Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 428 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [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. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and that I be permitted to insert extraneous materials in the Record on H.R. 3286.

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 428 provides for the consideration of H.R. 3286, the Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of 1996, under a modified closed rule. 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 also provides for consideration of the bill in the House without intervention of any point of order, and makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, now printed in the bill. The rule provides for the consideration of an amendment to title II of the bill, as amended, if offered by Representative Gibbons of Florida, or his designee. The amendment will be considered as read, and will be debatable for 30 minutes equally divided between the proponent and an opponent. The rule further provides for the consideration of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Resources, if offered by Representative Young of Alaska, or his designee. That amendment will also be considered as read, and will be debatable for 30 minutes equally divided between the proponent and an opponent. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, which may include instructions only if offered by the minority leader or his designee. Madam Speaker, let me say that with respect to the amendment process, the Rules Committee has tried to be fair and balanced, allowing one amendment to be offered from each side of the aisle. Although the Committee heard testimony on several worthwhile amendments to the bill, some of which I individually supported, many of the proposals would have affected titles under the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee. As my colleagues may know, in the past the Rules Committee has observed the bipartisan custom of carefully limiting amendments to matters within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee, especially proposals that would directly affect the Tax Code and Federal revenues, as we continue to do so under this rule. Madam Speaker, today, under the terms of this fair rule, the House will consider important legislation that seeks to promote and encourage the practice of adoption. As an adoptive parent myself, I can say quite honestly that being able to provide a child with a safe, stable, and loving family environment through a successful adoption can be one of life's most rewarding experiences. Unfortunately, adoption in the United States is all too rare. The best available information indicates that roughly 450,000 children live in foster care at any given moment. Although Federal programs exist to support adoption, foster care, and family services, significant obstacles still remain. Adoption costs alone present a major disincentive, but in addition, parents are forced to think twice out of fear that an adoptive placement may be reversed, and a close family unit tragically torn apart. The bill, and this rule, reflect our belief that Federal policy must be directed toward removing the barriers that currently discourage adoption. To that end, H.R. 3286 contains three elements that are essential to any successful pro-adoption strategy. First, the legislation recognizes that the very costs associated with adoption, which can be as much as $15,000 or more in some cases, are a significant obstacle. To help families defray these costs, the bill includes an invaluable tax credit for up to $5,000 for qualified adoption expenses, and recommends specific revenue offsets to pay for that tax credit. Second, H.R. 3286 seeks to remove barriers to inter-ethnic adoption. The bill would prohibit a State or any other entity that receives Federal assistance from denying or delaying a child's adoption because of the race, color, or national origin of the child or the person seeking to adopt the child. Hopefully, this provision will help ensure that more minority children will find their way into loving homes across the country, regardless of the race of the family seeking to adopt. Finally, this legislation addresses a subject which many of my colleagues and I believe is critical to preserving the long-term protection of children and stability of adoptive placements once they are made. Title III of the bill contains provisions to make very modest reforms to the Indian Child Welfare Act, which is the 1978 law governing the custody of Native American children. Let me be clear about one thing, Madam Speaker: I believe the act, or ICWA, as it is also known, was well-intentioned legislation, and I remain very supportive of its original and intended objective. The former practice of placing Indian children outside of their tribes merely due to cultural differences was clearly shameful. However, the subsequent misapplication of ICWA to overturn and disrupt adoptions where the children involved have no tribal affiliation and only a minimal degree of Indian lineage, is equally shameful. Clarification of this law is absolutely essential. The act's overly broad interpretation by Government-paid lawyers and liberal courts has had unintended and very very tragic consequences for children, adoptive parents, and birth parents alike. In many cases, voluntary adoptions, consented to by birth parents, have been prevented by courts that have misapplied ICWA. And, children with as little as 1/64 of Native American heritage have been deemed to be covered under the act, and removed from the only homes they've known. As a result, the law's broad application has discouraged adoption, even of Indian and non-Indian children alike. It has generated extensive and expensive litigation, and it has led to the heart- wrenching anguish of removing children from the only parents and homes they have ever known. Indian children are now more likely to languish in foster homes because some tribes will not allow their adoption by non-Indian parents, or because prospective parents are not willing to consider adoption of children who may be subject to ICWA claims at a later point in time. This modest proposal removes one more obstacle for couples who want to offer loving homes to children, but don't because they fear becoming the next front page news story of an adoption tragedy. Madam Speaker, I know that the distinguished chairman of the Resources Committee, Mr. Young, and I have different views on the ICWA issue. Under this rule, the gentleman from Alaska will have the opportunity to be heard on his amendment to the bill. But, I hope my colleagues will understand that the language in title III provides nothing more than a common sense clarification of ICWA, to the benefit of all children in need of loving, permanent homes, without infringing upon the sovereignty and rights of the Native American community. My concern is simply that we have lost sight of what is in the best interests of the children involved. Children are not chattel, Mr. Speaker, nor are they the personal property of Indian tribes or their parents. They are individuals who have precious, unique, fundamental rights and needs. Above all, they have the right to permanency in a loving, nurturing family environment with stability and security. They have these rights regardless of their race, as do all American children. So, I would ask my colleagues to do what is right for the children, and keep this essential title part of the pro-adoption package. In closing, Madam Speaker, let me urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support this resolution. It is an appropriate and fair rule which is consistent with our past bipartisan practices. We have the opportunity to strengthen the American family by passing this adoption legislation today, and I urge every Member to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and to vote ``yes'' on the bill. Madam Speaker, I include the following for the Record.

