adopt
kids from foreign countries. All efforts must be made, and I commend
the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Camp], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], and the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], for making that possible here
today.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I have no further
speakers, but before I yield back the balance of my time, I would like
to just quote from a few letters that the committee and the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Shaw] received in reference to this bill.
For example, Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala
wrote, ``This legislation would further the President's effort to
ensure the safety, permanency and well-being of children in the child
welfare system and we strongly support the enactment.''
Further, the Children's Defense Fund has said, ``The bill takes some
important steps to keep children safe and to provide them with
permanent homes.''
Finally, the Heritage Foundation declares: ``This bipartisan
legislation is a responsible attempt to speed up the adoption process
for children who have been abused and have been neglected.''
I hope that this broad spectrum of support shows that we have made
every effort to listen to those who have spent so much time in the
child welfare area.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 867,
the Adoption Promotion Act of 1997, and I commend my colleagues Dave
Camp and Barbara Kennelly for their work in fashioning this important
bipartisan legislation.
This bill is designed to fix some very troubling problems in our
Nation's adoption and foster-care programs by striking a balance
between the goals of keeping families intact where possible, and, when
necessary, moving kids quickly into permanent, loving homes.
Under current law, States are required to make reasonable efforts
both to keep maltreated children from being unnecessarily removed from
their families, and, if children are removed, to reunify them with
their families.
Keeping families intact when possible, is preferable. But in the
absence of clear laws or regulations defining reasonable efforts, there
has been considerable confusion about when to bypass or discontinue
such efforts, and place a child up for adoption. In other words, the
reasonable efforts provision has sometimes served to keep kids in
foster homes, instead of in permanent adoptive homes, longer than
necessary.
H.R. 867 represents a well-crafted refinement of current law. Under
its provisions, States would no longer be required to attempt
reunification of families in cases where aggravated circumstances such
as chronic or sexual abuse exist. The bill also creates a clear
timetable with binding time limits for the initiation of adoption
proceedings once a child has been placed in foster care. In an
important clarification, the bill provides foster parents the
opportunity to be heard at child placement hearings. Finally, the bill
creates a set of incentives for States to successfully place children
in permanent adoptive homes.
Mr. Chairman, as the mother of four children, I feel very strongly
that a stable, permanent, loving family is vital to a child's
development. This bill will remove an obstacle between kids and
adoptive parents, and help move kids into a long-term nurturing
environment. I can think of few issues more important, and I urge my
colleagues to support passage.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this legislation
promotion adoption for the children of this Nation who most desperately
require our care and protection.
The neglected or abused children whom we are seeking to assist today
are tragic cases and our hearts go out to them. Reflecting the
importance of this bill and the concern we all have for these innocent
children, the cooperative, bipartisan procedures with which the Ways
and Means Committee handled this bill could be a model for Congress. My
colleagues, Representatives Camp and Kennelly who shaped this bill,
Chairmen Archer and Shaw, and Mr. Rangel are all to be congratulated.
This bill strikes a balance as the Government steps into these most
difficult, tragic family situations to separate children permanently
from abusive and/or neglectful parents. We all want to see these
children moved through foster care into loving, adoptive families as
quickly as possible.
At the same time, through the timely provision of social services--
whether substance abuse treatment, counseling, or other means of
support--many families may be reunified successfully. This bill
provides a chance for States to investigate often complex family
circumstances and attempt corrective actions through support services,
but limits their time so that children do not spend their youths moving
between foster homes.
There will be debate today as to whether we have found the correct
balance between reunifying families, and providing permanent, loving
homes to our most troubled children--but we all share the same goals.
[[Page H2023]]
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, it pains me to know that our children in
foster care are being reunited with abusive families. Our current
broken system places more importance on returning children to the
natural parents, despite circumstances such as abandonment and chronic
physical or sexual abuse, over placing these chldren in strong, loving
families. This is not right. The Adoption Promotion Act will correct
this inequity. It is the right thing to do for America's foster
children.
Today, there are over 500,000 children in custody of various State
foster-care programs. However, fewer than 50,000 children per year move
from foster care into permanent homes. Less than 10 percent of our
foster children are adopted each year, not for lack of adoptive
families, but because Washington bureaucracy is preventing these
families from making foster children a permanent part of thier life.
Mr. Chairman, the adoption process needs to be swift and efficient.
The Adoption Promotion Act will amend current law to expedite the
movement of children into permanent and loving homes. It will make the
interests of the child the primary concern. We need to ensure that
foster children are placed in loving homes and not with abusive
families.
The strength of our Nation is based on strong families. This
bipartisan legislation empowers those who know the best way to move
children from foster care into loving, stable families. Returning these
children to abusive families strips these children of the hopes and
dreams they have for themselves. This bill will place more children in
loving homes and give them the fighting chance that they so deserve.
Mr. Chairman, by streamlining the adoption process and cutting the
Washington bureaucracy, we will take the first steps toward increasing
the number of happy and healthy children with good families and
promising futures. America's foster children deserve the very best and
this legislation will help them to reach their goals. I am proud to
support the Adoption Promotion Act.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I rise in opposition to the enactment of H.R.
867 because I object to the removal of the safeguards which now protect
the rights of parents whose children have been placed in foster care.
I agree that we all can recite a litany of cases of children who have
been abused, and neglected by parents and for whom expedited adoption
is fully justified.
Still since the enactment of the most punitive bill ever to pass
Congress in the name of welfare reform, we all know that there will be
parents who will lose their cash benefits and be unable to feed and
house their small children. State child welfare agencies will move to
take custody of these unfortunate children because the parents no
longer have any funds to provide for them and are not able to find
work. Because of the welfare law children will undoubtedly be found
living in abandoned car bodies, and other unhealthful conditions
without running water or heat or cooking facilities. Under these
circumstances, as predictable, State child welfare agencies will be
compelled to move these children from their parents and place them in
foster homes.
Poverty, I do not believe is a justifiable reason for terminating
parental rights over their children.
The temporary best interests of the child may be to move him or her
into a foster home. But, I do not believe, that move justifies the
national Government to establish adoption as a penalty due to poverty
of the parents.
If conditions of adoption exist, it should be left to the States to
make these determinations. A Congress that has repeatedly argued States
rights should not abandon that principle and enact legislation whose
title in section 3 provides: States required to initiate or join
proceedings to terminate parental rights for certain children in foster
care, entering foster care after October 1, 1997.
The committee report states, ``in the case of children under age of
10 who have been in foster care at least 18 of the past 24 months, the
bill requires States to move toward terminating parental rights under
most circumstances.''
Prior to the enactment of the welfare reform this bill might have
been supportable.
But in combination with the welfare reform bill enacted last August
1996, I find that circumstances of poverty and lack of work, could not
under H.R. 867 become the sole basis for the termination of parental
rights. This offends my fundamental beliefs about the inherent rights
of parents and the inalienable rights of children to the love and
protection of their natural parents which should not be terminated
except when there is serious debilitating circumstances such as drug
abuse, physical brutality, torture, and sexual abuse.
Reading the bill and committee report provides no assurance that the
rights of poor parents are protected.
It is easy enough to state that adoption will be in the best
interests of the child, who will have a better home to live in and a
higher quality material environment than the one from which they came.
This however ignores that basic undifferentiable family value of the
love of a parent.
I cannot vote for a bill that takes welfare reform one step closer to
the final penalty of poverty: The loss of one's children by edict of
the Government.
First you take their money away. Then you force them into desperate
conditions of poverty. Then you deem them unfit to raise their children
and you remove them from the home and place them in foster homes. Then
after 18 months you put the children up for adoption.
Whose family values do we stand for?
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the issue of
international adoption. Though I will not be offering any amendments to
the Adoption Promotion Act, I hope to work with the sponsors of this
bill, Representatives David Camp and Barbara Kennelly, to address an
issue brought to my attention by two of my constituents, David and
Carolyn Steigman.
Mr. and Mrs. Steigman of Bay Village, Ohio, adopted their daughter,
Rayna, from India. But the Internal Revenue Service has ruled that only
Social Security numbers can be used for proof when taking tax credits
for dependent children. This ruling is unfair to families that adopt
children from outside of this country since children do not arrive here
with a Social Security number.
Depending on the State of residence, the delay in obtaining a Social
Security number can be anywhere from 2 to 3 years. Meanwhile, these
families--which have gone to considerable length and expense to provide
a home for a needy child--are unable to take advantage of the tax
credits for adoption expenses that the President and Congress have
enacted.
I hope to work with the sponsors of the Adoption Promotion Act,
Representatives Camp and Kennelly, to address the issue of
international adoption; specifically, to consider the idea raised by
Mr. and Mrs. Steigman to allow adoption and guardianship papers to be
used as adequate proof for the purposes of taking tax exemptions.
Mr. Chairman. I include my constituents' letter and a letter to the
IRS for the Record.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington DC, April 30, 1997.
Ms. Margaret Milner Richardson,
Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Richardson: An unintended consequence of a recent
Internal Revenue Service ruling has come to my attention by
two of my constituents, David and Carolyn Steigman.
