[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8870-H8872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1500
AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT TO EXEMPT INTERNATIONALLY 
      ADOPTED CHILDREN UNDER AGE 10 FROM IMMUNIZATION REQUIREMENT

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 2464) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act 
to exempt internationally adopted children under age 10 from the 
immunization requirement, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2464

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR INTERNATIONALLY ADOPTED CHILDREN 10 
                   YEARS OF AGE OR YOUNGER FROM IMMUNIZATION 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       Section 212(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by inserting ``except as 
     provided in subparagraph (C),'' after ``(ii)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Exception from immunization requirement for adopted 
     children 10 years of age or younger.--Clause (ii) of 
     subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a child who--
       ``(i) is 10 years of age or younger,
       ``(ii) is described in section 101(b)(1)(F), and
       ``(iii) is seeking an immigrant visa as an immediate 
     relative under section 201(b),

     if, prior to the admission of the child, an adoptive parent 
     or prospective adoptive parent of the child, who has 
     sponsored the child for admission as an immediate relative, 
     has executed an affidavit stating that the parent is aware of 
     the provisions of subparagraph (A)(ii) and will ensure that, 
     within 30 days of the child's admission, or at the earliest 
     time that is medically appropriate, the child will receive 
     the vaccinations identified in such subparagraph.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Delahunt] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I was pleased to support the efforts of the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. McCollum] last year to include a vaccination 
requirement for all new immigrants in the Illegal Immigration Reform 
Act of 1996. This revision, section 341 of the 1996 act, is an 
important measure to protect the public health.
  In recent months, adoptive parents have become concerned about 
whether implementation of the new vaccination requirements will 
compromise the health of their foreign-born adopted children. These 
parents have raised legitimate arguments that the administration of 
vaccines to their adopted or prospective adopted children should take 
place here in the United States.
  We have every confidence that these parents will see to the 
immunization needs of their new children. The amendment made in 
committee will require parents to attest to their intention to fulfill 
the vaccination requirements in an appropriate time after their 
children have been admitted into the United States.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, when the 104th Congress amended the Immigration and 
Nationality Act in 1996, they unintentionally denied American parents 
who were adopting orphans from other countries the right to decide 
where their child would be vaccinated.
  That amendment required applicants for immigrant status, including 
children who will be adopted by American parents, to present evidence 
of numerous vaccinations for diseases ranging from mumps to hepatitis B 
before they can be admitted to the United States. This, despite the 
fact that there has never been a single documented case of an adopted 
child from another country posing any public health risk.
  This unintended consequence of the 1996 act has provoked major 
concerns among adoptive parents and for good reason. It is important to 
note that every year, American families adopt some 12,000 orphaned and 
abandoned children living in countries that cannot care for them. These 
adoptive parents and families endure innumerable bureaucratic obstacles 
and delays that frequently take many months or even years to overcome.
  International adoption is an expensive process. It is time consuming 
and it is often frustrating and can certainly be an emotional roller 
coaster for many, many parents. I know from personal experience, as my 
younger daughter Kara came from Vietnam. The daughter of the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], came from Taiwan, and the gentleman 
from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] has a son and a daughter from Korea. I 
certainly want to acknowledge the help and support of these Members for 
this proposal before the Congress.
  Madam Speaker, the new requirement that I referred to only serves to 
impede the process of intercountry adoptions and may very well create 
potential health risks to the children themselves.
  I would simply ask a rhetorical question: Would any parent want to be 
required to rely on the medical care

[[Page H8871]]