Ms. PRYCE. 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 New York [Mr. Solomon], my good friend who has been such a big help on this bill and the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Utah [Ms. Greene].

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], the coauthor of title III of this legislation.

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot]. (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], who does so much work for the cause of adoption.

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

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, the Indian Child Welfare Act has been misapplied and distorted in recent years, hurting countless children. Consider the story I heard from a mother in Alaska. The little girl who is now her adoptive daughter was placed in foster care at the age of 7 months due to the Indian Child Welfare Act. After a year, the baby was placed with a biological grandmother, a native American, with the understanding that her two sons, both convicted child sex abusers, move out and live elsewhere. Well, they never left and the baby was found in a compromised situation, upon which the grandmother returned the child to the youth services with no explanations and no belongings. Only after this horrifying ordeal and after the native community failed to find a safe native home was she placed with this Native Alaskan couple who eventually adopted her. The adoptive mother writes to me, ``We are lucky. Our daughter was placed in only five foster homes before she found a family that was suitable to the tribe.'' There are many other children who are being kept from loving homes for 3, 4 and 5 years awaiting tribal action. Mr. Speaker, this is a native American speaking. She knows ICWA needs reform. She knows firsthand.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and H.R. 2406, the U.S. Housing Act, and to remind my friends this is a rule on a historic housing bill, nothing else. This important legislation sets the Nation's public housing system on a course that will save families and neighborhoods from the grasp of the welfare state. H.R. 2406 starts by repealing the outdated Housing Act of 1937 and begins sending power back to local communities and away from Washington, where residents, nonprofit organizations, and community leaders will determine which housing policies work best for them and their neighborhoods. Mr. Speaker, tenants in America's public housing system deserve a break. They deserve a break from overcrowding, crime, and insecurity. This legislation will allow tenants with low and moderate incomes to share neighborhoods, and gives the poorest of American citizens a chance to escape poverty-stricken areas through the use of vouchers. Mr. Speaker, I also urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment which strengthens the bill's ability to provide safe and affordable housing. The manager's amendment prevents housing authorities from overcharging the Nation's poorest tenants as well as the elderly and disabled. This amendment further ensures that adequate housing be available for our Nation's most needy, and taxpayers will benefit from provisions of the amendment which establish criteria to replace costly, ineffective housing projects with private housing vouchers. Additionally, the manager's amendment addresses the problem of overcrowding, which threatens to undermine even the most successful housing projects by creating unhealthy living conditions that isolate the poorest and most dependent citizens. The manager's amendment remedies this problem by allowing States, not HUD, to set occupancy standards. This provision cures the problems of overcrowding in one simple step. Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Lazio for his leadership and fine work on this historic legislation and urge my colleagues to support the rule. America's housing system needs a shot in the arm. Chairman Lazio and the fine work of his committee and the U.S. Housing Act provide that.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a formula for heartbreak. The Indian Child Welfare Act was never intended to cause countless stories of heartbreak and tragedy. It was intended to protect native American culture from State agencies and officials who were, back in the early 1970's, removing children from their natural homes and, in many cases without due process of law, placing them outside the Indian culture. This was shameful. Mr. Speaker, the Congress acted in 1978. The legislation, the ICWA, was well-intended, but it has been applied in a twisting and inaccurate way by some courts throughout this country that is equally shameful. The result of these misguided applications of the ICWA has had a chilling effect on all adoptions. I came to learn of the chilling effect from a couple in my district in Columbus, OH. Since then, I have come to learn of many, many more cases. For example, Mr. Speaker, the Indian Child Welfare Act was never intended to rip a little girl from her family of almost 6 years, but this happened. Clara and Kenneth Siroky took custody of Jessica when she was just 22 months old. They have been trying to adopt her every since, but last January, a court ordered Jessica from the only family she has ever known and placed her with a single uncle of native American ancestry. She is now 7\1/2\. She has celebrated 6 birthdays in the only home and with the only family she has ever known. Jessica was born to a mother who was part Indian and a caucasian father, making her one-eight native American. Due to problems experienced by the birth parents, they lost custody of Jessica who was placed in foster care in the Siroky's home. Today, Jessica's biological mother is dead, murdered during a drug deal, and her biological father is in prison in Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, Jessica wants to be adopted by the Siroky's. She wants to be with the only people she has every called mommy and daddy. She wants to be with her little sister, Susanna. As for 4-year-old Susanna, she is hurt and confused by the departure of her older sister, crying frequently and wondering where her best friend has gone. During the court proceedings, the scared and panicked Jessica begged to speak to the judge, but he even refused her. In the end, she only had 3 days to say goodbye to her whole world. Mr. Speaker, one can only wonder what long-term effects this emotional trauma will have on Jessica and all the other children who have been removed from their loving homes under this act. How can we, as a Congress, allow such a well-intentioned law to be interpreted in such a way? It is hard to imagine how devastated this family is. It is hard to conceive how scared and lonely little Jessica is, being forced to move away to a new and strange home with a new and strange parent with no friends and an unfamiliar school. This horrifying, traumatic story is but one example of the way the Indian Child Welfare Act has been abused and distorted. There are countless other children and families in this country that have been hurt by this flawed legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to understand how Congress can allow a law, that it passed with all good intentions, to continue to be doing such terrible damage to families without taking the initiative to correct what we did wrong. Congress has an opportunity to remove a major obstruction to safe, loving adoptive homes for thousands of children. These minor changes to the Indian Child Welfare Act will go a long way toward protecting and preserving one of our Nation's most precious resources: Our children. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in taking this very important step for parents and children throughout our Nation by supporting this legislation.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, the Indian Child Welfare Act was intended to protect Indian children from being removed from their families and their heritage, as well it should. But, unfortunately and tragically, this well-intentioned legislation has been misapplied due to a lack of definition as to its scope and its application. Last year the Minnesota Supreme Court heard a case that involved 3 little sisters who had lived in 18 different, yes, 18 different foster homes. But their tribe argued that permanency was a, quote, Eurocentric value, and could not be imposed on the tribe or the Indian children, and the court agreed. Although the children exhibited many emotional problems, the court found that the tribe could still deny their adoption by non-Indian parents who wanted to provide the permanency and security of family life that children so desperately need. The court ordered them returned to yet another foster home. Mr. Speaker, child welfare must put the welfare of children first. Study after study shows that above all children need permanency and security. The Indian Child Welfare Act, as it is being applied today, does not do that. I urge my colleagues to join me in helping put the needs of children at the top of our public policy debate. All children deserve a loving, nurturing and permanent home no matter what their race, creed, color or religion. Support the adoption legislation next week.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, I withdraw my point of order.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me stress that this is more than an open rule, it is, in fact, a wide open rule. Any Member can be heard on any germane amendment to the bill at the appropriate time. By ordering the previous question and adopting this fair resolution, the House will have an opportunity for a full and open debate on important legislation designed to improve the overall quality and level of professionalism in the U.S. Marshals Service. I just want to remind everybody what we are talking about here. We are talking about the U.S. Marshals Service. Mr. Speaker, let me point out that we have been through this same chicanery before, just last week. We checked with the appropriate nonpartisan parliamentary experts in this House and, to a person, they confirmed that the amendment that the Democrats want to make in order under this rule is completely nongermane to the rule and to the bill. So do not be fooled. The previous question vote is not a vote on the minimum wage, it is a vote on whether to close the debate and to vote for this rule. Mr. Speaker, House rules and precedents make it very clear that it is not in order to amend a rule like this to make in order a nongermane amendment to the bill in question. In other words, even if the minority defeated the previous question and offered their amendment, this would be ruled out of order for violating the rules of this House. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record the following material: The Previous Question Vote: What it Means House Rule XVII (``Previous Question'') provides in part that: There shall be a motion for the previous question, which, being ordered by a majority of the Members voting, if a quorum is present, shall have the effect to cut off all debate and bring the House to a direct vote upon the immediate question or questions on which it has been asked or ordered. In the case of a special rule or order of business resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the previous question is moved following the one hour of debate allowed for under House Rules. The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and amendment on the legislation it would make in order. Therefore, the vote on the previous question has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder].