The IRS has recently ruled that only a Social Security
number can be used to take tax exemptions for children. This
ruling has become an undue burden on families that want to
adopt a child from a foreign country since children from a
foreign country do not arrive here with a Social Security
number. Depending upon the state, adoptive parents have to
wait a period of time before they can file for a domestic
adoption. Once the family has filed, they have to wait for a
court date. Once the domestic adoption is approved, the
family must apply to the Internal Revenue Service for their
child's citizenship. All of this red tape could potentially
add up to several years before a Social Security number is
given.
As Mr. and Mrs. Steigman point out in their letter, it
seems ironic that at the same time the President and Congress
have passed tax credits for adoption expenses, the IRS is
throwing up barriers to the tax credits that adoptive
families are legally entitled to. And considering that
adoption and guardianship papers are legal documents, it
seems reasonable that this problem could be addressed by
accepting this documentation as proof of a dependent child
for the purposes of taking tax credits.
I appreciate your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich,
Member of Congress.
____
David and Carolyn Steigman,
Bay Village, OH.
Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich,
Cleveland, OH.
Dear Congressman Kucinich: We are writing to bring to your
attention a situation which we believe is unfair and
unlawful. It involves a serious financial hardship that the
IRS has recently decided to impose on the families of
children adopted from foreign countries.
Specifically, the IRS has now decided that it will disallow
any exemption for a child without a social security number.
No other proof regarding your dependent child is acceptable.
If a child is from a foreign country they, of course, do not
have a social security number. In many cases, such as
children being adopted from India, obtaining one is not a
quick or easy matter.
Adoptive parents have legal guardianship (and therefore,
under federal law, are entitled to a tax exemption) when the
child enters the home. Ohio law requires that the family wait
at least six months before they can even file for a domestic
adoption. After filing, the family must wait for an available
court appointment. After the domestic adoption is approved by
the court, the parents
[[Page H2024]]
must apply to INS for their child's citizenship. The
naturalization process can take another four to six months.
After citizenship is granted, they can apply for a social
security number. If everything goes smoothly, the process
takes about 18 months. If it doesn't, which is very possible,
the wait can be much longer.
The IRS has stated that after the social security number
has been obtained, the adopting family may file amended
returns to get the exemptions. But in the case of a family
adopting a sibling group of two, that means the IRS will be
holding on to thousands of the family's dollars for two years
or more.
Foreign adoptions are very expensive. We had to take out a
second mortgage on our home to adopt our daughter, Rayna.
This new policy hits adoptive families at the end of the
process, when they can least afford it.
It seems ironic that at the same time the President and
Congress have passed generous tax credits for adoption
expenses, the IRS is trying to withhold or delay tax
exemptions that adoptive parents are legally entitled to.
In February, when we filed our federal tax return, we did
not yet have Rayna's social security number. We have enclosed
a copy of the letter sent to us by the IRS, denying the
exemption. We are fortunate--we have recently received her
social security number, and are now filing an amended return.
If all goes well, we will ``only'' be short $750 for three or
four months, plus the cost of our tax preparer filing an
amended return. Families just now adopting foreign children
may lose much more, especially if they have adopted more than
one child.
Anything you can do to get the IRS to change this illegal
new policy that runs counter to the intent of both Congress
and the Administration will be greatly appreciated by
ourselves and adoptive families throughout the country.
Sincerely,
David and Carolyn Steigman.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately for this country, few Members
of the 105th Congress have received word that the era of big government
is over. While I rise today in opposition to passage of H.R. 867, The
Adoption Promotion Act, I could be referring to any number of bills
already passed by this Congress.
As a medical doctor, I share with other Members of Congress the
strong distaste for the needless suffering of helpless, displaced, and
orphaned children. As a U.S. Congressman, I remain committed to
returning the Federal Government to its proper constitutional role.
Fortuitously, these two convictions are not incongruous.
This country's founders recognized the genius of separating power
amongst Federal, State, and local governments as a means to protect the
rights of citizens, maximize individual liberty, and make government
most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence
it. This constitutionally mandated separation of powers strictly
limited the role of the Federal Government and, at the same time,
anticipated that matters of family law would be dealt with at the State
or local level.
Legislating in direct opposition to these constitutional principles,
H.R. 867 would impose additional and numerous Federal mandates upon the
States; appropriate $138 million over the next 5 years to be paid to
States that obediently follow Federal mandates; and further expand the
duties of the Health and Human Services Department to include
monitoring the performance of States in matters of family law.
Even as a practical matter, I remain convinced that the best
interests of children are optimally served to redirecting tax dollars--
which under this legislation would be sent to Washington in an attempt
to nationalize child adoption procedures and standards--to private
charities or State and local child advocacy organizations.
For each of these reasons, I oppose passage of H.R. 867, the Adoption
Promotion Act.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the
bill, modified as specified in House Report 105-82, shall be considered
by sections as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. Pursuant
to the rule, each section is considered as having been read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered as read.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Adoption
Promotion Act of 1997''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Clarification of the reasonable efforts requirement.
Sec. 3. States required to initiate or join proceedings to terminate
parental rights for certain children in foster care.
Sec. 4. Adoption incentive payments.
Sec. 5. Earlier status reviews and permanency hearings.
Sec. 6. Notice of reviews and hearings; opportunity to be heard.
Sec. 7. Documentation of reasonable efforts to adopt.
Sec. 8. Kinship care.
Sec. 9. Use of the Federal Parent Locator Service for child welfare
services.
Sec. 10. Performance of States in protecting children.
Sec. 11. Authority to approve more child protection demonstration
projects.
Sec. 12. Technical assistance.
Sec. 13. Coordination of substance abuse and child protection services.
Sec. 14. Clarification of eligible population for independent living
services.
Sec. 15. Effective date.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record and
open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of
a substitute, as modified by House Report 105-82, is as follows:
SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF THE REASONABLE EFFORTS REQUIREMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 471(a)(15) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15)) is amended to read as follows:
``(15)(A) provides that--
``(i) except as provided in clauses (ii) and (iii),
reasonable efforts shall be made--
``(I) before a child is placed in foster care, to prevent
or eliminate the need to remove the child from the child's
home; and
``(II) to make it possible for the child to return home;
``(ii) if continuation of reasonable efforts of the type
described in clause (i) is determined to be inconsistent with
the permanency plan for the child, reasonable efforts of the
type required by clause (iii)(II) shall be made;
``(iii) if a court of competent jurisdiction has determined
that the child has been subjected to aggravated circumstances
(as defined by State law, which definition may include
abandonment, torture, chronic abuse, and sexual abuse) or
parental conduct described in section 106(b)(2)(A)(xii) of
the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, or that the
parental rights of a parent with respect to a sibling of the
child have been terminated involuntarily--
``(I) reasonable efforts of the type described in clause
(i) shall not be required to be made with respect to any
parent of the child who has been involved in subjecting the
child to such circumstances or such conduct, or whose
parental rights with respect to a sibling of the child have
been terminated involuntarily; and
``(II) if reasonable efforts of the type described in
clause (i) are not made or are discontinued, reasonable
efforts shall be made to place the child for adoption, with a
legal guardian, or (if adoption or legal guardianship is
determined not to be appropriate for the child) in some other
planned, permanent living arrangement; and
``(iv) reasonable efforts of the type described in clause
(iii)(II) may be made concurrently with reasonable efforts of
the type described in clause (i); and
``(B) in determining the reasonable efforts to be made with
respect to a child and in making such reasonable efforts, the
child's health and safety shall be of paramount concern;''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 472(a)(1) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 672(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ``for a child''
before ``have been made''.
SEC. 3. STATES REQUIRED TO INITIATE OR JOIN PROCEEDINGS TO
TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN
IN FOSTER CARE.
(a) In General.--Section 475(5) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 675(5)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) in the case of a child who has not attained 10 years
of age and has been in foster care under the responsibility
of the State for 18 months of the most recent 24 months, the
State shall file a petition to terminate the parental rights
of the child's parents (or, if such a petition has been filed
by another party, seek to be joined as a party to the
petition), unless--
``(i) at the option of the State, the child is being cared
for by a relative;
``(ii) a State court or State agency has documented a
compelling reason for determining that filing such a petition
would not be in the best interests of the child; or
``(iii) the State has not provided to the family of the
child such services as the State deems appropriate, if
reasonable efforts of the type described in section
471(a)(15)(A)(i) are required to be made with respect to the
child.''.
(b) Limitation on Applicability.--The amendments made by
subsection (a) shall apply only to children entering foster
care on or after October 1, 1997.
[[Page H2025]]
SEC. 4. ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--Part E of title IV of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 670-679) is amended by inserting after section
473 the following:
``SEC. 473A. ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.
``(a) Grant Authority.--Subject to the availability of such
amounts as may be provided in appropriations Acts, the
Secretary shall make a grant to each State that is an
incentive-eligible State for a fiscal year in an amount equal
to the adoption incentive payment payable to the State for
the fiscal year under this section, which shall be payable in
the immediately succeeding fiscal year.
``(b) Incentive-Eligible State.--A State is an incentive-
eligible State for a fiscal year if--
``(1) the State has a plan approved under this part for the
fiscal year;
``(2) the number of foster child adoptions in the State
during the fiscal year exceeds the base number of foster
child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year;
``(3) the State is in compliance with subsection (c) for
the fiscal year; and
``(4) the fiscal year is any of fiscal years 1998 through
2002.
