[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.

                          ____________________