available in such nations as Bosnia, Afghanistan, Romania, Haiti, or a 
long list of other war-torn or Third World countries? I am confident 
that their preference, like mine, would be to have their child 
vaccinated by their family doctor here at home in the United States.
  Let me tell my colleagues about one of the families affected by the 
bill, the Collins family of Hingham, MA. In September 1995, before the 
current requirements went into effect, they adopted a child from China 
who experienced a severe reaction to a DPT vaccination she received 
after arriving in the United States.
  While such reactions can be serious wherever they occur, Judy and 
Richard Collins were relieved and grateful to be able to ensure that 
their daughter, Brittany, had the very best of care here at home.
  They are now about to complete the adoption process for another child 
from China, and I sincerely hope that they will be able to provide him 
or her with that same level of care.
  Additionally, there is evidence that vaccinations in some countries 
can be unsafe or ineffective promoting adverse reactions and that 
unsterile needles and syringes have been used. These are real health 
threats, especially for the many children raised in orphanages who may 
be malnourished or sickly and whose medical records are often 
incomplete or are inaccurate.
  Madam Speaker, as I said, there is not a single case documented of a 
child placed for adoption who came to this country and created a public 
health risk. It is only common sense that parents who have been through 
the rigorous international adoption process will do anything they can 
to assure that their adopted child will receive the best possible 
medical care as soon as they arrive here, home in America.
  Remember, they are not unwanted children. To the contrary. They are 
often the children who bring great joy to childless couples.
  This bill, sponsored by myself and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum], restores common sense in the case of adoptive children 
immigrating to the United States. It would exempt foreign-born orphans 
aged 10 and younger who are adopted by American families from this 
vaccination requirement.
  It has, as has been indicated, the full support of the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Smith], chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, 
and was passed unanimously by the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the time and thoughtful review 
given to this proposal by both the gentleman from Florida and the 
gentleman from Texas, as well as the support of Chairman Hyde and our 
ranking members, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] and the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  I also want to acknowledge the priority given to the swift passage of 
this measure by both the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from 
Texas, as it is important to remember that this requirement is now in 
effect and may very well be impeding the entry of orphaned children 
into the United States where their American families are anxiously 
awaiting them.
  This bill is strongly supported by the adoption community, parents 
groups, and physicians with expertise in the medical aspects of 
international adoption. These groups include the Joint Council on 
International Children's Services, Adoptive Families of America, the 
National Council for Adoption, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and 
the Child Welfare League.
  I strongly agree with them and enthusiastically support this proposal 
and urge its passage.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Delahunt] for his comments and also for his help in 
shepherding the bill to the point where we are at today.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky 
[Mrs. Northup], and also in the process I want to thank the gentlewoman 
for being a longtime proponent of the changes that we propose in this 
bill as well.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Madam Speaker, I would just like to add my voice to the 
very reasonable voices of the sponsors of this bill and comment from a 
personal perspective as the mother of two adopted children and children 
that were at risk.
  Many of the orphans from overseas that come into this country come in 
here to this country in a weakened state. They come from communities 
and countries that do not have the opportunity for immunization and for 
medical records that we have in this country.

                              {time}  1515

  From a very loving perspective, these opportunities represent real 
families, real lives, real children. These families may be the only 
chance that these children have to grow up in a stable, healthy, loving 
family. For many of the parents, it is the only chance that they have 
to actually become parents, to create families and to have the 
wonderful joy that children bring into our lives.
  I think considering that each year American families provide 12,000 
foreign-born orphan children with a home, that we should do everything 
we can in Congress to make that continue, to make that opportunity ever 
possible and to create the welcoming, generous opportunity that so many 
families want to create. I think what we do today is remove an obstacle 
so that we can continue to have this opportunity for children and 
parents in this country.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy], who has done so much in the area of the 
adopted children of this Nation.
  Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by 
congratulating the gentleman for the leadership he has brought to this 
task. As a first-year Member of this body, I think that Representative 
Delahunt has shown remarkable tenacity as well as ability in bringing 
this bipartisan accord to the floor of the House today.
  I also want to thank the Members of the majority, particularly the 
committee chairmen of jurisdiction, for their assistance in bringing 
this bill up.
  I have got a personal perspective; I would like to tell my colleagues 
a little bit about it.
  I was a Member of the 103d Congress when, as a Member on the Hill on 
a busy day, I got a note that said, ``Time to go to National Airport.'' 
Our daughter, Kathryn, had arrived that day from Korea, my wife and I 
anxiously awaited her departure from the airplane to begin our life 
together as a family. It was a moment that I will never ever forget.
  Within 24 hours, we had Kathryn to her first visit to the physician. 
While it was painful watching her being poked and prodded that day, 
there was no way in the world that we as new parents were going to 
accept as adequate the uncertain medical records of a foreign country. 
We began the whole business right here in this country. We did that as 
parents but, in addition, the agency through which we adopted Kathryn 
had immediate U.S. medical evaluation as the basic requirement. I think 
that is pretty much the universal experience of adoptive parents of 
children from another country. We try to get them here as fast as 
possible; get them to the doctor immediately and start the childhood 
vaccination and inoculations.
  Existing law needs correcting because we have now a requirement that 
the inoculations take place in the foreign country prior to their 
arrival here. There are many uncertainties in terms of basic things 
like sanitary needles, strength of the vaccine, in addition, the 
untenable delay that can be caused by this requirement.
  Delay is really the enemy of getting families together. As we learn 
about the biological developments of adoption of any infants, we know 
that delay is something to be avoided. We need to get children as soon 
as possible into families and start the development in their new homes.
  I routinely speak on behalf of all of the citizens of North Dakota 
when I take to the well, but today I want to cite two in particular, 
Dan and Laurel, as I speak to my colleagues this afternoon. They are in 
Fargo, ND, eagerly awaiting a little girl who happens to be across the 
world in China. They cannot