``(c) Data Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--A State is in compliance with this
subsection for a fiscal year if the State has provided to the
Secretary the data described in paragraph (2) for fiscal year
1997 (or, if later, the fiscal year that precedes the 1st
fiscal year for which the State seeks a grant under this
section) and for each succeeding fiscal year.
``(2) Determination of numbers of adoptions.--
``(A) Determinations based on afcars data.--Except as
provided in subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall determine
the numbers of foster child adoptions and of special needs
adoptions in a State during each of fiscal years 1997 through
2002, for purposes of this section, on the basis of data
meeting the requirements of the system established pursuant
to section 479, as reported by the State in May of the fiscal
year and in November of the succeeding fiscal year, and
approved by the Secretary by April 1 of the succeeding fiscal
year.
``(B) Alternative data sources permitted for fiscal year
1997.--For purposes of the determination described in
subparagraph (A) for fiscal year 1997, the Secretary may use
data from a source or sources other than that specified in
subparagraph (A) that the Secretary finds to be of equivalent
completeness and reliability, as reported by a State by
November 30, 1997, and approved by the Secretary by March 1,
1998.
``(3) No waiver of afcars requirements.--This section shall
not be construed to alter or affect any requirement of
section 479 or any regulation prescribed under such section
with respect to reporting of data by States, or to waive any
penalty for failure to comply with the requirements.
``(d) Adoption Incentive Payment.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
adoption incentive payment payable to a State for a fiscal
year under this section shall be equal to the sum of--
``(A) $4,000, multiplied by amount (if any) by which the
number of foster child adoptions in the State during the
fiscal year exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions
for the State for the fiscal year; and
``(B) $2,000, multiplied by the amount (if any) by which
the number of special needs adoptions in the State during the
fiscal year exceeds the base number of special needs
adoptions for the State for the fiscal year.
``(2) Pro rata adjustment if insufficient funds
available.--If the total amount of adoption incentive
payments otherwise payable under this section for a fiscal
year exceeds $15,000,000, the amount of the adoption
incentive payment payable to each State under this section
for the fiscal year shall be--
``(A) the amount of the adoption incentive payment that
would otherwise be payable to the State under this section
for the fiscal year; multiplied by
``(B) the percentage represented by $15,000,000, divided by
the total amount of adoption incentive payments otherwise
payable under this section for the fiscal year.
``(e) 2-Year Availability of Incentive Payments.--Payments
to a State under this section in a fiscal year shall remain
available for use by the State through the end of the
succeeding fiscal year.
``(f) Limitations on Use of Incentive Payments.--A State
shall not expend an amount paid to the State under this
section except to provide to children or families any service
(including post adoption services) that may be provided under
part B or E. Amounts expended by a State in accordance with
the preceding sentence shall be disregarded in determining
State expenditures for purposes of Federal matching payments
under section 474.
``(g) Definitions.--As used in this section:
``(1) Foster child adoption.--The term `foster child
adoption' means the final adoption of a child who, at the
time of adoptive placement, was in foster care under the
supervision of the State.
``(2) Special needs adoption.--The term `special needs
adoption' means the final adoption of a child for whom an
adoption assistance agreement is in effect under section 473.
``(3) Base number of foster child adoptions.--The term
`base number of foster child adoptions for a State' means,
with respect to a fiscal year, the largest number of foster
child adoptions in the State in fiscal year 1997 (or, if
later, the 1st fiscal year for which the State has furnished
to the Secretary the data described in subsection (c)(2)) or
in any succeeding fiscal year preceding the fiscal year.
``(4) Base number of special needs adoptions.--The term
`base number of special needs adoptions for a State' means,
with respect to a fiscal year, the largest number of special
needs adoptions in the State in fiscal year 1997 (or, if
later, the 1st fiscal year for which the State has furnished
to the Secretary the data described in subsection (c)(2)) or
in any succeeding fiscal year preceding the fiscal year.
``(h) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--For grants under this section, there are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $15,000,000
for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
``(2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated under paragraph
(1) are authorized to remain available until expended, but
not after fiscal year 2003.''.
(b) Discretionary Cap Adjustment for Adoption Incentive
Payments.--
(1) Section 251 amendment.--Section 251(b)(2) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(I) Adoption incentive payments.--Whenever a bill or
joint resolution making appropriations for fiscal year 1999,
2000, 2001, or 2002 is enacted that specifies an amount for
adoption incentive payments for the Department of Health and
Human Services--
``(i) the adjustments for new budget authority shall be the
amounts of new budget authority provided in that measure for
adoption incentive payments, but not to exceed $15,000,000;
and
``(ii) the adjustment for outlays shall be the additional
outlays flowing from such amount.''.
(2) Section 606 amendment.--Section 606 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(f) Adoption Incentive Payments Adjustment.--
``(1) In general.--(A)(i) When the Committee on
Appropriations reports an appropriation measure for fiscal
year 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003 that specifies an amount
for adoption incentive payments for the Department of Health
and Human Services, or when a conference committee submits a
conference report thereon, the chairman of the Committee on
the Budget of the Senate or House of Representatives
(whichever is appropriate) shall--
``(I) make adjustments for the amounts of new budget
authority provided by that appropriation measure for such
payments, which shall be the amount of new budget authority
provided in that measure for adoption incentive payments, but
not to exceed $15,000,000; and
``(II) make adjustment for outlays, which shall be in an
amount equal to the additional outlays flowing from such
amount.
``(ii) If the adjustments referred to in the preceding
sentence are made for an appropriations measure that is not
enacted into law, then the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the House of Representatives shall, as soon as
practicable, reverse those adjustments.
``(iii) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the
House of Representatives shall submit any adjustments made
under this subparagraph to the House of Representatives and
have such adjustments published in the Congressional Record.
``(B) The adjustments referred to in this paragraph consist
of adjustments to--
``(i) the discretionary spending limits for that fiscal
year as set forth in the most recently adopted concurrent
resolution on the budget;
``(ii) the allocations to the Committees on Appropriations
of the Senate and the House of Representatives for that
fiscal year under sections 302(a) and 602(a); and
``(iii) the appropriate budgetary aggregates for that
fiscal year in the most recently adopted concurrent
resolution on the budget.
``(C) The adjusted discretionary spending limits,
allocations, and aggregates under this paragraph shall be
considered the appropriate limits, allocations, and
aggregates for purposes of congressional enforcement of this
Act and concurrent budget resolutions under this Act.
``(2) Reporting revised suballocations.--Following the
adjustments made under paragraph (1), the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
may report appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to
sections 302(b) and 602(b) of this Act to carry out this
subsection.
``(3) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
`adoption incentive payments' shall have the same meaning as
provided in section 251(b)(2)(I) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.''.
SEC. 5. EARLIER STATUS REVIEWS AND PERMANENCY HEARINGS.
Section 475(5)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
675(5)(C)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``eighteen months after'' and inserting
``12 months after'';
(2) by striking ``dispositional'' and inserting
``permanency''; and
(3) by striking ``future status of'' and all that follows
through ``long-term basis)'' and inserting ``permanency plan
for the child (including whether (and, if applicable, when)
the child will be returned to the parent, the child will be
placed for adoption and the State will file a petition to
terminate the parental rights of the parent, a legal guardian
will be appointed for the child, or the child will be placed
in some other planned, permanent living arrangement,
including in the custody of another fit and willing
relative)''.
SEC. 6. NOTICE OF REVIEWS AND HEARINGS; OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD.
Section 475(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
675(5)), as amended by section 3 of this Act, is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (E)
and inserting ``; and''; and
[[Page H2026]]
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) the foster parents (if any) of a child and any
relative providing care for the child are provided with
notice of, and an opportunity to be heard in, any review or
hearing to be held with respect to the child, except that
this subparagraph shall not be construed to make any foster
parent a party to such a review or hearing.''.
SEC. 7. DOCUMENTATION OF REASONABLE EFFORTS TO ADOPT.
Section 475(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
675(5)), as amended by sections 3 and 6 of this Act, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) in the case of a child with respect to whom the
State's goal is adoption or placement in another permanent
home, the steps taken by the State agency to find an adoptive
family or other permanent living arrangement for the child,
to place the child with an adoptive family, a legal guardian,
or in another planned permanent living arrangement (including
in the custody of another fit and willing relative), and to
finalize the adoption or legal guardianship are documented,
and such documentation shall include documentation of child
specific recruitment efforts such as the use of State,
regional, and national adoption information exchanges,
including electronic information exchange systems.''.
SEC. 8. KINSHIP CARE.
(a) Report.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall--
(A) not later than March 1, 1998, convene the advisory
panel provided for in subsection (b)(1) and prepare and
submit to the advisory panel an initial report on the extent
to which children in foster care are placed in the care of a
relative (in this section referred to as ``kinship care'');
and
(B) not later than November 1, 1998, submit to the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a final report on
the matter described in subparagraph (A), which shall--
(i) be based on the comments submitted by the advisory
panel pursuant to subsection (b)(2) and other information and
considerations; and
(ii) include the policy recommendations of the Secretary
with respect to the matter.
