Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time until my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] concludes.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], my friend and chairman of the subcommittee. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 455 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Florida, [Mr. Goss], from the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller], a valued new Member of this Congress. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson]. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. general leave

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for this budget resolution which we will consider under the terms of this fair and balanced rule and to commend the hard work of the Committee on the Budget led by my colleague from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to change the culture of deficit spending in Washington, but once again we are about to try. Mr. Speaker, when I am home in my district, I talk with people from all different walks of life who are frustrated by higher taxes and by government's ever-increasing presence in their lives, but despite the enormous growth of government most Americans feel that public schools were better, our communities were safer and our Government was more responsive 30 years ago than they are today. Has this growth in spending and Government programs kept America on the right track? I think the answer is, sadly, no. While we are ready to shrink government and return decisions back to our communities, the President's budget plan does just the opposite. It expands Government, shifts financial burden to future generations, and I am amazed that the same President who came to this Chamber in January and declared that the era of big government is over has sent us a budget that continues the Washington knows best approach to dealing with America's priorities. Under our budget plan the era of big government will come to a close as ``Washington knows best'' gives way to greater State and local flexibility and as hard-working families begin working for themselves and not working to pay the high taxes that have fueled more Federal spending, that require higher taxes, that fuel more Federal spending, that require higher taxes, that fuel more Federal spending. It goes on, and on, and on. It is a vicious spiral. It is an upward spiral. Mr. Speaker, with all that, I am very hopeful that as we continue to move toward a balanced budget, we will also focus on reforming the budget process itself to make it less complicated, more accountable, and more understandable to the average citizen. Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity, a great opportunity, to restore America's stake in limited, effective government by adopting this resolution today. It is the right plan to replace Government dependency with self-reliance and individual initiative. Anything less, anything less will deprive our children of their potential and the safe prosperous future that they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the resolution of the Committee on the Budget.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale].

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, there has been much talk about circumventing the committee process and no hearings and no input. Madam Speaker, I tried for over a year to consult with the committee to try to get input from the tribes and their organizations. I have written letters. I have held meetings to which nobody appeared. Madam Speaker, it was very obvious that we cannot get this through the committee. That is why it did not go that way. Congress made this mess 20 years ago. It is up to us to pass this very minimal change in ICWA to correct it. If it does not pass now, we will have the status quo for another 5 years. I pledge to the chairman, if this passes today, I will work with him through the conference process to get this ironed out so that it can be satisfactory to all involved, when I finally can have the input of the committee and the Indian nations so that we can come to the correct solution to this terrible tragic problem.

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], an adoption advocate for this country who works so hard on the issue.

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules and an activist on this front.

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from Alaska, my friend, I must rise in strong opposition to striking title III. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right about the shameful history which required the passage of ICWA in the first place. It was a blight on our past, and there is no pride that we as a nation should take from it. He is right that ICWA has worked, and it is still working. That is why I am opposed to efforts for its outright appeal. But we as a Congress must realize that it is not perfect. Its vagueness has caused not only endless litigation, but also pain, suffering, and heartache for children and families all across this wonderful country of ours. And we as a Congress have the responsibility to clear up those ambiguous words that we created, that we wrote in 1978. This is one of the easy ones, folks. So often we are faced with social problems we do not have any idea how to fix. But it is not hard to see that when some courts and activities can claim that a child with no more than one sixty-fourth Indian blood and no connection with tribal culture for generations and generations, they can claim that an Indian child and then take that child from the only secure family it has ever had, it is not hard for me to see what we have to do. And what about our country's other rich cultural heritages? If a child is almost entirely Hispanic, or African American or Asian or Irish American, but has some trace of Indian lineage, under the current application of ICWA, these heritages can be denied. They are subordinated to one's native American lineage, no matter how minute. Someone explain to me why is it any less significant or meaningful to be Hispanic, black, Asian or Irish, and why we as a Congress, we just cannot allow this to continue. The Indian Child Welfare Act on too many occasions has created a state of permanent impermanence for the very children it was enacted to protect. Since its enactment, there are 25 percent more Indian children in foster care and for lot longer times. While widespread litigation over ICWA continues, children are being bounced from one foster care setting to another for months and sometimes even years, when they could and should be with loving parents in stable, permanent homes. Children are being grabbed by the overreaching arms of ICWA and removed from loving nurturing parents, even under circumstances where the child's natural parents were never members of an Indian tribe, never lived on or near a reservation, never had any meaningful contact with the tribe or Indian culture, voluntarily relinquished their parental rights, could only claim a minute degree of native American heritage, and even chose the couple whom they wanted to raise their child. The Congress of the United States enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act, and it is our responsibility to address the unintended and unjust, tragic results of it, while still preserving its integrity and respect for the proper and intended purpose. Madam Speaker, this has been my intention from the outset. Yet my request for input and suggestions about how to fix this have gone unanswered. Nothing has happened but more litigation, more broken families, and more heartbreak. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to put the best interests of America's children first by defeating the motion to strike. In title III, we propose nothing more than a common-sense clarification. This is a small but very meaningful step that we can take to give adoptive children the kind of stable, secure, loving homes that they deserve. Vote ``no'' on the motion to strike. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], who has been so instrumental in assisting on this bill. (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I claim the 15 minutes in opposition. I yield half the time to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren, and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas, Mr. Tom DeLay, our Republican whip.