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].

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

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

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

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about civility and decorum in the House of Representatives tonight because I believe it is a very important subject. I want to thank my friends and colleagues, Peter Blute and Pete Geren, for organizing this special order tonight. The Blue Dogs were originally organized to reach across the aisle and find bipartisan, commonsense solutions to our problems. As a member of the blue dog organization, I am dedicated to seeking new ways of cooperation between members of both parties to develop a solution- oriented approach to Government. A very important part of seeking a new level of cooperation is to create a more civil and cooperative environment for the exchange of ideas. Since the establishment of this great institution, it has been recognized that courtesy and decency among Members of Congress was necessary in order to enhance the ability of the membership to hear opposing views in the process of reaching a consensus. Further, without the presence of civility and mutual respect, the process of legislating becomes much more difficult. Hostility limits creative thinking and the sharing of views so important to good government. But all of these logical and worthy reasons for improving decorum pale in comparison to the reasons I would like to touch on this evening. You see, when people talk about civility and decorum in Congress, we commonly hear about past confrontations involving canes, guns, and even duels. Fortunately today we don't face quite such drastic measures, but I would submit that the general lack of comity and decorum on this very floor has a wide reaching impact that I urge my colleagues to consider every time they speak on this floor. The reason for this is television. Whenever a Member of this body stands in this well to speak, he or she is not speaking only to other Members of this body, but they are also speaking to thousands of Americans throughout our country. All of us were elected to represent the American people. We owe it to the people we represent to conduct ourselves in a respectful and proper manner. If you think about it, we are all ambassadors of our districts. As public officials and leaders, I believe we have a responsibility to conduct ourselves in a manner that is respectful to the American people. Every poll shows that the American people hold Congress in low regard. It is no wonder they hold us in such low regard when every time they turn on the television, they see an argument taking place. Before running for Congress, I was a judge. I had a wonderful career in the law, where respect and dignity are highly valued. When I announced to my family that I was going to run for Congress, my mother was really shocked, and maybe a little disappointed. ``Why do you want to go down there and join that sleazy institution?'' she asked me. Well, I will tell you the same thing I told my mother. I came here to try and do everything I could to make Congress a place the American people can once again be proud of. We teach our children to resolve their differences peacefully and civilly. We teach them to listen to others and to air their grievances in a positive, respectful manner. Many schools in our Nation today have conflict resolution programs that are aimed at teaching our children to resolve their differences through civil negotiation and compromise. It is time we start to practice what we preach. I passionately believe that one of the most important responsibilities bestowed upon every Member of Congress as a leader, is to set an example. We have set the wrong example for our children and for the American people. How can we expect our children to heed our appeals for respectful and compassionate conduct if we do not conduct ourselves in the same manner? Many of the issues that we debate here on this floor have great national import. Members hold firm and passionate views about these issues. And they should. There is plenty of room for vigorous and energetic debate. And we should have that. But no matter how passionately one feels about a particular issue, it is no excuse for name calling or other uncivil conduct. I cannot emphasize enough my belief that we must--must set an example for the American people, especially for our children. In closing, let me say that the issue of conduct on this floor goes beyond any single legislative fight. It even goes beyond the issues of decorum and comity in debate. This issue is about respect. Respect for ourselves and our views as well as respect for the views of those who may disagree with us. We owe it to ourselves to conduct business in a professional and courteous manner, but most importantly, we owe it to the American people. So I would urge my colleagues to think, every time they step onto this floor to speak, to think about the example they want to set for the people of our country, especially the children.