(2) Required contents.--Each report required by paragraph
(1) shall--
(A) include, to the extent available for each State,
information on--
(i) the policy of the State regarding kinship care;
(ii) the characteristics of the kinship care providers
(including age, income, ethnicity, and race);
(iii) the characteristics of the household of such
providers (such as number of other persons in the household
and family composition);
(iv) how much access to the child is afforded to the parent
from whom the child has been removed;
(v) the cost of, and source of funds for, kinship care
(including any subsidies such as medicaid and cash
assistance);
(vi) the goal for a permanent living arrangement for the
child and the actions being taken by the State to achieve the
goal;
(vii) the services being provided to the parent from whom
the child has been removed; and
(viii) the services being provided to the kinship care
provider; and
(B) specifically note the circumstances or conditions under
which children enter kinship care.
(b) Advisory Panel.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee
on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the
Chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, shall
convene an advisory panel which shall include parents, foster
parents, former foster children, State and local public
officials responsible for administering child welfare
programs, private persons involved in the delivery of child
welfare services, representatives of tribal governments and
tribal courts, judges, and academic experts.
(2) Duties.--The advisory panel convened pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall review the report prepared pursuant to
subsection (a), and, not later than July 1, 1998, submit to
the Secretary comments on the report.
SEC. 9. USE OF THE FEDERAL PARENT LOCATOR SERVICE FOR CHILD
WELFARE SERVICES.
Section 453 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``or enforcing child custody or visitation
orders'' and inserting ``or making or enforcing child custody
or visitation orders''; and
(B) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking the comma at the end of subparagraph (C)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(ii) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) who has or may have parental rights with respect to a
child,''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) a State agency that is administering a program
operated under a State plan under subpart 1 of part B, or a
State plan approved under subpart 2 of part B or under part
E.''.
SEC. 10. PERFORMANCE OF STATES IN PROTECTING CHILDREN.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation
with the American Public Welfare Association, the National
Governors' Association, and persons or organizations devoted
to child advocacy, shall--
(1) develop a set of outcome measures (including length of
stay in foster care, number of foster care placements, and
number of adoptions) that can be used to assess the
performance of States in operating child protection and child
welfare programs pursuant to parts B and E of title IV of the
Social Security Act to ensure the safety of children;
(2) to the maximum extent possible, the outcome measures
should be developed from data available from the Adoption and
Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System;
(3) develop a system for rating the performance of States
with respect to the outcome measures, and provide to the
States an explanation of the rating system and how scores are
determined under the rating system;
(4) prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to
ensure that States provide to the Secretary the data
necessary to determine State performance with respect to each
outcome measure, as a condition of the State receiving funds
under part E of title IV of the Social Security Act;
(5) on May 1, 1999, and annually thereafter, prepare and
submit to the Congress a report on the performance of each
State on each outcome measure, which shall examine the
reasons for high performance and low performance and, where
possible, make recommendations as to how State performance
could be improved.
SEC. 11. AUTHORITY TO APPROVE MORE CHILD PROTECTION
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.
Section 1130(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1320a-9(a)) is amended by striking ``10'' and inserting
``15''.
SEC. 12. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
may, directly or through grants or contracts, provide
technical assistance to assist States and local communities
to reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions
and, to the extent that adoption is not possible, alternative
permanent placements, for children in foster care.
(b) Limitations.--The technical assistance provided under
subsection (a) shall support the goal of encouraging more
adoptions out of the foster care system, when adoptions
promote the best interests of children, and shall include the
following:
(1) The development of best practice guidelines for
expediting termination of parental rights.
(2) Models to encourage the use of concurrent planning.
(3) The development of specialized units and expertise in
moving children toward adoption as a permanency goal.
(4) The development of risk assessment tools to facilitate
early identification of the children who will be at risk of
harm if returned home.
(5) Models to encourage the fast tracking of children who
have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements.
(6) Development of programs that place children into pre-
adoptive families without waiting for termination of parental
rights.
(c) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations.--To
carry out this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services
not to exceed $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998
through 2000.
SEC. 13. COORDINATION OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND CHILD PROTECTION
SERVICES.
Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, based on
information from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration and the Administration for Children
and Families in the Department of Health of Human Services,
shall prepare and submit to the Committee on Ways and Means
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance
of the Senate a report which describes the extent and scope
of the problem of substance abuse in the child welfare
population, the types of services provided to such
population, and the outcomes resulting from the provision of
such services to such population. The report shall include
recommendations for any legislation that may be needed to
improve coordination in providing such services to such
population.
SEC. 14. CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE POPULATION FOR INDEPENDENT
LIVING SERVICES.
Section 477(a)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
677(a)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting ``(including children
with respect to whom such payments are no longer being made
because the child has accumulated assets, not to exceed
$5,000, which are otherwise regarded as resources for
purposes of determining eligibility for benefits under this
part)'' before the comma.
SEC. 15. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act shall take
effect on October 1, 1997.
(b) Delay Permitted if State Legislation Required.--In the
case of a State plan under part B or E of title IV of the
Social Security Act which the Secretary of Health and Human
Services determines requires State legislation (other than
legislation appropriating funds) in order for the plan to
meet the additional requirements imposed by the amendments
made by this Act, the State plan shall not be regarded as
failing to comply with the requirements of such part solely
on the basis of the failure of the plan to meet such
additional requirements before the 1st day of the 1st
calendar quarter beginning after the close of the 1st regular
session of the State legislature that begins after the date
of the enactment of this Act. For purposes of the previous
sentence, in the case of a State that has a 2-year
legislative session, each year of such session shall be
deemed to be a separate regular session of the State
legislature.
[[Page H2027]]
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments?
amendment no. 6 offered by mr. tiahrt
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
Strike the matter proposed to be added by section 3(a)(3)
of the bill and insert the following:
``(E) in the case of a child who has been in foster care
under the responsibility of the State during 12 of the most
recent 18 months, and a child in such foster care who has not
attained 13 years of age (or such greater age as the State
may establish) and with respect whom reasonable efforts of
the type described in section 471(a)(15)(A)(i) are
discontinued or not made, the State shall seek to terminate
all parental rights with respect to the child, unless--
``(i) at the option of the State, the child is being cared
for by a relative; or
``(ii) a State court or State agency has documented a
compelling reason for determining that filing such a petition
would not be in the best interests of the child.''.
{time} 1245
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that is what I would
consider a positive addition to the bill that we have before us. I will
explain briefly what the amendment does, and I would like others to
have a chance to express their concerns with the bill. Then I will
withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the first thing that I would like to address that the
bill does is that it reduces a timeframe for the State to seek to
terminate parental rights from 18 to 12 months.
The reason that we had made this determination, as I said earlier in
the debate, is that some children languish in foster care and the State
is unable to come to that conclusion, whether they should stay with
their birth parents or move into an adoptive home.
There are others who agree with this philosophy. In Patrick Fagan's
article of July 27, 1995, published in the Heritage Foundation's
report, he also recommends that a 12-month timeline for education of
long-term parental status be included.
Justin Matlick also reminds us that 12 months should be the ceiling
on final reunification decisions in his Pacific Research Institute
study titled ``Fifteen Years of Failure: An Assessment of California's
Child Welfare System.''
In Conna Craig's Policy Review article entitled ``What I Need Is A
Mom,'' she recommends that biological parents receive no more than 12
months to prove their fitness to resume custody. Incidentally, she is
president of the Institute for Children in Boston, MA.
Also, the Kellogg Foundation in their Families for Kids programs has
stated at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the
Committee on Ways and Means, on February 27 of this year, that
benchmarks for progress is 1 year for permanent replacement.
One year to permanency has emerged as the driver of reform. That is
why, Mr. Chairman, we had moved to try to get 12 months.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is some consideration given in
the report language that the intent of the legislation, it says under
the reason for change that the committee fully expects that final
permanency decisions will be at 12 months. But yet the language says 18
months, which is an improvement. But the 12 months right now today,
without any incentive, 70 percent of the children are moved into that
decision that they will move to an adoptive home out of the biological
parents' home.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is the design that both a man and a woman be
the parents of children. I think it is easiest in that situation. After
having a teenaged daughter, I think I really came to that conclusion,
because it does take two to really balance out the raising of a child.
However, in some situations it is impossible for that two-parent
situation to exist, and in compelling reasons, they should be moved
into adoption.
I think that decision should be made at 12 months, because it is not
up to the State to determine whether this parent is going to
rehabilitate themselves. That has to be something that is done by the
individual.
The second part of this legislation or this amendment to the
legislation removes an exception which would allow States to avoid
seeking to terminate parental rights, because the way the language
reads it says, ``* * * unless the State has not provided to the family
of the child such services as the State deems appropriate.''
In an article written by Conna Craig in Policy Review in the summer
of 1995, she said, ``Public agencies are paid for the number of
children they prevent from being adopted.'' What I would like to see,
Mr. Chairman, is what has occurred in Kansas. In Kansas they have
removed the financial incentive for State agencies to keep kids locked
into the system. They have gone to a flat fee for adoptive services,
and contract out to private agencies. In the first 3 months of this
year they have seen a 67-percent increase in the amount of adoptions
that have occurred in Kansas. I think that is a dramatic improvement.