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth]. (Mrs. CHENOWETH asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the words from the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall]. Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. It will do good things. The changes to the Indian Child Welfare Act are common sense and minor. They keep fully intact the original well-meaning intention of protecting Indian culture and heritage. But, Madam Speaker, the Congress wrote this law, and it is morally responsible for correcting it in this minor way, to avoid the continuous disastrous tragedies of broken homes and children languishing in foster care. This is not just a handful of stories. There are many, many, many from all across the country. Madam Speaker, this issue did not just develop overnight. I have been trying since the beginning of this Congress to get the Committee on Resources and the native American community to help me to address this issue. If the Indian community is affronted, I am sorry. I wish they would have answered my letters and come to my meetings. But, as it is, we did the best that we could to try to develop a fair solution. Madam Speaker, as was said before, this is a happy bill. It is a good day for this Congress. I would urge all my colleagues to cast a vote in strong support of adoption and in support of keeping loving families together. Vote ``yes'' on the rule and the bill, and vote ``no'' on any attempt to weaken this legislation. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns regarding the modified closed rule for H.R. 3286. While I applaud the fact that this legislation would make it possible for more families to provide a loving and permanent home for adoptive children, I am concerned that this bill might not recognize that cultural sensitivity, without delaying adoption, is important to give the child the full measure of their background. Madam Speaker, approximately one-half of the children awaiting adoption today are minorities. 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. There are wonderful foster care parents but these numbers of children in nonpermanent homes are way too high. The sponsors of this legislation argue that current law, which states that race cannot be used as the sole factor in making an adoption placement but can be used as one of multiple factors in the decision, has resulted in adoptions being delayed or denied because of race. This of course is the result of local agencies misinterpreting the law. Should we not penalize directly the agencies incorrectly using the law? According to the sponsors, because of the inherent bias among many social workers, the real-world outcome of current law is that race ends up becoming the sole factor when placements are made. I have worked with social workers and they consistently overall try to work in the best interest of the child. While I do not believe that race should be the sole criteria in adoption placements, I do believe that we should be sensitive to cultural backgrounds. Had I been permitted, I would have offered an amendment to this bill which would have required that in making adoptive parent placements, the State or appropriate entity shall make every effort to ensure that a prospective adoptive parent is sensitive to the child's ethnic or racial background. It should not, however, delay drastically such adoption. Adoptive parents and children need not be of the same race. However, it is important that adoptive parents are sensitive to the cultural backgrounds of the children they adopt. It is important that such children grow up in an environment that is respectful and appreciative of the child's heritage. Unfortunately, our society is not color blind, and therefore States and agencies must ensure that adoptive parents of a different race from the minority and Indian children are sensitive to the issues that may arise as the child gets older, including discrimination and questions the child may have about his or her cultural background. In no way, however, should this policy result in children languishing in foster homes for extended periods of time or in adoptions being delayed or denied when loving, caring parents are ready to adopt. I urge my colleagues to consider these issues so that we can make better adoptions for all children, including minority children, while not delaying or denying adoptions.