[[Page H8872]]

wait to get their little girl into their home. They, and all similarly 
situated soon-to-be adoptive parents, need this legislation so that 
this delay can be avoided.
  Again, this is a great moment for bipartisan cooperation to fix 
something that needs fixing. I thank everyone for participating and 
getting this done today and conclude my remarks.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Delahunt], for his leadership on this bill. I am 
proud to be a part of this effort to exempt internationally adopted 
children from the vaccination requirements of the INA. I want to thank 
my colleagues who have worked together in a bipartisan manner to 
correct this problem.
  Internationally adopted children face serious and unnecessary health 
risks as a result of this new law that went into effect last July. The 
provision requires immunization of all immigrants, even newborn infants 
adopted by U.S. parents. Forced immunization of children abroad in 
conditions that may be substandard exposes children to health risks 
from nonsterile needles, from out-of-date or improperly stored vaccines 
and from foreign doctors who may not follow recommended pediatric 
guidelines on vaccination. It should also be noted that vaccinations 
given to children who are malnourished or unhealthy, as are many 
children living in orphanages abroad, can actually create health 
problems.
  As a representative from the New York City area, where there are at 
least 1,000 adopted girls from China alone, I have heard directly from 
my constituents about the difficulties in getting a medical exemption 
from this requirement for their adopted children. I have letters from 
the State Department that specifically state that ``the law as it now 
stands does not allow an adopted child to receive a waiver due to 
concerns about the safety of vaccines in a given country or because 
they have made plans to be immunized upon their arrival in the United 
States.''
  This bill would allow the children to be vaccinated here in the 
United States once they have arrived under the supervision of their 
adoptive parents in safe and clean environments instead of forcing them 
to undergo potential health risks abroad.
  I hope the action we take here today will address these concerns and 
correct this problem.
  It should also be noted that this bill simply represents a return to 
the policy that existed before July 1 of this year. The administration 
has indicated its support for exempting internationally adopted 
children from this provision and, in fact, would like to see the 
exemption expanded to all children. However, we have an opportunity 
today to correct a glaring problem and ease the fears of adoptive 
parents by passing this bill today, and I am hopeful the administration 
will sign this bill into law without delay.
  Finally, I want to thank families with children from China and the 
National Council for Adoption for all the hard work they have done on 
behalf of adopted children and their families to further this 
legislation. Their efforts were critical to building support for this 
measure. Again, I want to thank those of my colleagues who worked on 
this in a bipartisan manner.
  Mr. BLILEY. Madam Speaker, as cochairman of the bipartisan 
Congressional Coalition on Adoption, I rise today in support of H.R. 
2464, a commonsense solution to a problem facing adoptive parents and 
their new kids. My office has received letters from all over the 
country in this matter and I want to thank these parents for their 
efforts. As an adoptive parent, I know there is no greater love than 
the bond between the child and their new parents. Adoptive parents will 
take all the steps necessary to protect their children from undue 
health dangers inside and outside of the country.
  This bill is necessary to protect children's health because 
incomplete medical histories and background information are routine 
occurrences for overseas adoptions. Adoptive parents rightful 
uncertainty about their child's medical care received overseas makes it 
very hard to determine their child's immunization status. Disposable 
needles and syringes and substandard sterilization processes compound 
the problem.
  At the minimum, Congress should do no harm. Last year, we properly 
addressed public safety concerns by requiring immigrants to be 
immunized against specified communicable diseases in order to gain 
lawful entry into the country. This bill today still requires young 
orphans to be vaccinated, however, it gives adoptive parents the right 
to have their children immunized in this country. Adoptive parents have 
already undergone significant expense and it is unthinkable to surmise 
they won't promptly tend to their new child's medical needs.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mrs. Emerson]. The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2464, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________