I have these two concerns, Mr. Chairman, that I have put into this
amendment. I would like others to talk about these principles. This is
what I consider a loophole that I hope States can close. It is a
loophole big enough for a bus to drive through. I am concerned that
that bus will be filled by children going back into foster care when
they could be moving into an adoptive home.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CAMP. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the author
of the amendment that the current child welfare system sometimes errs
on the side of the parent without significant regard for a child's
safety. Obviously, that is one of the reasons why the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Camp] and I did introduce this bill. However, I feel that
the legislation before us makes it clear that a child's safety has to
be the paramount concern, and it requires States to move more quickly
in finding permanent homes for children. But if the current system
sometimes overemphasizes family reunification, the Tiahrt amendment
would swing, I feel, the pendulum too far the other way by not giving
States enough opportunity to restore families.
However, as we have talked today, I really look forward to working
with the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] and with the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Camp] to see if we can resolve this. I understand that he
has these concerns, and I think it is very important that we look at
them, but I do not think today is the time. I thank the gentleman from
Kansas for his consideration.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I would state that I would like to work with
the gentleman from Kansas to address his concerns.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs.
Johnson].
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge the interest of my
colleagues, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], in this issue, the
work that he has put in, and the concern that he holds. I am pleased
that he has withdrawn his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think this Congress has to be very mindful, and I
think the underlying bill is mindful of what it means to terminate a
parent's right to their own child, what it means to the parent and what
it means to the child, and what lifelong repercussions that decision
has.
Having worked hard on permanency placement the many years that I was
in the State Senate in Connecticut, and on foster care and adoption
issues since that time, I agree with my colleague, the gentlewoman from
Connecticut, and those who worked so hard on this bill, that we are
leaving children in abusive situations far too long. We are not dealing
honestly with the fact that parents are acting so remarkably
irresponsibly toward their children that we have to have a law that can
act more promptly and terminate rights more aggressively to protect
children.
I do also urge, however, that we be mindful as we make a change, of
the nature of termination decisions and of their ramifications for both
adults and children over decades.
So I strongly support the underlying structure of the bill, which
does force
[[Page H2028]]
States to make a permanent plan by 12 months, and to initiate
termination proceedings at 18 months. I would urge States to move
forward in those cases where they see rehabilitation is not going to be
possible.
However, I think it is incumbent upon us both to recognize the
complexity of pressures on families in America today, the need for
appropriate services, and yet, the need for protection of the child and
for abrogation of parental rights when adults do not take their
responsibilities seriously and do not aggressively involve themselves
in fixing the problems in their families that so deeply affect their
children.
Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman withdrew his amendment. I
support the underlying structure of this bill. I think it is truly a
very significant step forward, but it is a balanced, thoughtful step,
and I support the bill strongly, and commend both the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Camp] and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs.
Kennelly] for their leadership in writing this legislation.
It took a lot of courage, frankly, to begin rethinking what
reasonable means. It is true that reasonable has become unreasonable
for the circumstances that many of our children face. The Members have
rebalanced that and repositioned us to fight for our children and their
lives, while also looking at families and their interests.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Ramstad], a fellow member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to also thank my colleagues, the gentleman
from Michigan, Mr. Dave Camp, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut,
Mrs. Barbara Kennelly, for their leadership on this bill. No child
should be denied the opportunity to grow up in a loving environment.
That is why I strongly support their legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. CAMP was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
my own family has been blessed through adoption. I am the proud uncle
of three beautiful adoptive children. I cannot imagine my life without
them or my four adopted cousins. There is nothing more important than
for a child to grow up in a loving home. I know there are 500,000
children in foster care, many of them awaiting adoption by a loving
family. So something must be done to reform the system.
Last year we gave States and localities more authority to run social
programs than they have had in 50 years. That is why I was concerned
about the amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Kansas
[Mr. Tiahrt] and my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton],
and I am very, very pleased that they withdrew the amendment.
I understand that the authors of this amendment were trying to help
children get into loving, adoptive homes as soon as possible, but I
wanted to point out that nothing in this legislation prohibits the
State from freeing children for adoption before 18 months. State
agencies and courts need flexibility to ensure the most appropriate
response can be developed for each individual child.
This amendment would have established an absolute trigger that I
believe is unrealistic. So we need to let those who know best, those
who administer programs at the State and local levels, have the
flexibility to do their job and the authority to do what is best for
children.
I thank my colleagues for withdrawing this amendment.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is controversy over whether we
go to 12 months or 18 months. When I was a boy, I was in a welfare
agency home, a foster, and a setting of the type we are discussing
today; and I can tell my colleagues I met a lot of young people that
had been in that system for years and it had a very debilitating impact
on their lives. I know some of them ended up in jail.
Those are things that we need to take into consideration. The longer
a child is in the foster care system, the more likely he or she is
going to be a burden on society. Some of the statistics the gentleman
from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] did not mention in his statement, but he told
me of a foster child who had been in over 100 foster homes. Now we can
imagine what that does to the child's psyche. It has got to have a very
devastating impact.
Each year 15,000 children graduate from foster care with no permanent
home. Fifteen thousand. What does that do to those kids? The ACLU
reports, and I do not quote them very often, but the ACLU reports that
among these graduates, 40 percent, 40 percent become dependent on AFDC,
46 percent dropped out of school, 51 percent were unemployed, and 60
percent of the women had out-of-wedlock births within 2 years from
graduating from foster care.
The Bureau of Justice reports that former foster children are nearly
30 times more likely to be incarcerated than individuals who never
spent any time in foster care. So the problem is we want to get them
out of there as quickly as possible.
I agree that severing parental rights is a very important thing to
consider. I mean, we do not want to do it lightly. But within a year,
it seems to me that that is time enough to make a case as to whether or
not a child should stay in that home. If the child is not going to be
going back into their home, to keep them in foster care beyond that
time period causes some serious problems for the child.
So while I do not want to belabor the point, the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] is obviously going to withdraw his amendment, I
hope in conference my colleagues will give these arguments some serious
consideration. I think we are all after the same thing. We want to do
what is best for the child because it has an impact on society that is
very, very great. It involves AFDC. It involves crime. It involves
children born out of wedlock. So all of these things need to be taken
into consideration and what is best for the child.
If the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] wants me to yield, I am
happy to yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for
yielding. I know there is some concern, it is a very big decision to
move children away from their birth parents into an adoptive situation.
I do not think the States should take it lightly or we should take it
lightly. But in some situations, as the gentleman from Indiana has
pointed out so adeptly, we have some parents that just choose not to be
good parents by their very actions. The way the system is, there is no
incentive to move them unless the States take initiative, like Kansas
has, to move them into a situation.
I am reminded of a young girl named Halie, who was 2 years old, who
refused to eat her dinner and her parents tied her to an electric
heater; and once she got caught into that system, they went through
every different family service available, and she did not get out of
foster care until she was 18 years old, 16 years caught into the
system.
We must provide incentives to move these children out of this kind of
situation into adoptive homes when the parents, by their very actions,
choose not to be good parents.
{time} 1300
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman withdraws his amendment, I want to
compliment the gentleman from Kansas for a most thoughtful amendment
and really addressing the subject which is the heart of this bill. That
is, how long are we going to allow the children to stay in foster care?
I would point out to the House that there is report language in the
bill that I feel will pretty much accomplish what the gentleman from
Kansas is after. As chairman of the subcommittee, we will be monitoring
this whole matter very, very closely. We are going to see that the
intent of this bill is met and that we are, indeed, getting these kids
out of foster care and into an adoptive setting and into permanent
homes.
Again, I compliment the gentleman for bringing this to the attention
of the
[[Page H2029]]
House. I think it underscores what we are trying to do.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, with the fine statements made by the
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], I ask
unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kansas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. . PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS.
(a) In General.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to
the greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available under this Act should be
American-made.
(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance
to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using
funds made available under this Act, the head of each Federal
agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to
such entity a notice describing the statement made in
subsection (a) by the Congress.
Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I have explained several times the
amendment. The amendment basically states that any funds that are made
available pursuant to the passage of this act, that in the expenditure
of those funds, wherever practicable, they be expended to buy American-
made goods and products and that the amendment basically states that a
notice of the intent of Congress, wherever the expenditure of funds are
made to buy American-made products wherever possible, shall be given
when any of those funds in fact are released.
I would appreciate the support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], coauthor of the amendment, and compliment
her for her fine work.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
putting forth this amendment. I will support it.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I
would concur with the gentlewoman from Connecticut. We also do not
object to the amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say again that I want to
compliment the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], who has
steadfastly been a fighter on behalf of children over the years. I want
to thank her on behalf of children in my district and thank the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] for his efforts and to the chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Morella
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Morella:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. . KINSHIP CARE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--Part E of title IV of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 670-679) is amended by inserting after section
477 the following:
``SEC. 478. KINSHIP CARE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.
``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to allow and
encourage States to develop effective alternatives to foster
care for children who might be eligible for foster care but
who have adult relatives who can provide safe and appropriate
care for the child.
``(b) Demonstration Authority.--The Secretary may authorize
any State to conduct a demonstration project designed to
determine whether it is feasible to establish kinship care as
an alternative to foster care for a child who--
``(1) has been removed from home as a result of a judicial
determination that continuation in the home would be contrary
to the welfare of the child:
``(2) would otherwise be placed in foster care; and
``(3) has adult relatives willing to provide safe and
appropriate care for the child.
``(c) Kinship Care Defined.--As used in this section, the
term `kinship care' means safe and appropriate care
(including long-term care) of a child by 1 or more adult
relatives of the child who have legal custody of that child,
or physical custody of the child pending transfer to the
adult relative of legal custody of the child.
``(d) Project Requirements.--In my demonstration project
authorized to be conducted under this section, the State--
``(1) should examine the provision of alternative financial
and service supports to families providing kinship care; and
``(2) shall establish such procedures as may be necessary
to assure the safety of children who are placed in kinship
care.
``(e) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary may waive compliance
with any requirement of this part which (if applied) would
prevent a State from carrying out a demonstration project
under this section or prevent the State from effectively
achieving the purpose of such a project, except that the
Secretary may not waive--
``(1) any provision of section 422(b)(10), section 479, or
this section; or
``(2) any provision of this part, to the extent that the
waiver would impair the entitlement of any qualified child or
family to benefits under a State plan approved under this
part.
``(f) Payments to States; Cost Neutrality.--In lieu of any
payment under section 473 for expenses incurred by a State
during a quarter with respect to a demonstration project
authorized to be conducted under this section, the Secretary
shall pay to the State an amount equal to the total amount
that would be paid to the State for the quarter under this
part, in the absence of the project, with respect to the
children and families participating in the project.
``(g) Use of Funds.--A State may use funds paid under this
section for any purpose related to the provision of services
and financial support for families participating in a
demonstration project under this section.
``(h) Duration of Project.--A demonstration project under
this section may be conducted for not more than 5 years.
``(i) Application.--Any State seeking to conduct a
demonstration project under this section shall submit to the
Secretary an application, in such form as the Secretary may
require, which includes--
``(1) a description of the proposed project, the geographic
area in which the proposed project would be conducted, the
children or families who would be served by the proposed
project, the procedures to be used to assure the safety of
such children, and the services which would be provided by
the proposed project (which shall provide, where appropriate,
for random assignment of children and families to groups
served under the project and to control groups);
``(2) a statement of the period during which the proposed
project would be conducted, and how, at the termination of
the project; the safety and stability of the children and
families who participated in the project will be protected;
``(3) a discussion of the benefits that are expected from
the proposed project (compared to a continuation of
activities under the State plan approved under this part);
``(4) an estimate of the savings to the State of the
proposed project;
``(5) a statement of program requirements for which waivers
would be needed to permit the proposed project to be
conducted;
``(6) a description of the proposed evaluation design; and
``(7) such additional information as the Secretary may
require.
``(j) State Evaluations and Reports.--Each State authorized
to conduct a demonstration project under this section shall--
``(1) obtain an evaluation by an independent contractor of
the effectiveness of the project, using an evaluation design
approved by the Secretary which provides for--
``(A) comparison of outcomes for children and families (and
groups of children and families) under the project, and such
outcomes under the State plan approved under this part, for
purposes of assessing the effectiveness of the project in
achieving program goals; and
``(B) any other information that the Secretary may require;
``(2) obtain an evaluation by an independent contractor of
the effectiveness of the State in assuring the safety of the
children participating in the project; and
``(3) provide interim and final evaluation reports to the
Secretary, at such times and in such manner as the Secretary
may require.
``(k) Report to the Congress.--Not later than 4 years after
the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary
shall submit to the Congress a report that contains the
recommendations of the Secretary for changes in law with
respect to kinship care and placements.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Title IV of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is amended--
[[Page H2030]]
(1) in section 422(b)--
(A) by striking the period at the end of the paragraph (9)
(as added by section 544(3) of the Improving America's
Schools Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-382; 108 Stat. 4057)) and
inserting a semicolon;
(B) by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph (11); and
(C) by redesignating paragraph (9), as added by section
202(a)(3) of the Social Security Act Amendments of 1994
(Public Law 103-432, 108 Stat. 4453), as paragraph (10);
(2) in sections 424(b), 425(a), and 472(d), by striking
``422(b)(9)'' each place it appears and inserting
``422(b)(10)''; and
(3) in section 471(a)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (17);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (18) (as
added by section 1808(a) of the Small Business Job Protection
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-188; 110 Stat. 1903)) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by redesignating paragraph (18) (as added by section
505(3) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat.
2278)) as paragraph (19).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the Adoption
Promotion Act of 1997.
This amendment would encourage kinship care families, which are
families in which adult relatives are the preferred placement options
for children separated from their parents.
My amendment would give all States the flexibility to create a new
type of foster care, kinship care, as a demonstration project whereby
they could examine and test how their child protection system could
incorporate safe, cost-effective kinship care placements.
States would have increased flexibility to waive portions of the IV-E
foster care program in order to provide services and payments to
kinship care placements. Without these payments, many grandparents
simply cannot afford to care for their grandchildren.
We clearly need this legislation. Increasingly grandparents are being
called upon to raise grandchildren of all ages. Between 1986 and 1990,
the number of foster care children under the care of relatives jumped
from 18 percent to 31 percent. Between 1985 and 1990, the number of
children in foster care increased by 47 percent while the number of
foster families decreased by 27 percent. Furthermore, when a child must
be removed from his or her parents, placing the child with a caring
relative helps keep the family together and limits disruption to the
child's life.
The overwhelming majority of grandparents raising children must do so
on limited incomes. Ironically, relatives who want to care for the
child often find themselves burdened with legal and bureaucratic
paperwork and regulation, and they lack the support services available
to regular foster care families.
Kinship care could be considered a long-term placement option for the
States. In order to be considered an eligible family for kinship care
placements under this bill, certain criteria must be met. The child
must be removed from the home as a result of a judicial determination
that continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the
child, the child would otherwise be placed in foster care and that
there are adult relatives willing to provide safe and appropriate care
for the child.
CBO examined this amendment and it is revenue neutral, because States
would incorporate kinship care into their child welfare system. States
would evaluate their kinship care system for outcomes for children and
families, safety of the children, and cost savings.
At the end of 4 years the Secretary of Health and Human Services
would evaluate the State kinship care demonstrations and recommend
legislative changes based on their evaluations. My State of Maryland is
one of the four States that already has a kinship care waiver and the
reports have been quite positive.
I have heard from grandparents who desperately want to provide their
grandchildren a loving, supportive and safe home, and I am sure that my
colleagues have. Because of burdensome regulations, these children end
up in the expensive foster care system. This amendment would allow any
State, by going through the waiver process, to help families to rely on
their own family members as resources when a child is legally separated
from his or her parents.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I do not oppose the amendment but there are some additional
considerations that should be taken into account. The committee has
been very concerned about kinship care for several years. In many cases
kinship care is an excellent response to a child's situation. But
kinship care does come with great cost and there is reason to wonder if
kinship care placements are always the best for children. We need more
information about the reasons for kinship care, the characteristics of
the kinship settings in which children are placed, and the impact those
settings have on children's development.
To get more information, we ask for a study in this legislation.
Demonstrations of the type the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]
is seeking also have the potential to provide valuable information. The
committee bill authorizes 5 new waiver demonstration projects, and why
do we not require that at least one of those be addressed to kinship
care?
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CAMP. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity
to compliment the gentlewoman from Maryland on her work in this area in
this body and the work she has done in her own State of Maryland. I
also would like to compliment her because she personally in her life
has understood the importance of family in these types of situations,
as she provided a loving home for her nieces and nephews. I want to
compliment her for taking this work in her own life and her own family
out into the United States of America.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CAMP. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut
[Mrs. Kennelly] for her very kind words and for the work that she has
done on this committee, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] for
the wonderful work he has done.
I do want to announce that as of a week and a half ago I became a
grandmother for the 15th time, so I can understand certainly
grandparents who really want to have an involvement in bringing up and
a need to bring up their children's children.
I want to, in light of what the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp]
has said, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment and to
offer a new amendment that would add language to section 11 to require
that at least one of the five new waiver demonstrations be addressed to
kinship care.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] for withdrawing
her amendment and bringing forward an amendment to dedicate one of the
demonstration projects in the bill to kinship care. There are six
States that have Federal waivers to demonstrate innovative approaches
to providing child welfare services, including through kinship care.
Indeed, there has been a lot of work on this matter and in many States
and some creative programs developed which deserve the attention of the
committee.
I also would like to call attention to another matter that is related
to that brought up by this amendment. That is the option of independent
living programs as a kind of placement for older children who have been
in foster care for many years. My colleague, the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Burton], talked about the scarring that bouncing from foster care
home to foster care home can leave on a young person, and indeed that
scarring is deep and debilitating and can destroy their opportunity to
pursue life in a way that would realize their abilities and their
dreams.
Nonetheless there are many children in the system at this time. He
pointed
[[Page H2031]]
to 15,000, but there are many children in the system at this time who
have been in foster care for many years who have bounced from home to
home. Some of these children are finding a new opportunity in what we
call the independent living program that provides a stipend, guidance,
education, and helps these young people at a high school age learn to
live on their own and enjoy the support of one another as they make
that transition from high school into the work force. We need to extend
this program. We need to recognize it, I think, with the same validity
that we recognize foster care placements or even adoptive placements
and give it the kind of support and investment that it deserves.
In many instances as they look at kinship care and the opportunities
that it provides within the foster care and adoption system, I would
urge that they look also at the independent living program as another
alternative to adoption and/or reunification because it is for many
adolescents the best option and deserves our support. I yield back to
the author of the bill.
Mr. CAMP. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Morella
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Morella:
Section 11 is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 11. AUTHORITY TO APPROVE MORE CHILD PROTECTION
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.
Section 1130(a) of the Social Security Act (12 U.S.C.
1820a-9(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``10'' and inserting ``15''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``At least 1 of the
demonstration projects approved on or after October 1, 1997,
shall address kinship care.''.
Mrs. MORELLA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, my explanation is shorter than the
language of reading the amendment. It is a new amendment that would
simply add language to section 11 that would require that at least one
of the 5 new waiver demonstrations be addressed to kinship care.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1315
amendment offered by ms. eddie bernice johnson of texas
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas:
At the end of section 12(b), add the following:
(7) Assistance in establishing outreach programs to help
States better identify and recruit minority families to adopt
children.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer this
amendment, and I will pull it down at the end of the discussion, to add
a section that allows the development of programs for outreach for
informing special minority families about the opportunities to adopt.
Very, very frequently this information is not known and many times they
do not know where to get it to see about adoption.
When I was growing up, which was a long time ago, my parents brought
in three extra children. We never got them adopted. I am a second
child, and after me they did not have another child for 8 years, and
after that another one after another 8 years. But in the meantime,
between these births, we had at least three children in the home and
never formally adopted them.
When I became an adult and had one child and could not have another
child, I wanted to adopt but I did not have the information, was not
quite sure what it meant, and so we went to an orphan home and brought
a young child home each weekend. If I had had access to information
that would inform and allay fears and say what some of the expectations
are, adoptions could have taken place.
I think there are a number of minorities in that position, that
really want to adopt but are a little fearful, not quite sure how to
get started, and this just adds another development onto the six that
simply allows the development of programs that would do outreach. It
could be in the form of a brochure or an 800 number or any other type
of outreach activity, such as radio announcements.
Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to call that to Members' attention.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman
yield?
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I agree that we should do
more to help minority families adopt children. I commend the
gentlewoman for the amendment that she was going to put forth and for
her willingness to withdraw the amendment.
It has been understood today that the bill we have before us will
provide a statute, a basis on which we can continue to improve the
foster care and permanent adoption situation in these United States,
and I look forward to working with the gentlewoman from Texas on her
amendment, which then can be part of a future bill that addresses this
very important situation. And I thank the gentlewoman for her
understanding today.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I would again echo the comments of my
colleague from Connecticut and appreciate the gentlewoman's willingness
to withdraw the amendment and look forward to working with her
regarding her efforts in this matter.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time,
I thank the gentleman, and allow me to thank the author of this
legislation and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] for
bringing this piece of legislation forward.
It is the best piece of legislation I have seen that addresses
adoptions. I appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Add at any appropriate place the following:
SEC. CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECKS FOR PROSPECTIVE FOSTER AND
ADOPTIVE PARENTS AND GROUP CARE STAFF
Section 471(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
671(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (18), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (19), by striking the period and inserting
``; and ''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(20) at the option of the State, provides procedures for
criminal records checks and checks of a State's child abuse
registry for any prospective foster parent or adoptive
parent, and any employee of a child-care institution before
the foster care or adoptive parent, or the child-care
institution may be finally approved for placement of a child
on whose behalf foster care maintenance payments or adoption
assistance payments are to be made under the State plan under
this part, including procedures requiring that--
``(A) in any case in which a criminal record check reveals
a criminal conviction for child abuse or neglect, or spousal
abuse, a criminal conviction for crimes against children, or
a criminal conviction for a crime involving violence,
including rape, sexual or other assault, or homicide,
approval shall not be granted; and
``(B) in any case in which a criminal record check reveals
a criminal conviction for a felony or misdemeanor not
involving violence, or a check of any State child abuse
registry indicates that a substantiated report of abuse or
neglect exists, final approval may be granted only after
consideration of the nature of the offense or incident, the
length of time that has elapsed since the commission of the
offense or the occurrence of the incident, the individual's
life experiences during the period since the commission of
the offense or the occurrence of the incident, and any risk
to the child.''.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
[[Page H2032]]
There was no objection.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me thank the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] certainly for the persistence on
legislation that is so extremely crucial to putting our children first.
Let me acknowledge also the ongoing and continuous leadership of the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] on this issue that has
been an abiding issue with her for many, many years.
I am very pleased and appreciate very much the staff of both Members
working with me, as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary,
on an issue that we see in other forms, and that is to assist this
process of protecting our children by providing for criminal record
checks for prospective foster and adoptive parents and group care
staff.
It is well known that adoption is only surpassed by the Government's
recognition and sanction of marriage as a publicly recognized function
of Government and the procreation of families in our society. In fact,
in 1994, 442,218 of our Nation's children lived in the foster care
system. In 1994, 3.1 million cases of abused and neglected children
were reported in the United States, and an estimated 1 million cases
were confirmed.
In 1993, the data indicated 49 percent of the children abused were
neglected, 24 percent were physically abused, 14 percent were sexually
abused, 5 percent suffered emotional mistreatment, and 2 percent
suffered medical neglect. This legislation in and of itself will thwart
some of these tragic occurrences. In 1993 an average of five children
died each day, another 140,000 were seriously injured and many were
disabled for life.
Having, however, chaired the Foster Parent Retention and Recruitment
Committee for Harris County in Texas, I know the good people that are
foster parents and the good people who seek to adopt. This is not an
amendment that speaks to them, but it does speak to the safety of our
children.
According to the American Public Welfare Association, 450,000 live in
foster care at any given moment, and as many as 600,000 children live
in foster care during the course of any given year. Certainly this
major legislation today will help diminish that number. However, we
want to make sure that these caretakers have the kinds of background
checks that will ensure the safety of our children.
Let me conclude by saying 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.
This amendment, which is by State option and therefore does not incur
any additional cost to this legislation, will allow States to have the
option to check the backgrounds of the individuals who will be the
caretakers for our most precious resources in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
thank the ranking member, and I thank the chairlady of the particular
subcommittee, I am giving her that title because that is what she is to
me, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, but I thank the chairperson, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] for his kindness.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of the institution of
adoption.
Adoption is only surpassed by the Government's recognition and
sanction of marriage as a publicly recognized function of Government
and the procreation of families in our society.
The work that Congresswoman Barbara Kennelly has done in bringing
H.R. 867 to the floor, only highlights the well established role that
Government has in the facilitation of adoptions in this country.
In 1995, 494,000 of our Nation's children lived in the foster care
system.
As we work to address the need to find and place these children with
parents and families who will love and care for them, we must be sure
to address the need to protect these children from unforseen dangers.
Requiring criminal records checks for prospective foster and adoptive
parents and group care staff will go a long way to ensure that adoptive
parents are prepared and suitable parents.
Adoption is not a right in our society, but an honor. The children in
foster care or who are being placed for adoption, deserve the extra
care that can be demonstrated by conducting criminal background checks
on perspective parents.
In 1994, 3.1 million cases of abused and neglected children were
reported in the United States, and an estimated 1 million cases were
confirmed.
The 1993 data indicated that 49 percent of the children were
neglected, 24 percent were physically abused, 14 percent were sexually
abused, 5 percent suffered emotional mistreatment, and 2 percent
suffered medical neglect.
In 1993 an average of 5 children died each day, and another 140,000
were seriously injured while many were disabled for life.
This amendment would ensure that prospective adoptive parents were
suitable caregivers and safe adoptive parents for children.
According to the American Public Welfare Association [APWA], about
450,000 children live in foster care at any given moment, and as many
as 600,000 children live in foster care during the course of any given
year.
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.
I hope that my colleagues can support this effort to strengthen a
very strong measure to open the avenue of adoption and placement of
children who are in need of families.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman
yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. I agree with the gentlewoman from
Texas, Mr. Chairman, and as she states, she wants to make sure that
troubled children get into foster homes, and I would like to join with
her. As I have said earlier today, we cannot emphasize enough the
number of people who are involved in foster care and the very good jobs
they are doing, but they more than anybody else want to make sure that
every foster care home is a safe home.
I do want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas, and I also want to
thank the Committee on the Judiciary, and I will take this opportunity
to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. [William Delahunt], for
his work on an amendment which also will be looked at in the future.
I appreciate the concern and the involvement of other Members of this
body who wanted amendments but made it possible for us to keep this
very, very important balance today, to have a new beginning in looking
at foster care and the protection of children.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank
all those that have worked with me on this amendment.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, but I
want to address this question to the author of the amendment:
As I understand the printed amendment, the typed amendment has been
modified to provide that this is at the option of the State; is that
correct?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Absolutely.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I bring that up only
because the House now has rulings pertaining to unfunded mandates. And
even though I think this is a very good amendment, and one that adds to
the bill, I just wanted to be sure that we did not fall into that trap.
I compliment the gentlewoman for her amendment and urge its support.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to comment on this amendment and the fact that
it is critical that foster homes be safe for children. States already
have the discretion to conduct background checks and licensing of
foster parents, and many States do conduct background checks for people
who work with children.
I want to point out for the Record that the amendment is permissive.
It is at the option of the State. But if it were not, if it were
mandatory, the cost to the State, according to the General Accounting
Office, is about $20 for each check; and States could be, if this were
mandatory, required to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars because
of this amendment.
[[Page H2033]]
I know that activities are ongoing through Federal, State and local
law enforcement agencies to improve the quality of the data they
receive in these background checks, but I think the change that was
made is a positive one and I would, for the Record, state that I
support the amendment.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the requisite number of words.
I rise to address a question to the gentleman from Michigan relating
to elderly caregivers. I need to ask the question as to whether or not
there is protection for older caregivers who have retired or who are
disabled and taking care of minor children where they might need aid to
dependent children.
What provision do we find anywhere in the law that protects them from
having the 2-year limit on aid to dependent children?
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
States already, in the first year, would be able to exempt 75 percent
of their case load from the work requirement and would be able to make
the decision as to which individuals, if it is grandparents or elderly
caregivers, would be able to be exempt from that work requirement.
When the work requirement is fully implemented, it will still be 50
percent of the case load that States will be able to make the decision
to exempt. They have the authority to do that now. Even under the 5-
year time limit, which is a separate part of the welfare bill, States
would be able to exempt up to 20 percent of their case load from the
time limit requirement. So it is going to be up to States to make that
decision on which individuals.
I appreciate the gentlewoman's bringing this to the floor and
expressing her concern to the House over this issue, but there are
provisions in the bill giving quite a bit of discretion with the State
government to make those decisions.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time,
I think that explanation really takes care of my concern that there
will not be 50 or 75 percent. So I think that will be enough percentage
to allow them to be protected.
I thank the gentleman for that response.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
Amendment Offered by Mrs. MALONEY of New York
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York:
At the end of the bill, add the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 16. STANDBY GUARDIANSHIP.
It is the sense of the Congress that the States should have
in effect laws and procedures that permit any parent who is
chronically ill or near death, without surrendering parental
rights, to designate a standby guardian for the parent's
minor children, whose authority would take effect upon--
(1) the death of the parent;
(2) the mental incapacity of the parent; or
(3) the physical debilitation and consent of the parent.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from New York?
There was no objection.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, this sense of Congress
resolution addresses the needs of 85,000 to 125,000 children who will
be left motherless by AIDS by the end of this decade. The tragedy is
enormous, but even worse, many of these children will be forced into
foster care homes at the most vulnerable moment of their lives simply
because most State laws prevent parents from naming guardians for their
children in advance of their death.
{time} 1330
As the Journal of the American Medical Association noted in December
1992, ``Every State should review its existing guardianship laws, many
of which leave children in legal limbo at the time of a parent's death,
even when a guardian has been named in the parent's will.''
Standby guardianship laws would require just such a review by closing
legal gaps which have failed vulnerable children and their families and
allowing parents to choose standby guardians without giving up their
parental rights. Using a simple process, standby guardians can be pre-
approved by the courts and take on the responsibility of caring for
their charges immediately upon the death or incapacitation of the ill
parent.
This sense of Congress, if enacted into law, could save States and
the Federal Government money by reducing the amount of time children
spend in the incredibly expensive and sometimes destructive foster care
system. But very importantly it provides peace of mind to desperate
parents by resolving custody issues while they can have their input
into the future of their children and, most importantly, it will keep
children out of foster care and move them into permanent homes with
their parents' input.
AIDS is now the leading cause of death among women aged 15 to 44. By
the end of this century, current studies estimate that as many as
125,000 children will be orphaned by AIDS. I think these numbers
indicate clearly that the scope of this problem is nationwide and the
need for standby guardianship laws is growing.
It is now time for this issue to be addressed at a national level.
This sense of Congress resolution is a start.
The resolution would recommend that all States amend their custody
laws to allow for standby guardianship designation. Custody issues
remain the province of each individual State. Standby guardianship is a
timely concept for a difficult time. Standby guardianship laws present
a unique opportunity to act proactively against a growing problem in
child welfare. That is why I am urging all of my colleagues to support
this bipartisan sense of Congress. I hope that it will be supported.
I would like to compliment the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs.
Kennelly] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] for their very
important work on this bill.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman
yield?
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I agree we need to remove legal barriers that might
prevent children from going to a caring guardian when a parent dies. I
therefore support the sense of Congress on urging States to adopt
standby guardians and thank the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs.
Maloney] for her work.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman
yield?
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman
from New York [Mrs. Maloney]. This is a very important sense of
Congress. It is imperative that States recognize the seriousness of the
problem of AIDS, women and children, 125,000 children to be orphaned by
AIDS. Indeed we need to know that, we need to deal with that and States
need to modernize their laws to address this issue.
The 50 States at this time do deal with guardianship as well as
custody issues in different fashions. Sometimes radically different
mechanisms are used to govern these difficult situations. Therefore, it
is hard at this time to write a Federal statute, even if it were
desirable, to deal with such delicate and personal situations. But it
is important to recognize the criticalness of these arrangements and
the forethought that must be given where death of a parent is a real,
tragic possibility.
I am sure that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] and his
subcommittee will oversee the response of the States to this sense of
Congress, because if they do not move forward with modernizing their
guardianship statutes, then indeed we will have to look how do we do
this from Washington, DC. These are very delicate arrangements, they
are hard to develop,
[[Page H2034]]
they need forethought, they need a good structure of law to protect the
interests of the children and other family members. I think it is
better done from the State, but we must oversee that this does happen
from Washington.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. Maloney] and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson]
and would like to join them in this sense-of-Congress resolution on
this very important issue and again thank the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp],
and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] for their leadership on the
overall issue of the protection of our children.
I rise today in support of the sense-of-Congress resolution allowing
parents to choose standby guardians for their children in advance of
their death. This is an important and compassionate piece of
legislation. If I might add a personal anecdote as a practicing lawyer
in the family courts of Texas, this is a rising crisis that we face. It
is a great tragedy in the life of a small child to lose a parent
through illness. AIDS is certainly a nationwide epidemic and
confronting young parents on a daily basis.
Often the child is too young to understand anything other than the
fact that the person who has been the center of their world, their
caretaker, is gone. It is at this time in their lives that children
most need a caring and supportive environment. Unfortunately, this is
too often a time when a young child is taken from his home and placed
in a foster family. In many cases, this is because State law prevented
the child's parents from naming a guardian for their child in advance
of their death.
In speaking to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney], it was
evident that in many jurisdictions this happens far too frequently, and
it certainly happens frequently in the crisis that occurs when loved
ones are stricken with AIDS.
This legislation will provide a caring guardian for the child upon
the death of that child's parents. In so doing, it will ease the
child's trauma at their parent's death by allowing the child's guardian
to establish a relationship before the parent's death and to be there
while that child is grieving.
Standby guardianship will also allow the parent the comfort and
knowledge of providing a safe future for their children. It must be
terribly painful to experience for a parent to leave their young child
behind. We can help to ease that pain by letting the parent be an
active participant in resolving the custody of their children.
According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, noted
in December 1992, many States ``leave children in legal limbo at the
time of a parent's death, even when a guardian has been named in that
parent's will.''
So we see that that is not a solution. I therefore encourage my
colleagues to support this sense of Congress resolution.
As I close, Mr. Chairman, let me also state that I look forward to
working with the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], with the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp], and the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Shaw], along with the Congressional Children's Caucus, on issues to
provide for treatment for those parents, foster parents, adoptive
parents who tragically may have had a bout with drug abuse, and also
then to as well ensure that we look favorably at making sure that
diversity in this country is received in the adoptive process and that
the child's cultural background be part of our sensitivity.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, people who are observing this meeting today probably
think they have the wrong parliamentary body when they see the great
agreement that this House has risen to by unanimously supporting this
and by working out the various amendments. This did not come by
happenstance, I would like to say, however. It came from very close
work from the Democrat and the Republican side of the aisle, with the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] taking the reins for the Republican
side and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] the Democrat
side.
It shows, I think, when you find that there is a problem out there
and you decide that we are not going to be running down the road on a
partisan horse trying to press our will upon each other, what we can
do. It also, I think, shows the tremendous amount of good staff work
that we have had going into this bill.
I would like to compliment the staffs on both sides of the aisle. I
would particularly like to point out Dr. Cassie Bevan for the
tremendous work that she has done on this bill. She has a reputation of
herself, a well-deserved reputation. She has done many writings and is
recognized as an expert on this particular subject nationwide. We are
very fortunate, I think, to have staff with particularly background
information. We have seen this with other bills that have been passed,
and I recognize other members of the staff on both sides of the aisle
in being able to bring bills to the floor, being able to dig through
the process and be sure that what we pass here is a good product, but
this particularly with the Camp-Kennelly bill. We are going to be able
to pass a bill today that is really going to help the most fragile
among us, and those are the kids that are lingering in foster care,
which is a national tragedy.
Again, we have 500,000 children across this country who are hungering
for a home and a life-style and some structure in their life. This is a
tremendous step forward, and I think that it is one of the finest hours
of this Congress. I compliment all of the people who were involved in
putting this bill together, and I urge its adoption.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as modified, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified,
as amended, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Morella) having assumed the chair, Mr. Rogan, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 867) to
promote the adoption of children in foster care, pursuant to House
Resolution 134, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, 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 416,
nays 5, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 96]
YEAS--416
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
[[Page H2035]]
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--5
Campbell
Manzullo
McIntosh
Mink
Paul
NOT VOTING--12
Allen
Bonior
Engel
English
Green
Herger
John
Lewis (GA)
Porter
Schiff
Stump
Wexler
{time} 1404
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois and Mr. EVANS changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________